anyone using Zeiss lenses out there for wedding photography?

a matter of curiosity really -

 

With film on the decline, is anyone using Zeiss Hasselblad, Rollei, Contax, ZM, ZF, ZK, ZA, or Canon

mounted C/Y, lenses for professional wedding photography? I'm especially interested in know how the

manual focus lenses are working on the DSLR's for pro wedding shooters.

 

Pictures are welcome!

 

thanks,

James

PhotographyRI

is this question a " lens cult" type of thing?

ot are you ignoring the fact that a MF lens would be manual and very slow to use on a dslr.

 

it would be like " suddenly it is 1938"

 

I put this inquiry ( pardon me if I sound harsh)

like the folks who mangle and hack a canon FD lens so it will fit on a canon eos ( as a manual lens)

 

I don't want to be a Troll, but there is no Mistique about any brand of lens. Despite what some believe.

it is the photo equivalent of " monster audio cables sound better"

Lots of Hasselblads are still in use for weddings, with film or maybe digital film backs. Some photographers still prefer image quality over quantity. You can get good hi-res medium format digital backs, but the top grade ones are almost $40k. I haven't seen a 35mm format dslr with a 39 mpixel sensor yet :)

 

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/products/backs/cf-and-cf-ms.aspx

I am asking the question because there is some great glass out there that is manual focus

that may or may not be being used by professional photographers. Wedding photography

lends itself to autofocus, so I am curious to know who may be using manual focus lenses.

I ask about Zeiss, because I like their lenses and want to know where the 85 f1.2's out

there may be being used for pro photography.

 

James

PhotographyRI

 

As an aside, as someone who has studied recording - here is a note. Someone I know did

a test of monster cable because it was required by a band for recording when they came

to their studio. After a blind A/B test they decided that the cable made a difference.

Myself I like Canare, I am not a monster cable follower. Cable does make a difference,

though at some point good is good enough.

Hi,

 

re this: "it is the photo equivalent of " monster audio cables sound better"

 

I am sorry Walter, but your analogy is an utterly false one. I have been very serious with decent quality hi-fi for many years and whether you like it or not, in a GOOD system, different cables can quite clearly be heard to be difference...this is a fact.

 

It is also a fact that the German optical makers tend to use a different set of criteria when designing their lenses compared to the Japanese, so it is perfectly reasonable to expect some different 'signatures' with differing brands.

 

Just because you cannot (or do not want to) see or hear any differences, does not mean everyone else cannot.

 

cheers Steve.

Steve Moseley is correct on all counts. I been mixing and marching Leica an Nikon glass on

my D200. It is different, but mostly can be fixed in photoshop with some presets in the

raw converter.

 

I bought some manual focus prime Nikkors. I can focus them for my landscape and macro

work just fine. I would not want them for wedding work. Get the Katz Eye screen for

manual focus under wedding pressure.

Lest this line on inquiry get hijacked, can we all agree that different manufacturers

produce goods with different characteristics. My question was and is regarding Zeiss

equipment in the field of wedding photography. This is of interest to me because of the

quality of the lenses, and also the fact that the majority of lenses are not auto-focus. I

want to know who's using them, and if you have examples of modern use, I would love to

see them.

 

keep it coming, thanks,

 

James

james - I believe that marc williams might have either a zeiss or contax lens.

 

most DSLRs do not have a split image screen the way many film SLRs did, and many of them do not have the prisms that 'pop' when the image is in focus - so most people will find manually focusing on a DSLR to be more difficult than a film SLR. that said, you can always buy a Katz Eye screen, which is supposed to make manually focusing much easier on a DSLR.

I disagree with walter. Monster cables sound better ;-)

 

I use a few 'alternatives' occasionally for weddings and engagements on my 5D along side my Canon lenses.

 

Zeiss C/Y 85/1.4

 

Zeiss C/Y 35/1.4

 

Leica R ROM 19/2.8 - modified to clear the 5D mirror.

 

But their use is limited to situations where I can work a little slower and don't feel the need to use AF. I also use 'AF-confirm' adapters, bit they are no substitute for fast AF lenses.

 

I also use other alternatives...too many to list...almost exclusively for landscapes, architecture, and interior work.

 

The differences are subtle, but tangible enough to convert another wedding shooter who liked to borrow my 85/1.4 to get a couple of his own Zeiss C/Y mount lenses.

You may be sorry that you asked : -)

 

Yes, I frequently use manual focus Zeiss lenses on a Hasselblad 503CW and 203FE ...

using film and digital. Also use the Zeiss CFE and CFi lenses on an H3D via an CF adapter

which provides full auto aperture shooting AND focus confirmation in the viewfinder. Also

use all the Zeiss V lenses (CF & FE) on a Mamiya 645AFD-II via an adapter. This camera

has a manual focus split microprism focusing screen and also provides focus confirmation

in viewfinder.

 

All of my Leica M & R lenses are manual focus (as of now Leica doesn't make any AF glass

for either camera system). Use some of the Leica R optics on Canon EOS series one digital

cameras via an adapter that provides AF confirmation in the viewfinder and "beeps". Same

adapter can be had for those with C/Y Zeiss optics.

 

I use all these for different weddings depending on the circumstances. I also use AF when

needed and appropriate.

 

RE: lens characteristics; Some people don't see the difference. I do. It's my work, not

theirs ... so they don't get a vote : -)

 

My p.net portfolio is peppered with manual focus lens work. The Sikh-Hindu wedding

sample there is virtually all manual focus with a Hasselblad 203FE & CFV digital back or

Leica M8.

I don't have any zeiss zf lenses but I have a range of manual focus nikkors I've used for weddings on my dslrs. It requires different skills and practice to use manual focus successfully in fluid situations. It's harder on crop cameras because the viewfinder is smaller but I would expect a FF camera like the D3 with a proper focusing screen to be just like film though.

 

Peter

'nuff said. There was a discussion years ago about the 58mm

Biogon being warmer and better for cerrtain applications.

and admittedly Zeiss makes excellent lensed and perhaps has some secrets not shared with the Japanese lens makers.

 

BUT unless the lens is intended for use on that camera, and it was not a high-pressure circumstance. ( like a wedding)

 

it would not make much sense.

 

Monster cables: few of us have true Golden ears

Remember the " better transistor sound"?

it was crossover distortion

 

David Hafler, of Dynaco did not maske a transistor amp until they could have quality matvching a tube amp.

 

Likely the heavier cable will work better but not "gold plated connectors" or Oxygen - free copper".or the enornmous cost. This is Junk Science.

 

Believing something does not necessarily make it a fact.

reality is different to what many beieve.

 

I don't believe in disposable cameras or fad diets.

it was not my intent to start a war.

 

just to give an example. When "uncle bobby" takes better weddings snaps with his $1000.00 DSLR than a serious pro ( and it happens)

it could be a fluke or the pro wasn't at his best that day.

If you're just hung up on Zeiss glass and want to spend the money on it, but want a modern pro-friendly body that won't break the bank, the Sony A700 with battery grip will satisfy your needs. I use it for wedding photography (with the A100 as a backup) and it's fabulous. Image stabilization in the chip really helps me shoot handheld indoors too. You'll spend less on the body than Nikon and Canon equivalents, and can put the rest of your cash into glass.

Alright Walter, I understand what you are saying. But, unless you are relating an experience

shooting with Zeiss lenses at a wedding or other professional function, lets let it go.

 

James

"BUT unless the lens is intended for use on that camera, and it was not a high-pressure

circumstance. ( like a wedding) it would not make much sense."

 

What does the "box" that the lens hangs off of have to do with optical performance? As

long as the film/sensor plane is where it's supposed to be and focus can be achieved, who

made the box is irrelevant.

 

One wonders how all the category defining photographs were accomplished before the

advent of automation.

 

"Decisive Moment" work so popular today isn't the product of auto focus, high ISO digital

sensors or any other modern miracle. All kinds of technical gibberish can be traded back

and forth in support of superiority, but history just dismisses it. Great photography is the

product of the man or woman, not the machine.

 

I have zero knowledge concerning audio cables and gold connectors ... however, I do know

gold tipped sync cables reduce or eliminate misfires with MF digital backs, and that higher

end tether cables from places like Granite Digital provide more reliable studio capture and

allow greater lengths of connectivity from back to computer. This is practical, on the job

science, not "junk science"

 

Mastering manual control of your tools requires discipline and practice, yet yields rewards

that will serve your creativity for a lifetime.

 

James, what exactly are you after? Use of Zeiss glass on a 35mm type DSLR? There are

quite a few shooters doing this with C/Y lenses ( which I did for years before now using

Leica R optics) And it now has even gone further: for example, some technical minded guy

has developed a new Canon mount for the Contax N lenses that provides auto aperture

and AF on Canon EOS cameras.<div></div>

What am I after? For better or for worse, I want to see who is not using AF lenses for

weddings - I want to see some modern images of weddings that are taken in medium

format - I want to see if there are pros out there using the now defunct Contax line of

cameras. When I first picked up a hasselblad was the first time for me that I realized that

the quality of the image was entirely in my hands. It could be world class with no

reservations or it could be terrible and it would have nothing to do with the equipment.

 

I want to inspired by those photographers that are using some great equipment which isn't

of the most up-to-date nature. Weddings are beautiful events that lend themselves (in

the newer PJ style) to moving active photos. I want to be exposed (no pun intended) to

great images taken with this equipment. Sure, do I like Zeiss lenses? Yeah. But I don't

own them. I own Canon, Nikon, and Fuji equipment. But, I recognize the quality and want

to see the images and hear the stories.

 

So I don't want to knocked around for my curiosity - I just want to see the images and

hear the experiences.

 

Thanks Marc and everyone so far, I appreciate it.

 

James

Okay, that's a bit clearer.

 

My image above was with a Contax 645 and Contax/Zeiss lens, probably manually

focused (even though the system lenses are AF). It is difficult to see differences on the

web or even proofs, but not difficult to see in the actual delivered prints.

 

I am a "documentary" style wedding photographer. While there are moving, active shots to

be made, a majority of wedding photography is not that active ... it's not a Soccer game or

birds in flight. Manual focus is quite easy for 90% of the work ... quick focusing techniques

or using Hyper Focal Distance settings can take care most other shots. Unfortunately,

these take firm knowledge and dedicated practice which is on the wain with wedding

photography.

 

This doesn't preclude the use of AF at all. As they say, horses for courses.

Hi,

 

"Gold is a good conductor of heat and electricity, and is not affected by air and most reagents. Heat, moisture, oxygen, and most corrosive agents have very little chemical effect on gold"

 

This is not 'junk science' this is real science and this is why gold is used extensively in electronics, including photographic uses as pointed out by Marc Williams. It conducts better AND consistently over time...and it has been shown to make a difference, which is exactly why it is used by people with 'golden ears' :)

 

cheers Steve 'golden ears' M.

I started out with Nikon F3 and FM2 bodies in the 80's, and did a few weddings with them. I remember a wedding once that I used a Mamiya 645 with a single film back and just the little flip up magnifying glass for manual focusing at waist level. It's funny that I don't remember manual focusing as any sort of problem. It just was. It was fast enough for me, and it was what I was used to. Granted, the split prism was nice, but still.

 

The reason I bring this up is because I have now apparently gotten used to (been spoiled by) EOS auto focus. When I recently ran a few rolls of film through an old Canon rangefinder that I had to manually focus, (just for fun) It was very painful. It was slow, inaccurate, and seemed to get in the way of getting my shot.

 

This was surprising to me. I used this same rangefinder in the 70's, and I don't remember any slow, inaccurate, painful experiences.

 

I have love for manual, mechanical, and tank-like durability that is hard to find these days. But I have been so spoiled by modern technology that I just can't bring a Leica M to a wedding.

 

I see more "soul" in prints taken from film with lenses ground by hand, but the convenience of modern digital equipment (that is frankly good enough) keeps me from going back to the world of high quality manual lenses, film cranks, and separate light meters.

 

It's kind of a bummer really.

I'm really laughing here - Monster cables are cheap n cheerful by the way, and anyone with musical ears and decent kit will choose cables to match a system. It does make a difference. For reference: research Litz cable Vs solid core cable - two extremes with very different usages, and reasons for the usages

 

I come from an Optics background, and can confirm that most lenses are not the slightest bit equal (that's individual lenses). Lenses in an array will exhibit even more fluctuations

 

A + 1.00 D lens (assuming a thin lens) can be ground in very different forms i.e.

 

+0.50 on each side

+ 1.00 on the front, and plano on the rear

+6.00 on the front and -5.00 on the rear

 

Lens making technologies (and materials) have changed over the years - with modern free-form surfacing lenses can be made with surface shapes that could not have been manufactured a few years ago

 

Each of these combinations will be a + 1.00D lens but have differing characteristics - especially off axis

 

I use all sorts of lenses - Old Nikon glass, New DX lenses - they all have their own qualities

 

There is noting wrong with manual focus, and slowing down a bit. Wedding photography has only recently become a quantity game - where people machine gun shoot

 

As an aside - where else can anyone get (for example) a 1.4 50mm prime for a tenner? There are many examples on Ebay like this, and for specific shots. These lenses are simple fast and crisp

 

It does seem that the modern trend is for ultra perfect - each shot corner to corner sharp and spot on colours. Old lenses offer an alternative to this

hi james, I use a zeiss lens on my contax 645. it has autofocus capabilities, but I only use

it manually. I also use a manual focus hasselblad with a zeiss. I may be crazy, but it's

working really well for me. I also carry a 35mm for fast focusing needs.

 

something about manual focus helps me to explore selective focusing in ways that I would

forget to see if I kept it on auto.

 

you can see some shots, mostly from my contax on my blog.

www.lisaberryphotography.blogspot.com

I think of it sometimes like a recipe. you can have two delicious chocolate cakes that taste

quite different from one another. mine includes MF lenses, lots of natural light, and is

finished off by a great lab. someone else's cake may include the digital canon line of

lenses, complex and interesting lighting set-ups, and their own post-processing

techniques.

 

both great cakes. I think of mine like grandma's treasured recipe.

 

oh, and here are my sites if you're interested in seeing more images.

www.bipedalarts.com (weddings) www.lisaberryphotography.com (fine art)

Of course with the Nikon D3 and MF Zeiss lenses made for the Nikon mount you get the Zeiss look with all the automation apart from the actual auto focus. Probably gives you the focus beep as well. Of course you also get what is set to seriously win the laurels from the 5D as the ultimate wedding camera...

 

Conurus is a guy who has cracked the AF code on the original Contax AF lenses and has adapted some of them (17-35, 24-85, 85, 100, 70-300)to provide full automation including precise AF on canon cameras. Have a google for him and start drooling...

I used Zeiss lenses on my Hasselblad, but not any modified ones to use on a DSLR. Put me in the camp that thinks there is a different quality to a Zeiss lens. I would think that anyone who goes to the trouble of purchasing a modified Zeiss lens to use at a wedding on a DSLR is doing so for his or her own satisfaction. You have to WANT to do it. I have a question for those that do. Do any of your clients notice the difference? If so, would you also include what lens was used, how the client saw the image (online, print) and what they said. Sorry James, if I intrude, but thought my question goes along with yours.

I use a lot of Contax Carl Zeiss lens with AF confirm CANON adapter.

<br>

I never found the similar "3D effect" from Canon lenses.

<br><br>

 

<center>

 

<img src="http://www.thierryphoto.com/Poub/5D-CZ.jpg">

<br><br>

<br><br>

 

<img src="http://www.thierryphoto.com/Poub/Ba.JPG">

<br><br>

My Father and the 10-400 <i> in the field</i>. I like the 3D effect that detaches the subject from the BG

 

 

</center>

 

<br><br>

I'll have to dig in my stock to for some wedding shots taken with these lenses.