G
Guest
I don't know if we can talk about sources for new equipment; but if we can, who has the best prices for new lenses in the U.S.?
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!
G
Guest
G
Guest
Chiming in a little late here -
I have the 28,35,45,90mm lenses. To me the 35mm is as good as the 45mm and in fact for me I like the "bokeh" (background blurr) produced from this lens more than the 45mm. With my 8x loupe I can't tell much difference in sharpness between the 35 and 45mm. So for really close up portraits I tend to like the 35mm over the 45mm. I usually use the 28, 35 and 90 from my kit. I wish I had a 21mm - but the thought of having to carry a separate finder, and not being able to use the flash in conjunction with the 21mm makes it not that ideal for me. I know I will get the 21mm one of these days since I do a lot of Landscape photography. But for now the system suites me fine. Like another earlier poster, I too bought the G2 knowing full well it's limitations, but using it within it's limitations it is one tough camera to beat.
I have the 28,35,45,90mm lenses. To me the 35mm is as good as the 45mm and in fact for me I like the "bokeh" (background blurr) produced from this lens more than the 45mm. With my 8x loupe I can't tell much difference in sharpness between the 35 and 45mm. So for really close up portraits I tend to like the 35mm over the 45mm. I usually use the 28, 35 and 90 from my kit. I wish I had a 21mm - but the thought of having to carry a separate finder, and not being able to use the flash in conjunction with the 21mm makes it not that ideal for me. I know I will get the 21mm one of these days since I do a lot of Landscape photography. But for now the system suites me fine. Like another earlier poster, I too bought the G2 knowing full well it's limitations, but using it within it's limitations it is one tough camera to beat.
G
Guest
One more note 
If anyone has noticed, the 35mm has 8 curved aperture blades instead of the 28/45's 7 blades. Maybe that is why the "bokeh" is more pleasant on this lens compared to the others?
I'm no expert in lens design, but from what I've read the more "circular" the aperature pattern is the more natural looking the blurred area is. For the most part CZ lenses for the G series all have curved blades so they all do a fairly good job, but... that 1-2 extra blade may make a difference in overall background rendering as it creates a more circular pattern. It's hard to compare wide open since the aperature blades are hidden and the barrel is usually round.
As an ex&le, I know on my SLR system the 7 straight blades of the 105 f/2.8 renders a harsh background vs the 9 curved blades of my 80-200mm f/2.8 at 105mm range which renders a beautiful background blur.
If anyone has noticed, the 35mm has 8 curved aperture blades instead of the 28/45's 7 blades. Maybe that is why the "bokeh" is more pleasant on this lens compared to the others?
I'm no expert in lens design, but from what I've read the more "circular" the aperature pattern is the more natural looking the blurred area is. For the most part CZ lenses for the G series all have curved blades so they all do a fairly good job, but... that 1-2 extra blade may make a difference in overall background rendering as it creates a more circular pattern. It's hard to compare wide open since the aperature blades are hidden and the barrel is usually round.
As an ex&le, I know on my SLR system the 7 straight blades of the 105 f/2.8 renders a harsh background vs the 9 curved blades of my 80-200mm f/2.8 at 105mm range which renders a beautiful background blur.
G
Guest
Almon,
just for interest:
I do not remember where I found that, but AFAIK "bookeh" does not only depend on the aperture blades.
This should be proven by the fact that bookeh may be different even (and mostly) at full aperture.
Till
just for interest:
I do not remember where I found that, but AFAIK "bookeh" does not only depend on the aperture blades.
This should be proven by the fact that bookeh may be different even (and mostly) at full aperture.
Till
G
Guest
Jamie,
I have both the 21mm and 28mm but I won't pretend that I am as knowledgable as others who have already commented to you in this forum. Both lenses are very sharp. I will repeat what someone already mentioned is that the 21mm requires a separate viewfinder. So with the 21mm you have the inconvenience of having to carry and use a separate view finder and jump from the G2 view finder for exposure information to the external viewfinder to frame your photo. While you have some inconvience, you do have a wider view and an extraorinarily sharp image. I think someone else metioned it is important to keep your lens level so lines do not converge. The 21mm is an outstanding lens for landscapes, with a wide depth of field, where as the 28mm is a bit more multi purpose.
Good luck. With either lens, you cannot go wrong.
Howard
I have both the 21mm and 28mm but I won't pretend that I am as knowledgable as others who have already commented to you in this forum. Both lenses are very sharp. I will repeat what someone already mentioned is that the 21mm requires a separate viewfinder. So with the 21mm you have the inconvenience of having to carry and use a separate view finder and jump from the G2 view finder for exposure information to the external viewfinder to frame your photo. While you have some inconvience, you do have a wider view and an extraorinarily sharp image. I think someone else metioned it is important to keep your lens level so lines do not converge. The 21mm is an outstanding lens for landscapes, with a wide depth of field, where as the 28mm is a bit more multi purpose.
Good luck. With either lens, you cannot go wrong.
Howard
G
Guest
Thanks Howard. I did decide to go with the 28mm. I appreciate the imput!
G
Guest
I agree with Howard. I have the 21mm and the 28 mm (next to 45 and 90 mm). I find it very difficult to see a difference between the quality of these lenses. Scans of the slides or negatives in a Coolscan 4000 dpi scanner seem of equivalent and very high quality for all the lenses and more limited by the film then the lenses; actually the 21 mm has some vignetting visible in slides, but even this is limited. What has particularly struck me is the lack of distortion ("falling lines") in the corners. I compare with my Minolta 20 mm and the APO lenses of Minolta and G lenses are better, all of them. For snapshot photography it is difficult to see the difference, but when you blow up the picture (as I frequently do for my bird photos) the difference is visible, but not very large. It is like beauty: to the eyes of the beholder. If you can afford it and make a lot of landscape type pictures the 21 mm is worth it. I find the viewfinder a bit of a nuisance, but do not miss the flash option, since making flash pictures with the 21mm is more the exception than the rule.
G
Guest
> [Dear Peter: May I ask which Minolta lens did you compare the CarlZeiss' with. I am interested to know. Thank you much. Wilson .] >
G
Guest
I read a few web pages when trying to understand what constitutes a "pleasing" versus "distracting" Boke. I found this web page to be simple and to the point http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml - From there one can gather that bokeh is a function of the lens' spherical aberations and how it is corrected/altered. The shapes of the diaphram does affect to some degree the final appearance as seen in the extreme case on the above mentioned web page when using a triangular diaphram. I've played with (rented) a Nikkor 105 f2 DC (Defocus Control) lens to try to figure out what is pleasing bokeh. I still don't know the technical reason's behind it but the CZ G lenses for the most part do a great job with this and is one of the reasons I went with the system for candid photography.