Anyone know why they don’t put AF in these things?
Seems nuts in 2025.
(Especially as they are as big and heavy as faster AF lenses from Sony, Canon etc)
Wezre wrote:
The cats eye bokeh shown in the DPR samples for the 35 1.2 S and the Zeiss 50 1.4 have nearly the same shape, do they not?
Can't really compare the two exactly as distance to the background light is different but the top picture showed
bokeh ball closer to the peripheral that is more oval, almost round and softer than bokeh ball in the bottom picture.
The bottom picture even at about 1/3 distance into the frame has more pronounced cateye shape and the one near the
edge of the frame as straight edge as part of the cateye was clipped off. To my eyes, bokeh ball of the top picture
is much nicer than the bottom one, no contest.
btw I put an otus ZF mount lens, adapted to Leica M mount lens, then put THAT on the tzm02 leica M to nikon Z autofocus adapter. and had autofocus/eye tracking etc. you just need to support the weight of the lens with your hand.
If you want to see larger versions, remove the med_ from the link
I always enjoy reading about zeiss. but why abuse the shadow/clarity/texture sliders when showing off a lens? Straight out of camera would be a better representation of the glass performance.
suteetat wrote:
Can't really compare the two exactly as distance to the background light is different but the top picture showed
bokeh ball closer to the peripheral that is more oval, almost round and softer than bokeh ball in the bottom picture.
The bottom picture even at about 1/3 distance into the frame has more pronounced cateye shape and the one near the
edge of the frame as straight edge as part of the cateye was clipped off. To my eyes, bokeh ball of the top picture
is much nicer than the bottom one, no contest.
I've not been able to find a review site that has controlled condition samples for both lenses. But neither does a great job at controlling cats eye shaped specular highlights, in my opinion. The 35 1.2 has a fairly strong ring highlight and the specular highlights are truncated even at the DX boundary. It also has some onion ringing and texturing of the specular highlights throughout the frame.
There is definitely something tempting about this lens. On paper, the Nikon 50mm f1.2, is cheaper and much more practical. But the 50mm f1.2 I have almost no interest in, and something about the 50mm ML makes me wonder if I will eventually end up adding it to my kit. (Currently waiting to see if we get a wider ML lens first before buying into the series).
Hopefully, we will eventually see more sample images and reviews from the ML series.
I have the Zeiss 50/1.4 ml in use now on my Zf,Z6iii and really love this lens!
Very nice 3D rendering , colour depth is very good an just the very pleasing beauty of the images it can produce!Highly recommended!
So for all.of you wanting to see this and that under certain conditions, list your requests here i will see if I can address them and photograph the requested items.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
So for all.of you wanting to see this and that under certain conditions, list your requests here i will see if I can address them and photograph the requested items.
Thanks!
To me the main question remains the look of bokeh balls in a variety of situations/ligh levels. In particular at f1.4, f2.0 and f2.8.
Any sample you could post featuring such situations (artificial lights or sun specular reflections on water or leaves,…) would be very valuable.
Thanks for the review and sample images! As you write, it's clinically sharp. Technically impressive. But I think I prefer the look of less corrected lenses.
Is the link correct? I was able to open all the link you posted earlier but for some reason, I could not open this one
PS opps, never mind, the link download nef file to my computer rather than displaying it.
Actually, I guess, I would like to see a subject in the foreground and let foliage be the bokeh in the background and hopefully
lots of foliage that cover most of the background. Thanks
Kind of like your picture with the guy sitting but in that picture, there is a car right behind him and foliage was a bit too far out.
I would like to see if there is any harsh edgy branch, leaves etc.
