Some stills from a recent project

Ronno said:
Very nice. Happen to know what lens/lenses were used? Was it a large lighting rig?

Ronno
Click to expand...
For the stuff I posted? Minimal. One 1K in a softbox, two 250w open-face for hairlights, and a 250w open-face shining on the background.

Lens was a Zeiss ZF 50mm @ f/1.4.
 
really nice and crisp. those images look so clean and glossy- it'd be a really nice look for commercials, comedies or corporate videos. argh add a lighting kit to my list of needs (yeah yeah I know I should have gotten one anyway but I tend to film more gritty "natural" looking stuff most of the time).
 
Yes, but I have the Nikon version, so I used a little Nikon->Canon adapter.

That lens, by the way, is the worst in the lineup; the others are much better. It's also the cheapest in the lineup, so I guess that's just the way things work out. ;)
 
Barry_Green said:
Yes, but I have the Nikon version, so I used a little Nikon->Canon adapter.

That lens, by the way, is the worst in the lineup; the others are much better. It's also the cheapest in the lineup, so I guess that's just the way things work out. ;)
Click to expand...

Hmm, well thats' a drag. And I thought deciding which camera to go with was the tough choice...

I don't want to hijack this thread, I'm having a terrible time trying to sort out which lenses I should get for the 7D. I'd really like to purchase some used primes but I have no idea which ones to look for.
 
For use with stills or video? Because if it's stills, that's one thing, but if it's for video usage, don't sweat it because the cameras in HD mode can't resolve even what a mediocre lens hands 'em. Case in point, the shots posted here; they were shot at f/1.4, and the lens really suffers badly from chromatic aberration and loss of sharpness and contrast at 1.4 vs. how much incredibly better it looks at 2.8. But the camera can't really see the difference, when in video mode.

So if you're shooting stills, these lenses are fabulous and I completely love them. If you're shooting video, I think they're extreme overkill. I enjoy a good overkill, of course, but I don't know that I'd advise a DVXUser member to go spend $4k on glass when $300 will get you pretty much equal performance, in video.
 
That's funny advice.

One thing I like about the 7D is how much thought you have to put into getting the right exposure, things I should have been doing for video but got lazy. This camera makes you figure it out and I forgot how much fun that can be.

Although I will use this camera for stills, I purchased it to experiment with video. I've been leaning more towards speed, I have the stock 17-85 f/4-5.6, way too slow.

That Zeiss 50MM is only about $600, I'm also looking at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, its about half as much but not as fast.
 
Barry_Green said:
Yes, but I have the Nikon version, so I used a little Nikon->Canon adapter.

That lens, by the way, is the worst in the lineup; the others are much better. It's also the cheapest in the lineup, so I guess that's just the way things work out. ;)
Click to expand...

Actually, the 25's the worst in the line-up. Horrible at the edges and distortion (bowing) more yuck than the 21/2.8.

50's are always cheap, I can't say the 50/1.4's even bad, especially in comparison to other 50mm offerings. Dunno where the 50/1.4 Zeiss ZE/ZF sits in ranks, but the C/y Zeiss 50/1.4 is still one of the top 3 50mm SLR lenses.
 
Kholi said:
Actually, the 25's the worst in the line-up. Horrible at the edges and distortion (bowing) more yuck than the 21/2.8.
Click to expand...
The reviews I read put it the other way around, the 25 being much better than the 28/2... Where did you see a bum review of the 25?

Dunno where the 50/1.4 Zeiss ZE/ZF sits in ranks, but the C/y Zeiss 50/1.4 is still one of the top 3 50mm SLR lenses.
Click to expand...
Stop it down to 4 or more and it's incredible. But at 1.4 or 2, it gets a little iffy for my taste.

(but, even so, the stills in this thread were shot on that exact lens, at 1.4, so... ) :)
 
Kholi said:
Actually, the 25's the worst in the line-up. Horrible at the edges and distortion (bowing) more yuck than the 21/2.8.
Click to expand...
Here's an example I read from a review in Professional Photographer magazine:
The Distagon T* 25 f/2.8 ZF (right) quickly became my favorite lens of the group. Not only does it produce sharp, contrasty, distortion-free images, but the lens is capable of focusing on objects just over two inches from the front element of the lens! The focusing ring rotates through nearly 360 degrees to achieve this. Image quality is superb throughout the focusing range. Weighing just over a pound, it was wonderfully balanced on both my F100 and D2X cameras. No color fringing is obvious at the edge of the frame on images from the D2X. Zeiss clearly seems to be aware that photographers shooting digitally are looking for highly corrected optics.
Click to expand...

I haven't gone looking for trouble in the lens yet, but the reviews were all really positive that the 25 is one of the best, so ... under what circumstances have you seen trouble?
 
Barry_Green said:
Here's an example I read from a review in Professional Photographer magazine:


I haven't gone looking for trouble in the lens yet, but the reviews were all really positive that the 25 is one of the best, so ... under what circumstances have you seen trouble?
Click to expand...

You know what, let me take that back. I forgot we're talking about ZE/ZFs. The 25/2.8 in Contax Mount is HORRID. Field Curvature is insanely bad and craps the lens.

That would be a surprise if it was drastically improved in that area over the predecessor but it is a possibility. So, maybe the 25's NOT so bad?

Do you have any landscape footages by chance?

It's a shame that it's a 2.8 but I suppose it depends on what you're shooting.

Can't wait until next year, though. Mmmm some goodies from Zeiss are'a comin'!
 
Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 vs Canon L 24/1.4 -- http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/zf25_canon24/zeiss_zf25b.html

THIS is the review I remember reading and frowning at. The Canon, as I remember thinking to myself, was the better choice in glass for motion picture acquisition-- where seeing a stop of 5.6 was the most realistic, F8 being a bit far fetched.

By the end, the 25mm gains one extra point but you can still see it suffers to all hell from CA.

The 28/2 and 21/2.8 (Especially, not sure if it's as legendary as the 21/2.8 C/Y Zeiss) have always seemed to be the better performers.

Still it's light years ahead of-- to me-- everything else. If I have to buy glass, it's gonna have to be Zeiss.
 
So odd, because that same review says
If you're a Nikon shooter, the conclusion is irrefutable: as soon as it hits the shelves, run and get a ZF 25mm: it will be the sharpest and best corrected 24/25mm you've ever seen. End of story.
Click to expand...
 
That's for stills though. It's saying you need to be f8 before it gets good.

I'm not shooting below a 5.6 in the worst case.

It's probably still decent especially on an aps-c sensor. I should grab a copy and compare to the 21 and 28 on 7D and 5D.
 
Looking for lenses all day. I've got the contax 85 1.4 and want to buy a wide angle lens. Actually found the contac 21 2.8 but it was a bit pricey.

I am actually quite new to all the lenses. How does the 21 2.8 compare to the panasonic pancake 20 1.7 for example? Just performance wise, not compatability. Im on the GH1 by the way.

I've also seen the contax 50 1,7 today, which is said to be quite sharp. So many choices and not enough money.

Oh, and I tested a cook 50 1.4 and a 25 1.4 as well on the gh1. Man, those lenses are tiny!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top