DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Need advice on telephoto lens selection

Joseph, might you have a better scan of the above photo? The blown highlights and crushed shadows make it difficult to evaluate performance in context to your claims.

While I've never shot with the Zeiss 200, I have used the Canon 200/1.8L extensively. I can say that despite all the hype and touting of MTF performance concerning that lens, I found it similar to other Canon lenses in color rendition ... pastel. After a year of use I sold it.

So MTF charts can only go so far in evaluating a lens. Academics and aesthetics often are in conflict when it comes the eye of the beholder.

The best I've seen to date in that focal length has been the Leica 180/2. At the ad agency I work at, we had an entire ad c&aign published where the shots selected were from that R180/2 lens. The other contenders were from Zeiss 645 and some C/Y lenses including the 85/1.2 & 70-200/3.5. The NYC based pro photographer I used was a Zeiss/Leica man all the way : -)
 
OK, Marc,how would you like me to do the scan ?

I am using 5400II, the one you are using. I was trying to learn from the Photoshop CS like layers but it takes time for me to learn. I am not a full time photographer.

I suppose you wish me to scan it several times at different exposures, choose the best parts from each exposures and unit the parts with layer technique.

On the other hand, the PS CS has the ability to form high dynamic photos in 32 bits colour depth. I tried it with scanning portraits. I scanned the negatives to gives 5-9 different exposures. In the end, the merging of the different exposures does not work. I think it works only with images captured with digital cameras.

Well, as Marc mentioned MTF with Canon 200 1.8, I wish to express my distrust on Canon's publication with their MTF. They make no mention about the f number on the MTF graph so you have no idea what f no. was the lens while they were doing the measurment. An MTF graph with no f number is meaningless.

On the other hand, Zeiss always provide you with the f no but they never put on the 5 line pair/mm curve. Leica always mention these curves. Leica's consciousness on the curve does relate to the fact that Leica lenses are in general have the best contrast, in particular, the large scale contrast as oppose to the microcontrast.
 
No disrespect intended Joseph. That is a fine portrait of a beautiful woman. The only thing is that it lacks all the information that I'm sure the film captured.

Also, as a user of many different systems I am concerned with our preoccupation with charts and details when it comes to the performance of Zeiss glass.

In my experience there are three key technical elements that provide the end result. The camera/lens; the use and measurement of light; and the post processing. Of those three, the camera/lens is the least important.

IMO, absolutely the most important of the three technical elements is the understanding of light in it's many forms and the limitations of measuring and capturing light. This is where the most effort should be placed in developing one's photography skills, or the most expensive lenses in the world will mean nothing.

In other words, once light is understood, and post processing techniques are mastered, THEN the excellent characteristics of different lenses can make a difference in the final work.

If I may demonstrate with 3 different lighting scenarios ( I do not claim to be the master of any, just working hard at trying to get better at it ; -)

First is available light using a Zeiss 85/1.2 wide open to create a soft feminine feel. The only part in crisp focus is the eye and part of the hair that was at the same focal distance.

439420.jpg
 
In direct contrast to the above image (literally), is this one shot with a Ring-Light flash to create a harder, more fashion type statement of aloofness. Less "available" beauty than the softer more famine shot above. A Leica R90AA was selected to enhance the feel ...

439423.jpg
 
Love the 85/1.2 shot Marc.
It's just such a fantastic lens, even I can take good portrait shots with it!
 
Lastly is the use of both available light and directional diffused fill flash ... flash used more to even out the light balance than to light the subject in the manner of the above Ring-Light shot.

The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate that what glass you use CAN make a difference IF you work at mastering the art of light balance light first and foremost (which I've yet to do, but keep trying).

Using Zeiss glass won't make the light better, but it can render it better once you learn to see and measure light ...

BTW, all three of these shots were taken at the same place with-in 20 minutes of one another.

439429.jpg
 
Alan,

I can add my vote for the Tamron 300mm f2.8, it's a fine lens and can be had cheaply, although you should be aware of its size and weight.
It can handle 1.4x or 2x converters and still produce sharp results.

I understand that the 180mm f2.8 is not one of Zeiss's outstanding performers, good but not great, as opposed to the 70-210 you have which is great.
 
Yeah Matt, these models are all very nice, but super self absorbed ... the penalty of beauty in a world obsessed with youth and looks ... so playing at being "unavailable" wasn't a far stretch : -)

BTW, the red head's skin was that color. The screen pic is pretty accurate.
 
Oh, as to the long lens question, why not rent a 400/4 just for the trip Alan? Personally, I'd rent a Canon or Nikon with a long Image Stabilized or Vibration Reduction lens ... camera shake with long lenses has much more effect on the end product than optical nuisances.

My Cousins are guides up in Alaska, and I can safely say that the 70-210 won't suffice in reaching out to capture some of the sights.

It's either wide angle for majestic vistas, or really long lens territory to capture wildlife. A macro can come in handy also.
 
I actually misinterpreted your 'less available beauty' line Marc, as I didn't find the 2nd girl quite so attractive. I thought you were using 'less available beauty' as in 'less available light'.
lol.gif

But then I looked in the mirror and the words pot and kettle came to mind so I edited the remark out.
blush.gif


Being a wildlife/landscape guy, my 1st attempt at proper portraits was my friends daughter a few weeks ago, for her drama school cv. I used flash on some, but the natural light ones look so much nicer to me.
I guess it's all down to personal taste.
This one shows how shallow the DOF is on the 85/1.2 (or is it how crap my focussing is?). One eye in focus the other out.

439432.jpg
 
Back
Top