Zeiss Superspeed 50mm f1.3

Nice. What sort of price range do those come in? D'you have to buy a whole set? Can't find much info online....

[yes im talking about the girl, not the lens]
 
I thought I might get a similar response... I have 4 cases of terminal cancer in my immediate family (3 out of 4 have expired), and let me just say that patients rarely if ever look blushing; they look rather pale. No offence, just a comment on your footage. The lens does have a good resolution.
 
maxusa said:
I thought I might get a similar response... I have 4 cases of terminal cancer in my immediate family (3 out of 4 have expired), and let me just say that patients rarely if ever look blushing; they look rather pale. No offence, just a comment on your footage. The lens does have a good resolution.
Click to expand...

It's all good :)
I spent all day with her and the family, the stories, struggle and treatment. You take a certain ownership of the story with you etc...Nice people. I actually think that its not make up, but radiation burn from her treatment...

...and yes it is a nice piece of glass. Ive been shooting with a Tokina 16-50 f2.8 and I've not been thrilled with the images. Good, but not cracking.
Gonna reconfig and use Tokina 11-16, Nikon 17-55, Voightlander 25 and 50 and then rent the Zeiss SS and CP.2's as needed.

Best of luck with your family as well,

J
 
Johnf said:
Ive been shooting with a Tokina 16-50 f2.8 and I've not been thrilled with the images. Good, but not cracking.
Click to expand...

...Just out of curiosity, what's missing with the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 ?

i.e. Sharpness wide open ? Color saturation ? Too contrasty ?

I am thinking of getting this lens and I would like to know why I should be looking at the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 instead.
 
TheDingo said:
...Just out of curiosity, what's missing with the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 ?

i.e. Sharpness wide open ? Color saturation ? Too contrasty ?

I am thinking of getting this lens and I would like to know why I should be looking at the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 instead.
Click to expand...

They're arent a lot of sweet spots. A bit muddy wide open and telephoto. Just doesn't pop. Ive heard the Nikon is tack sharp.
The Tok 11-16 on the short side is sweet with really nice shallow DOF though
 
Watch out. If you see something you shoot with a zeiss super speed wide open on a large screen you might not be as happy . The DOF is super thin and the lens goes soft as well. As a web video it won't matter but if you are going for a a larger screen presentation focus issues may arise.
 
A lot of folks try to say "the ZF's are 1/10th the price of a set of super speeds... why bother... but umm yea. Real PL glass has mojo. That's why it costs more.

Also.... its not F1.3, its T1.3!!! More like an F1.2 or even wider....
 
Mark Smith said:
Watch out. If you see something you shoot with a zeiss super speed wide open on a large screen you might not be as happy . The DOF is super thin and the lens goes soft as well. As a web video it won't matter but if you are going for a a larger screen presentation focus issues may arise.
Click to expand...

Yes, 1.3 (wide open) it was a bit soupy. I had it set at 1.8 and it was pretty good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top