andrevallejo

<p>Zeiss ZE 21/2.8. Sold all my L glass after I got it...</p>

I've been in your shoes once...bought 5dmk2, Zeiss ZE 35 f2, and never looked back. It does not get any better in 35mm format...

<p>Go here. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55<br>

All the information you could want on this subject.</p>

<p>Zeiss ZE 35mm f2.0</p>

<p>If you can live without AF, go Zeiss ZE. You'll never look back...</p>

<p>Ah,ok...17-35 2.8L. Not exactly a regret, but it let me down...soft. I sold it and bought a Zeiss Distagon 21mm ZE. No regrets on this one!</p>

<p>My Canon 50 1.4 is excellent...in every respect...not a Zeiss, but as good as a Canon can be.</p>

<p>That's one of the reasons I usually travel to Europe on vacations...!</p>

<p>It's all right,but...what about image quality? The samples in that PDF are,IMHO, at best...ok. Lacks contrast and definition. Iknow there a thing about "the Leica way of shooting"and all that stuff,but when it comes to the IQ alone... I truly have doubts...<br>

What are your thoughts?</p>

<p>It's all right,but...what about image quality? The samples in that PDF are,IMHO, at best...ok. Lacks contrast and definition. Iknow there a thing about "the Leica way of shooting"and all that stuff,but when it comes to the IQ alone... I truly have doubts...<br>

What are your thoughts?</p>

I run Vista 64 ans Xp 32 in dual boot. My Vista x64 is VERY stable,better then the Xp. Boots faster and CS4 filters run much faster in x64 (I have 4gb ram only). The only drawback is that some filters do not run in x64.

"this is the guy who I want to emulate on the street. I love his work and style:

 

 

How would you like being shot that way?

"I didn't worry about composition, lighting or metering and I didn't do any levels, curves or sharpening in Photoshop"

You can't shoot like that AND expect a wow,right? (8-)

Some real-life comparisons here...hand-held and lightning somewhat variable,but serves the purpose...

http://vallejo.smugmug.com/Leicanon

I can't tell exaclty on these two,but I just compared the Elmarit-R 35mm 2.8 with the Canon 17-35 2.8L (yesterday,actually), and the Leica is an absolute clear winner to me. Looked at the photozone link,and the result of the two lens I tested made me be suspicious on their methodology...

Gil:

You certalinly has a point. The advantage I see in the Leica macro is really the contrast. Though I know the Canon macros are very good,I recently started testing a 35mm Elmarit and made tests comparing it to de 17-35 2.8L and the 50mm 1.4. The first one cannot really be compared. VERY much behind. The second is an excellent lens,but I was surprised with the better contrast the Elmarit gave me. And for macro work,autofocus is meaningless. And yes,I admit there's some charm in it...

(8-)

Yeah...all of this tech can melt the brain of a man who's only eager for nice pics...

I think I got the picture: Functionally,it's a ~1:1,though technically it's a 1:2,right?

Humm...I thought all of this because of this lens Canon launched for the EF-S series...I'm considering the Leica because of the lens quality and the fact I can still use (along with the 35mm Elmarit I have) on full frame bidies in the futere.

From BH web site:

 

The Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is the first true Macro lens in the EF-S series. This dynamic, compact, fast-focusing lens provides dramatic detail that goes beyond the human eye. Having an effective focal length of approximately 96mm in 35mm format, it produces life-size close-up results. With capacity to reproduce an image on the sensor that is as large as the subject itself, you take your audience inside a magnificent miniature world.

 

Designed specifically for digital photography, the lens has specially shaped lens elements with Super Spectra coatings to suppress ghosting and flare, which can be caused by reflections off a digital camera sensor. An exclusive optional lens hood (ET-67B) further reduces the incidence of flare.

 

Note: Not suitable for 35mm film SLR cameras or digital cameras with image sensor bigger than APS-C size, only fits on the EOS Digital Rebel series or 20D & 30D SLR cameras.

Hi Steven.

Notice that I will mount it on a Canon digital. Because of the 1.6x factor, it's like a 96mm...so though I know you're right about this lens on a film camera or full-frame digital,I'm not sure about a 1.6x sensor body...

Best,André

I'm about to purchase this lens for using in a Canon 20D (1.6x mag. sensor) and

I'm wondering: Will it go to 1:1 mag ?

We don?t need more pixels in a compact camera.We need larger sensors...

...and just checked the DP-1 site. Why the hell couldn?t they provide a viewfinder!

As stated,the K1000D is not "pocktable". The small Leicas(or the related panasonics,which are the same for half the price)are small sensors,which means less quality then big sensors,no question.And Noise Ninja takes out the noise,along with many details of the image...About the Fuji F30,I have one.It's a very good camera...for a small sensor camera.It's quality is no par for a larger camera sensor,and has no raw too...

I was not aware of the DP1,so I'll keep looking for it...

I guess by now everyone is looking for a small digicam to walk around and

replace stuff like the Contax T3 and alike. Problem is,current pocket digicams

come with small sensors,so top-quality image is not available. I wonder why no

brand of small camera,with a large sensor,good glass (maybe a 35 or 50mm fixed)

and RAW files have came up yet.Yes it would be expensive,but there is market

for it,no doubt about it...

Odd industrie...

This may answer your question...

http://www.andrevallejo.net/dicas/teste_lentes.htm