photog630

I've been really noticing the limits of my venerable Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L lens (Mark 1), particularly towards the edges, where the image starts to degrade.

 

Shooting at f/11, focussing directly at the corner of a building recently (closest to my position), I can see clear image degradation towards the top of the subject -- in the upper bricks and top edges. I'm shooting RAW images on a heavy tripod, with mirror-lockup engaged and a shutter release (or 2 second self-timer).

 

I've been comfortable with the lens set at 16mm (as are my clients) and see no need to vary from this focal length too much.

 

It would seem that Canon's TS-E tilt-shift 17mm f/4L lens would be a suitable upgrade for the types of shooting I'm doing, but would like to hear some opinions on the matter.

 

Any Zeiss Milvus 15mm users out there? Is the Canon tilt-shift 17mm my best option for improvement?

 

Opinions and/or thoughts are most welcome.

After upgrading to a new MacBook Pro recently (using OS High Sierra 10.13.1), I see that Canon's ImageBrowser EX has gone the way of the dinosaurs sometime back in the Yosemite Age. I'd been using it to download files from multiple cards with an SD card reader.

 

Naturally, I can connect my 6D directly to the laptop and just use the standard EOS utility for downloading.

 

But with multiple SD cards, I do find it easier to plug in a card reader, and use software that automatically offers date/naming of the files into folders, versus dragging files and naming them manually.

 

Was wondering if others out there recommend any current software to facilitate this on a mac running High Sierra.

 

<p>Michael,<br>

Many thanks for posting your own detailed observations. And the link to the online review is invaluable. Much appreciated!</p>

<p>Robin, I've been hoping the persistent rumors are true and that Sigma are going to release an 85mm 1.4 "Art" lens later this year. That definitely would get my attention as a potential upgrade to my existing setup.</p><div></div>

<p>Michael, I hear ya. I still have a Hassy 500 C/M with a couple lenses gathering dust, and I just can't part with it. And a Rolleilex. And a Leica. Digital makes perfect sense to me; and I've fully embraced it as a viable medium, yet I love beautifully-made equipment that has nothing to do with modern electronics and/or plastic.<br>

Kind of like keeping a beautiful old clock or two: the new quartz ones keep time perfectly (and are cheap, and plastic) but I like holding onto a few beauties from the past.</p>

<p>These days, most of my freelance photography involves shooting corporate portraits. Back when I used film, my lens of choice was a Zeiss Planar 85mm (MM) on a Contax RTSII. Moving ahead into digital, I use Canon's 85/1.8 for most head shots, but have been unable to part with the older Zeiss 85. In fact, I've put a mount on it to use with my Canon system. Wide open really isn't that great until you stop it down to f/2 or more.<br>

<br />I'm curious to hear any user experiences with the new Zeiss Milvus 85mm, (not the<strong> über-pricy Otus 85/1.4</strong>) as it interests me to explore improvements to equipment and technique, versus staying in the same place.</p>

<p>Thanks, Robin. I've actually been looking closely at the Sigma recently, and saw the review (with images) corroborating what you have said about the color fringing at wide apertures. And you're right: The Canon 1.8 did exhibit fringing at f/2 in my little test. Perhaps that is part of the compromises that lens designers must make.<br>

I read somewhere recently that the older Zeiss 85/1.4 was possibly optimized for infinity focus, which would explain the wide aperture (minor) softness characteristic, but I'm just speculating. I can't imagine why such a fast lens wouldn't be designed to exploit the use of wider apertures optimally, but I'm no lens designer. <br /><br />On a complete side note, I see that Zeiss have an 85 prime (FE) for Sony's mirrorless camera systems, but that must be another cup of tea entirely.</p>

<p>Thanks for your response, Robin. Since I already own the Contax version (used on an RTSII for years before digital) and recently found the proper adapter to use it on my Canon 6d, I was curious about users' experiences.<br>

<br />I shot a couple of test images @ f/2 with the Contax 85 and my Canon 85/1.8, and then layered the identical images from each different lens in a photoshop file. Turning off/on each layer, I could easily see how the Canon is definitely sharper at wider apertures, but can't decide if that is an issue for me or not. Most of my work with this focal length is for either family or corporate portraits, and yes, good sharpness on the subject's eye (or eyes) is nice at wide open apertures, but I can't see giving up on the older lens as an option yet. <br /><br /><br>

Thus my interest in the opinions of others. It's a fantastic focal length for portraiture, and I enjoy the idea of improving or changing what I use to shoot them.</p>

<p>I have an older mid-eighties Contax Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Planar T* lens (West German version) mounted on my Canon 6d, and am curious how this lens compares to the modern Zeiss equivalent (85mm f/1.4 ZE Planar), particularly at the wider apertures.<br /> <strong>Does anybody have any experience comparing the two, or know of any reviews comparing them in depth?</strong><br /><br /> Thanks in advance.<br /><br /> </p>

<p>Thanks for all the advice. After checking online I realized that Fotodiox is <strong>rather fortuitously</strong> located about 20 minutes away from where I live. Talk about a good sign.</p>

<p>So I called their sales rep, who informed me that there are two versions of the adaptor; a "pro grade" (Contax/Yashica to Canon EOS) for $60 and a less-expensive aluminum version for $16. Took the camera and lens in to them, tested out the cheaper version, and picked it up today.</p><div></div>

<p>Victor, that would definitely be of interest.</p>

<p>I have recently upgraded my 5D (mark 1- classic) to a 6D, and have had problems using a lens mount adapter on my older Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 (MMJ version for Contax).</p>

<p><strong>What mount adapters are most of you 6D folks using these days?</strong> I'd originally purchased an off-brand adapter (with the focus confirmation chip) on ebay back in 2008 that worked well with my 5d, but it often malfunctions on the 6D body. I've no idea what brand the adapter is; been too many moons ago, and it doesn't have any indicator markings.</p>

<p>I can't say as I feel limited by my original 5D's capabilities at all. A few weeks ago, I shot this portrait in very low light at 800 ISO, f/3.5, @1/30th using a 50mm f/1.8.<br>

I had it enlarged to a 20"X30" print, and my client loved it. Granted, it's all subjective, but I noticed very minimal "grain" and what I feel is excellent clarity.<br>

I could see the image screen fine, and the few times that there has been dust on the sensor, I just cleaned it....twice, since 2006. <img src="<a%20href="http:/www.flickr.com/photos/68328485@N08/8136308914/"%20title="IMG_8031r2%20by%20dlohmann,%20on%20Flickr"><img%20src="http:/farm9.staticflickr.com/8465/8136308914_4177cc7845_b.jpg"%20width="1024"%20height="683"%20alt="IMG_8031r2"></a>" alt="" /></p><div></div>

<p>Well, the buyer opened a case against me in Ebay, claiming the camera was broken, and "not as described." I countered by escalating the case to Ebay's Resolution Center with all of my communications to the buyer, and a detailed explanation of the situation...including his week-long delay in paying me; even though it was a Buy-It-Now purchase.<br>

Ebay has now "ruled" the case in my favor, and considers the matter closed-- with no return to the nitpicky buyer.</p>

<p>For what its worth, here are a few shots of the camera... see my photostream at http://www.flickr.com/photos/44504581@N02/<br>

I still think it's 9 out of 10. Once Paul Ebel did a CLA and put in the Maxwell Bright Screen for me, I asked if he could really look it over carefully and suggest any other maintenance that might improve it in terms of usability. He felt it was fine, and I have always been rather proud of how clean it is-- the meter still works great as well.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses.<br>

The buyer appears to have gotten into quite a bidding war in the last few minutes of the auction. I see that he and another bidder kept outbidding each other right at the end-- probably with software like "Auction Stealer" or the like. He actually overpaid for it -- by quite a significant margin. I had expected the camera to bring in about $1,100 to $1,200 with the new Maxwell bright screen and recent CLA by Paul Ebel. He paid $1,675.<br>

Note that I was always very careful to mention that it was in <strong>used </strong> 9 out of 10 condition, definitely not "mint" or "like new" as so many others describe cameras with obvious signs of wear. I stated that it showed minor signs of usage that do not affect the operation/function of the camera, and took 10 careful photographs of the Rollei, focusing in on every angle that I could find; the pristine taking lens in particular. I never noticed the focusing distance knob issue, and had it been apparent I would have had it fixed previously or pointed it out in my description on *bay... I have 100% positive feedback, and it's important to me to be as up front as possible.<br>

I have reason to believe that the buyer has realized his overpayment mistake, and is attempting to return it for whatever reasons he can find. He informed me that he has removed the viewing screen (which I've never done), and found a cracked bracket inside that I did not disclose in my item description... I tend to doubt that he broke it himself while taking the viewing screen out, but the cracked piece is definitely not affecting the functionality of the Rollei in any way.... see attached pic that he sent.<br>

I am considering crediting the guy with 10% of his final price paid, as a sign of compromise that would allow him to have the focus mechanism adjusted. He has been very accusatory thus far and stated several times that I deliberately concealed "defects" in the camera that warrant it's return. If he cools down a bit I'll probably credit him, but I'm not accepting a return at this point.<br>

I can't say that if <strong>I'd </strong> gotten overexcited and overpaid on an item that the seller would let me return it or pay for every minor imperfection that I subsequently found. The camera is 51 years old, and shows minor signs of use, as I carefully explained in my description. A new Rollei FX (albeit a 2.8) runs $5,339.00 these days, so maybe this guy just needs to get over it.<img src="http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j293/bao19922002/35F/BrokenSide_02-1.jpg" alt="" width="846" height="564" /></p>

<p>I have recently sold one of my Rolleiflexes (a 3.5F Xenotar) on the 'bay, and my buyer is alarmed that the focus knob indicator does not go all the way down to 3 feet exactly, even though there is a 3 printed on the dial. The indicator goes down to between 3.25 ft. and 3 feet... see attached photo.<br>

I have used this camera for a few years, after having a CLA done by Paul Ebel, whom is highly recommended. I never really noticed this focus knob issue, and called Paul yesterday to ask him about it. He assured me that the camera is not defective; that this is the way they are, and double-checked a couple of 3.5Fs in the shop to corroborate-- they are the same way. As long as the focus goes out to infinity, everything is fine, and also that the knob stops at either end of the focus throw "hard" not soft; which is does not. I believe and trust him.<br>

The buyer insists that HIS repairman in Hong Kong has a camera that WILL go to the 3 foot mark, and that the one I sold him is defective. He claims a repair to the focus knob will cost about $300 US.<br>

Today I called Harry Fleenor out in California, to ask his opinion on the matter. He too checked a couple of 3.5's in the shop, and both focus indicators actually stop at the same place as mine --between 3 feet and 3.25. He told me that he'd never actually noticed that before, and I went on to speculate that perhaps the 3 indicator serves to display how adjusting the lens aperture will increase depth of field, thereby allowing the user to implement some hyperfocal distance...the expanding/contracting white band indicator would display this information to a user.<br>

So, you 3.5F users out there, are your cameras also focusing (at their closest point) just beyond 3 feet? Is my assumption regarding hyperfocal distance accurate? Opinions are most welcome.<img src="http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j293/bao19922002/35F/FocusKnob-1.jpg" alt="" width="821" height="1232" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just offer to add an extra chin, free of charge. Clients LOVE that.<br>

But seriously, Mom and bride need to agree on what changes they want made, before you do anything else. Have Mom or bride email the agreed-upon changes to you as a means of protecting yourself. Even if they have a conversation with you over the phone discussing changes, just ask them to email it you to confirm. Or offer to email the alts to them, and use the email to get their confirmation on an electronic paper trail. Just in case. You can put your additional pricing in there too, just to keep everything transparent. Sometimes that additional cost tends to limit the amount of changes that are "nice to do" versus "need to do."<br>

The compromise on price sounds like a good way for everyone to feel satisfied at this point. But I definitely wouldn't do all this work for free. Your time is money, and if you do all this for free, then everyone else will be looking for freebies when you work for them as well.<br>

And, copy them both on the email.</p>

<p>Jon Tonai;<br>

Yep, you're right, it was actually in the Spring of 2006 that I bought my 5D. I had to get into digital photography because I was being asked to shoot digital for freelance jobs, and as a graphic designer, I wanted the extra photography work on the side. After that, I also used my 5D to facilitate landing a new full-time job at a commercial photography studio-- for shooting offsite work like portraits, the images from the 5D were much better than thoses from our Nikon D200, and I was much more comfortable shooting with the Canon due to layout/menus, ergonomics, etc.</p>

<p>Jon:<br />I bought my 5D in the Spring of 2005 as my first serious foray into digital. Up until that point, (for digital images) I had been using my Nikon Coolscan 9000 to scan in negatives from my Hasselblad, various Rolleiflexes, a Leica M6ttl and a Contax RTS II.<br>

It was actually a bit hard to dive into the DSLR pool, knowing full well that Canon would soon come out with a "better" version of the 5D-- and it's the same exact issue as buying a computer; we all know that it won't be long before a faster/bigger/better version will supplant our previous system. But I knew I had to get into digital eventually and it was the superlative image-making quality of the 5D that convinced me to do so. For whatever reason, the images from this camera looked more like that of film than any other to my eye. They still do.<br>

A photographer buddy of mine was talking to me a few weeks ago about the 5D II, and he made a great point: the larger 21 megapixel images will take up an awful lot of space on his computer, and they will take a lot longer to process as RAW files (which is what I only shoot as well). If you're getting good results from your 5D --- like we all are--- then I wouldn't worry too much about having the next version of the camera. Once I see a significant, noticeable jump in the image quality that a "next" version produces some day down the road, I may have to upgrade, but until then I'm going to sit out this trip on the Upgrade Train.</p>

<p>Marco, the haoda adaptor arrived yesterday and I quickly put it to use with my 85/1.4 planar and 5D combo. The standard viewing screen on the 5D is a bit tough to use, so I may end up getting Canon's Ee-S(?) manual focusing screen.<br>

Anyway, here is a test shot at 1.4. I'm happy with the way this lens isolates the area of sharp focus. That extra stop actually DOES make a difference. Note that I also used an extension ring on the 85 to get in a bit closer.</p><div></div>

<p>Ooops, sorry, I meant, Mark, not Marco...</p>

<p>Marco; as an owner of a chrome M6 ttl (.72) myself, I'll ask you this question: "Are you ever NOT going to want it?"<br>

Also, you know as well as I do that these cameras hold their value beautifully, so you can always resell it, if need be.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Awesome shots, Marco! I especially like the watch photo. I used to work in a commercial photo studio, and know how tough it is to shoot reflective products like this.</p>

<p>Thanks for responses so far; it sounds like there are some viable options out there! Marco, can you set your 5D on Aperture Priority (Av), and manage to shoot fine with your Summicron 90/2 at whatever aperture you like?<br>

I was hoping to hear from any actual users of the same lens/camera combo, that are having success with an adaptor (or not).</p><div></div>