Let's talk about lenses.

Two lenses in one?

The zm 50mm sonnar exhibits focus shift between f1.4 to f2. f2.8 and above it gets as good as it gets.
Zeiss markets this lens as a classic soft focus lens between the two widest apertures. One can, of course, have it tuned by zeiss to focus precisely at f1.4. But then anything beyond f2.8 has to be compensated by the photog.

Is it a faulty lens? No. It is made to be such. And the way it renders makes it, arguably, one of the best
50mm around.

One has to get to know its quirks. How much to compensate, or not. Your choice.

Here are two shots with the zm 50mm sonnar..one of my very favorite lenses.


If one wants that old time ' Gone with the Wind ' portraits..use the zm 50mm sonnar at f1.4
But Marilyn Monroe and this lens were made for each other.

Hi,

all lenses? Even virtual ones?
If so then I got one for you: Hipstamatic, Jane Lens

happy smartphone )

Wolfgang Plattner said:

Hi,

all lenses? Even virtual ones?
If so then I got one for you: Hipstamatic, Jane Lens

happy smartphone )

Click to expand...

Wolfgang, lovely to have you in here. All lenses?..but of course. The moments captured. Treasured.
Memories.

And nowadays, the 8mp in smartphones are serious business!!

As an ad for a famous lens manufacturer says..from galaxies, to microns, to your cherished moments..
That's what we work for! Any lens.

Regards.

Arabic coffee!

What's that got to do with lenses? Or photography?
Please bear with me.

It is a beautiful day today. Lovely sunshine, just the right temperature, cool, fresh without being hot. There is a cool breeze blowing in from the north.

I am sitting outside with my wife and having coffee. And dates.

The coffee has been freshly prepared and the pot ( Dallah ) handle is covered with a holding cloth, so as not to burn ones hand..the coffee is hot.

I can see the steam come out of the special coffee cups as small quantities of coffee are poured in it.

The aroma! It hangs in the air. Unmistakable. Fresh. Cinnamon. Home roasted,
And ground coffee beans. There are many varieties of coffee beans. One develops a skill to differentiate between the various varieties. These are good coffee beans...very good.

The beans have been roasted at home. With the touch borne out of experience.
Consistency in the way the beans feel, smell, look and, of course, taste.

They have been hand grounded in ...you know what the pharmacists used to use to crush medicines in days of old...similar utensil.
Precisely grounded..just the right amount. Otherwise one would get grounded coffee in their mouths.

A fresh piece of straw has been placed in the nozzle of the dallah, so as to filter any remnants of unground coffee to seep into the cups. It has to be fresh..not used previously..else, the stale taste of previous coffee filtration
might be obvious to the taste. Detract from the freshness of the just prepared coffee.

I lift the cup. Can smell the aroma. Slight wisps of steam..only for a moment.
I take a sip. Let it linger on my palate. Lovely. I take a date, from my
neighbor's farm. Exceptional quality. Take another sip of coffee.

A cool breeze is blowing in from the north. I am enjoying my coffee.
The process of preparation is there....vaguely in the back of my mind..but not to detract me from the sublime enjoyment of the coffee.

So it is with my photography. The smooth focusing of the lens. The reassuring
aperture stops. The right dampened feeling of the focus ring. The right balance. The precise alignment of the focus in the viewfinder. The satisfaction of handling a precisely made instrument. The almost silent click of the camera shutter.

The satisfaction of having taken a photograph. Just like the satisfaction of having tasted the freshly made coffee.

My kind of photography.

Is it a good lens?


Is it autofocus?


What is the speed?


Does it focus properly?


What do you want to use a particular lens for?

In the late 19th century, there lived a physicist by the name of Paul Rudolph. He worked for a company called Carl Zeiss. He designed lenses for them. He later designed lenses for cine cameras. The interesting thing is that Mr. Rudolph invented two lens designs. They were the Tessar ( 4 elements, obviously!! ) and the Planar. German, of course. The company, the inventor and the lenses.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that these two designs have been copied right to this very day.
Lucky the Mr. Zeiss preferred to share knowledge than to protect it; he allowed the publication of these designs to the general scientific and commercial community.

Guess he did not have Apple advising him!!

The above images were made with the carl Zeiss Makro Planar 100/2. If appreciation of superlative optics is something one enjoys and appreciates; this then is an ARRI and Zeiss based design that in my opinion has no peer in the 100mm focal length.

Hi,

my aim: get the colors, the moment and preserve it for memories.

EF 35mm f/1,4 at f/1,4

EF85mm f/1,8 at f/2

EF 35mm f/1,4 at 6,3

There is an amusing analysis of the lenses used for Reuter's 2012 photos of the year, here.

The analysis is not quite correct on many points, omits the fact that Reuters forces most of their journalists to use Canon gear and counts pictures taken with a zoom lens under pictures taken with a prime (the pie charts invent a 16mm prime which simply does not exist).

But, since we are talking about lenses, one thing remains: when all is said and done, half of Reuters best photos of the year 2012 were taken with a single lens: a 16-35mm zoom.

Wolfgang, lovely photos. I specially like #3. I like the color rendition. Beautiful.

Jerome, an interesting statistic indeed. But not surprising considering what the primary genre of Reuters photographers is. I would be surprised though, if a war correspondent was carrying Hasselblads with lighting equipment and set himself up in a war zone!!

I am sure it could ( has? ) be done. But there are surely better options available for such situations.

The right tool and one that is suitable for the job is indeed of primary importance.

Thanks guys.

What do Heinrich Acht, Kakuya Sunayama and Nippon Kogaku have in common?. You see the Hexar was a Tessar, the Nikkor was a Sonnar and the Topcar was a Double Gauss!!
Go figure!

Back to lenses. I can only comment on the lenses I have used in the past and that which I currently use. Or those I have investigated and read about. It is very possible that all remaining lenses, those that I did not use, are better than what I use. But I cannot comment on them.

The Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4 is a Planar. One of the ( relatively ) cheaper lenses carrying the Zeiss label for the Nikon F mount. It is a manual focus lens. Small, compared to the other Zeiss lenses for the Nikon F mount, lovely construction, and much maligned!!

There are realms of posts on the internet trashing this lens. Not worth the money. Useless. Soft. Horrible at near distances. Crappiest bokeh. And so forth.

After having read all these ' praises ' about the lens, I bought it. I use it whenever I bring my D700 out. It is my go to lens on the Nikon

A few more from the ' mediocre ' zf 50/1.4 planar.


And there are some more Here if anyone is interested.

fahim mohammed said:

What do Heinrich Acht, Kakuya Sunayama and Nippon Kogaku have in common?. You see the Hexar was a Tessar, the Nikkor was a Sonnar and the Topcar was a Double Gauss!!
Go figure!

Back to lenses. I can only comment on the lenses I have used in the past and that which I currently use. Or those I have investigated and read about. It is very possible that all remaining lenses, those that I did not use, are better than what I use. But I cannot comment on them.

The Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4 is a Planar. One of the ( relatively ) cheaper lenses carrying the Zeiss label for the Nikon F mount. It is a manual focus lens. Small, compared to the other Zeiss lenses for the Nikon F mount, lovely construction, and much maligned!!

There are realms of posts on the internet trashing this lens. Not worth the money. Useless. Soft. Horrible at near distances. Crappiest bokeh. And so forth.

After having read all these ' praises ' about the lens, I bought it. I use it whenever I bring my D700 out. It is my go to lens on the Nikon

Click to expand...

The Zeiss 50/1.4 will always attract criticism because the holy grail for many people is "sharpness", with rendering being either dismissed or not understood. I've got 9 Zeiss lenses between 15mm and 85mm (ZE Canon mount) and it's fair to say that the 50/1.4 is probably the least spectacular using the yardstick of the majority. I also have the 50/2 Makro Planar....a superb performer, but I retain the 50/1.4 for it's ability to produce a dreamy, almost vacant look....excellent for portraits of elderly females where the glint in the eye is more desireable than highlighting the wrinkles.
Take a shot at f/3.5 and tell people it was with the Makro Planar and they like it, tell them it was with the 50/1.4 and they crticise it!

Bob

The trend towards ultimate sharpness leads quite a few people away from essential things like seeing and composition. I had my take on this here.

Another 50mm here, the Pentax smc M 50/1.4:




Zooms can have a nice rendering too, Tamron 28-75/2.8 here:




Best regards,
Michael

Michael Nagel said:

The trend towards ultimate sharpness leads quite a few people away from essential things like seeing and composition.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it's a pity.
One reason, I guess, is, that there are more amateurs without knowledge about the basics of expression, composition, color, but with heavy, expensive gear that they have to argue ... how often do I read in forums endless frenetic discussions about the oh-how-sharp featherdetails of birds, which are so death in the picture, just as padded.

A huge fan of the 50mm like Fahim. I find that with a 50mm it's all composition. You don't get the help of perspective distortion so that when you nail it, it's a very very strong composition.

Also a big fan of my old Pentax Takumar Super 50mm shot wide open. The Canon 50L actually also has a very pleasing and similar type of look wide open but it's several fortunes more than this $80 lens was! A very dreamy rendition which suits the way I see things, more the minds eye than the clinical vision of the real eye. If I was a painter then I would choose a soft wide brush. With my choice of lens I can 'paint' a scene more as I imagine it than how I see it.


Picture of me with my son at the beginning of the year, taken by my wife using that Tak 50mm.

Ben Rubinstein said:

A huge fan of the 50mm like Fahim. I find that with a 50mm it's all composition. You don't get the help of perspective distortion so that when you nail it, it's a very very strong composition.

Also a big fan of my old Pentax Takumar Super 50mm shot wide open. The Canon 50L actually also has a very pleasing and similar type of look wide open but it's several fortunes more than this $80 lens was! A very dreamy rendition which suits the way I see things, more the minds eye than the clinical vision of the real eye. If I was a painter then I would choose a soft wide brush. With my choice of lens I can 'paint' a scene more as I imagine it than how I see it.

Picture of me with my son at the beginning of the year, taken by my wife using that Tak 50mm.

Click to expand...

Yes this is beautiful! So, Ben, how do you use this wonderful lens? Do you have a Pentax Spotmatic film camera or do you use an adapter? I'd check the EXIF but can't on this computer.

Asher

Ben, a delicate and beautiful father and child photo. The lens helped just a little in this one!!
I remember the days I used to have the super takumars.

Best regards.

You've already seen a bunch of work shot with this lens Asher. I'm reposting a couple below, shot wide open. I use it with an adaptor on my Canon 5Dc. Accurate focus wide open is severely hit and miss as I need the EE-S focusing screen and a viewfinder magnifier to get close. I have a Leica R8/9 focus screen for the 5Dc which fits but it needs to be shimmed, I have the shims too just not gotten round to calibrating it to my remaining 5Dc.

When I get the 5D3 the first thing that goes on is the Magic Lantern firmware for peaking and 'magic focus' and I'm also buying a GGS LCD viewfinder so that I can use LV with accurate wide open focus but still have the ergonomics of using a 'viewfinder', i.e. supporting the camera at the eye rather than in mid air while your focus plane weaves all over the place! Then finally I will be able to use this lens for consistent portraiture work which is what I've wanted for a long time.


Ruth, Hebron, 2012


Charity Box, Jerusalem, 2011

Can't forget about my 100mm macro lenses.

fahim mohammed said:

Hi Jake.

What excellent photographs!! I specially like these two..I love kids and the family moments.
The second one is so so special.

The 85/1.4 D is one of my fav lenses, and one of the few af lenses I still have. They do not call it the ' cream machine ' for nothing.

Nikon have the new 85/1.4 G out. I have not tried it; and neither am I interested in it. The 85/1.4D is
good enough for me.

I generally use it for when a shallow dof is needed. Mostly for portraits like your son's. Wonderful rendering.

I have a zeiss 100/2 makro. Again use it for a little bit of reach and it is 1:2 makro. It too renders beautifully but feels like a beast to me nowadays.

I have never tried longer focal lengths, althoughI have owned the 180/2.8 Ed, and the 70-200 zoom long time ago.

My longer reach lenses fall between the 75/85/100; depending on the make and camera.

Thanks for kicking this thread off.

Very best to you and your family.

Click to expand...

Have you ever tried the nikkor 300mm f4.5 IF ED Ais? Pretty small for a 300mm with 9 aperture blades. I have only tried the non- IF ED version but liked it very much.

Anything one of you does not like about a particular lens? Any lenses you bought to find out that they did not suit you?

Michael, Wolfgang, Ben, Jake...excellent postings.
Ben, these pics, some of which I think I have seen before, are gorgeous for their tonality and comp. The subjects are no less photogenic!!

Jake, no. I never possessed any lens over 200 mm for any length of time.

Jerome, yes I have a paperweight. It is the lux 35 asph ( one version before the current one ). It focuses
and renders gorgeously at f/1.4 and then again at f/8!!

Anything else, it is way off focus on digital. Leica, after extensive tests and bickering by informed owners had to accept the focus shift on ' most ' samples of this lens. However, they maintained, and quite correctly that it has a unique rendering on film.

To me a lens that is useless beyond f/1.4 up until f/8 is useless for my purposes. Even though repeated visits to Solm confirmed it was/is within tolerances.

The only other lens, I found unusable for me was the Nikon 35/2. I tried 2/3 samples and gave up.

Here is one with the Nikon 50/1.4D. Between f/2 and f/5.6 it could not be faulted.

I think that may be why I your stuff resonates with me so much Fahim, especially the Leica work. It's the 50mm vision that is exactly how I like to see. We often like work which is subconsciously how we see or would see something. Until recently when I gave up weddings my business partner and myself would shoot 65% of every wedding with a 50mm, we both also use a 50mm almost exclusively for our private work. It's why our visions match so well perhaps. The resulting pictures are of course very different, he has a very different vision to myself, we are however looking through the same view of the world at these differing visions. That of a normal lens.

Not sure if I'm making sense at all?

A different 50mm shot wide open. The Canon 50mm 1.4 which has a nice though significantly more clinical way of rendering coma at the focus point wide open compared to the Pentax, if you have the correct background then it is overall very pleasant. Correct meaning with zero specular highlights which this lens renders horribly at f1.4 (they're back to pleasant at f1.8). Now what I would love to play with is an earlier Pre-Asph 50mm Summilux shot exclusively wide open. Don't suppose you have one Fahim and can show us any work from it? In any case I can dream on...


Psalms, Jerusalem, 2011

Ben, I too would have taken a similar shot at the psalms. The 50mm makes me feel relaxed..naturally. So maybe subconsciously I spend more time on comps.

Here are some more with various 50mms.


This one on a real bright and sunny early morning in Oslo!!

Oh my, folks, now I'm thinking about a Zeiss 50 f/1,4 for my 5d Mark III ... or the Pentax that Ben is using ...?

fahim mohammed said:

The only other lens, I found unusable for me was the Nikon 35/2. I tried 2/3 samples and gave up.

Click to expand...

What is wrong with that lens? Focus shift again?

Wolfgang Plattner said:

Oh my, folks, now I'm thinking about a Zeiss 50 f/1,4 for my 5d Mark III ... or the Pentax that Ben is using ...?

Click to expand...

Wolfgang, just make sure that whichever lens you get, you can return..if it does not satisfy you.

Regards.

Jerome Marot said:

What is wrong with that lens? Focus shift again?

Click to expand...

Jerome, nothing and everything. The lens just did not gel with me. Softness at max aperture I would not be worried too much..but it lacked micro-contrast, it lacked colors which appealed to me.
It's rendition was not that I liked. Finally, and maybe of less importance to others, its ergonomics were just not for me. And neither was its construction.

I just felt I could not depend on it to give me what I wanted. Maybe I am/was wrong.

The zf 35/2....

A few macros using the ELICAR V HQ 2.5/90 MACRO (well, the PK-A version of the pictured one).

The lens is far from being perfect - it is prone to flares and stray light on the front lens will lower the contrast, but the I like the rendering.


One repost:




Best regards,
Michael

Michael, these are wonderful. But then you know the strengths and weakness of the tools.

Regards.

Let me throw a few street names. Rue St. Honore, Boulevard Saint-Germain, Rue de Saint Peres, Boulevard Madeline, Rue Bonaparte.

There are many others, but these should suffice for now.

What to they have in common? That they are in Paris, yes. But something else. Interesting for you to spend some time finding out the what, why and how. I shall hint at the answer later on.
Or for that matter what do Oberkochen and Solms have in common?

Posted earlier. Leica ME and the summilux 50 asph. OOC, 100% crop from a b&w jpg capture.


Regards the question I posed earlier. The palate.
Pass me the Herschey bar.