| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:17 pm Post subject: Oh NO! Ive tried Zeiss glass :( |
 |
|
NothingMan wrote:
If this is what cheap pancolar can do, Ill be selling all my glass for Zeiss  .
After using it only for one day, I like it more than takumar SMC 50 1.4 heh...
Wide open, available light.
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 733
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
Nice shots! I must say though that with the Pancolar you have not seen the "real" Zeiss.  Things like the T* coating still make a big difference. Just wait till you try something like the Contax Distagon 28/2.8. My Pancolar looks bland in comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NewStuff
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 847
Location: Wales, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NewStuff wrote:
There is hope... I just sold my 35/2.4 Flektogon. Lovely lens, I simply didn't use it enough to warrant keeping it... I wonder if anyone on here won it?
_________________
Too many to list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NothingMan wrote:
| AhamB wrote: |
| Nice shots! I must say though that with the Pancolar you have not seen the "real" Zeiss. Things like the T* coating still make a big difference. Just wait till you try something like the Contax Distagon 28/2.8. My Pancolar looks bland in comparison. |
Thats exactly what im afraid of . Pancolar is one of cheapest Zeiss glass out there, I can only imagine what true zeiss gems are capapble of. Ive been looking at photos of the Makro-Planar T* 50mm f/2 ZF, and it makes me want to cry... literally
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hexi
Joined: 01 Jul 2009
Posts: 1631
Location: France
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hexi wrote:
great captures espacially the second with this soft Pancolar effect ( wide open ? )
as for Zeiss lenses, well they're worth their money, and by far. Might they be Contax mount which i like or the latest for Nikon or Canon mounts
you try, you keep !
and want more 
_________________
Happy owner and user of :
SLR's > Contax Aria - RX
DSLR > Canon 5D
Lenses : C/Y Planar 1.4/50 - Distagon 2.8/35 - Planar 1.4/85
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonnar85 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NothingMan wrote:
| Quote: |
you try, you keep !
and want more.
|
Amen to that! 
[/quote]
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
What a beautiful baby!!
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator 
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManualFocus-G
Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Posts: 6622
Location: United Kingdom
Expire: 2014-11-24
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Excellent samples Once you've had Zeiss, there's no need to look twice
_________________
Graham - Moderator 
Shooter of choice: Fujifilm X-T20 with M42, PB and C/Y lenses
See my Flickr photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/manualfocus-g |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NothingMan wrote:
| Quote: |
| What a beautiful baby!! |
My friends daughter, very beautiful baby I agree
Few More:
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NewStuff
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 847
Location: Wales, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NewStuff wrote:
The last shot is spot on... Well captured.
_________________
Too many to list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10472
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
sweet smiling baby 
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NothingMan wrote:
Thanks guys
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trailer
Joined: 15 Mar 2011
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
trailer wrote:
Excellent shots
_________________
Olympus E-PL2 : 14-42 II & 40-150 kit lenses
Olympus E-500 : 14-45 & 40-150 kit lenses
Panasonic FX-500 for the back pocket
Zeiss Steinheil Porst Praktica Soligor Legacies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kathmandu
Joined: 09 Dec 2009
Posts: 1479
Location: (Kathmandu,Nepal. Currently)Pacific Northwest, USA
Expire: 2012-04-08
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kathmandu wrote:
Lovely colors and framing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schnauzer
Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 2155
Location: Maine, USA
Expire: 2012-03-08
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Schnauzer wrote:
Excellent pictures of a beautiful baby.
_________________
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnBee
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
JohnBee wrote:
Wow great images!
BTW, I am very interested in your assessment of this lens. Could you share what attributes you liked with this lens in comparison to the Tak 50/1.4?
Also, what version of the PANCOLAR was this taken with? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NothingMan wrote:
| JohnBee wrote: |
Wow great images!
BTW, I am very interested in your assessment of this lens. Could you share what attributes you liked with this lens in comparison to the Tak 50/1.4?
Also, what version of the PANCOLAR was this taken with? |
It is a Black PANCOLAR electric 1.8/50 MC (White letters).
To answer your question. I just like how the zeiss renders a lot more, while the bokeh on pancolar is bit more 'funky' as opposed to creamy bokeh from Takumar, the zeiss bokeh looks bit more...ummm unique if i might say ?
Also, the colors are totally different (might be due to the fact that Takumars get yellowish over time and my certainly does look a bit yellow) but i like the zeiss colors more as it is. Strangely enough, while the takumar has a great smooth focus action I foucus easier with the zeiss.
I took 2 quick shots outside handheld @f2, the composition and focus point is not the same but I think youll get the idea
Oh, and Pancolar focuses down to 0.35m which is great!
Hmmm, I just checked some other shots I did, and the color doesnt seem nearly as different as on the 2 examples I posted.
I wonder what might have happened there...
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
You should compare colour cast only when shooting film. With digital cameras, colour cast is a non-issue.
The one thing that is evident from your sample is that the Pancolar has more of both macro-contrast and micro-contrast than the Takumar. If you look at the tulip leaves, they look flat in the Takumar image, while they look dimensional in the Pancolar image.
The more contrast is easy to detect by looking at the shadows between the leaves and at the highlights on the edge of the leaves.
The micro-contrast is detectable on the leaves surface, in the Pancolar image it's easier to detect the surface texture, in the Takumar image it's more difficult.
_
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NothingMan wrote:
Thanks for the info, I definitely see what you mean. And when i said how I liked zeiss rendering more i guess I was talking about micro contrast without knowing it
Im not a very experienced photographer, but Im learning a great deal on this forum.
P.S. I liked the zeiss more even without comparing it to the takumar
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnBee
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JohnBee wrote:
| NothingMan wrote: |
To answer your question. I just like how the zeiss renders a lot more, while the bokeh on pancolar is bit more 'funky' as opposed to creamy bokeh from Takumar, the zeiss bokeh looks bit more...ummm unique if i might say ?
Also, the colors are totally different (might be due to the fact that Takumars get yellowish over time and my certainly does look a bit yellow) but i like the zeiss colors more as it is. Strangely enough, while the takumar has a great smooth focus action I foucus easier with the zeiss.
I took 2 quick shots outside handheld @f2, the composition and focus point is not the same but I think youll get the idea
Oh, and Pancolar focuses down to 0.35m which is great! |
Yes, I agree these look dramatically different, though I think the focus may make things a little harder to evaluate on equal ground. Given the lens, I wonder if the SMC 55/1.8 wouldn't be a better match?
I also, wondered how the Tak would perform if didn't have yellowing too. So many possibilities.
Still, I like the idea of a Pancolar collection. They certainly do look nice. The skin tones in your first images look fantastic! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NothingMan wrote:
I never had issues with yellow cast with my takumar up until this point. My understanding is that their glass is supposed to be bit yellow from the coatings. I definitely didnt see it up untill this photo, and I shoot people (that didnt came out right) mostly so If it was the case it would have been obvious.
Also, I shot a lot with canon 50 1.8 and it is a very fine lens, but I think its no match to pancolar wide open, especially if you have back lighting. Canon just sucks there, big time! Night shots wide open at high iso with canon were also always unusable to me, I took few shots with pancolar the other night at iso 1600 and they look a lot better!
This all, of course, is subjective. Takumar is a very fine lens, but I just like this one more. Too bad it goes to 1.8 only...
If youre interested i can take some shots with tripod some other time, and you can compare those.
I shot this one when I was making this little test. Wide open, no PP.
Get it, you wont be disappointed! Im actually more happy with it than I thought i would be . On the contrary, I wasnt that happy when I got my tak
One more thing, I dont find tha pancolar soft at all. It may not be the sharpest lens ever but imho its pretty sharp wide open. My canon 85 1.8 is wicked sharp stopped down a bit, but pancolar doesnt trail much, at least the one I got
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Dawg
Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 2530
Location: Thach Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big Dawg wrote:
Beautiful photos.
_________________
Big Dawg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnBee
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 179
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JohnBee wrote:
| NothingMan wrote: |
This all, of course, is subjective. Takumar is a very fine lens, but I just like this one more. Too bad it goes to 1.8 only...
If youre interested i can take some shots with tripod some other time, and you can compare those.
I shot this one when I was making this little test. Wide open, no PP.
Get it, you wont be disappointed! Im actually more happy with it than I thought i would be . On the contrary, I wasnt that happy when I got my tak |
I also saw a 1.4 version, but I honestly don't know anything about the various models and variances out there. Not to mention where I'm not sure if a .4 aperture difference would be discernible.
FRT. I don't own a Takumar/1.4 though I think I have a few wide and normals primes that may fall in t he same spec categories. However, I do own a few SMC-K and SMC-A normals, which are f/1.4 respectively. Which may prove to be interesting to compare against. Not to mention the excitement of starting a Zeiss collection of course. :p
And thanks again for the ongoing samples with this. They are very helpful |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NothingMan
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
Posts: 98
Location: Bosnia Herzegovina
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NothingMan wrote:
| Big Dawg wrote: |
| Beautiful photos. |
Thanks
_________________
Canon Gear: 5DII | 40D | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 17-40 L |
MF Lenses: S-M-C Tak 50 1.4 | S-M-C Tak 135 3.5 | S-M-C Tak 28 3.5 | Helios 44-3/44-2/44m-4/44-4 | Yashica ML 50 1.4 | CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 | Jupiter 37A | Zuiko 55 1.2 | Zuiko 24 2.8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 733
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
| Orio wrote: |
You should compare colour cast only when shooting film. With digital cameras, colour cast is a non-issue.
The one thing that is evident from your sample is that the Pancolar has more of both macro-contrast and micro-contrast than the Takumar. If you look at the tulip leaves, they look flat in the Takumar image, while they look dimensional in the Pancolar image. |
I don't completely agree that colour cast only matters for film. It's one extra processing step which a neutral lens saves you.
The difference in contrast is not so suprising, considering the f/1.4 vs f/1.8 aperture. I found that my Super-Takumar 55/2 actually has a bit more contrast than my Pancolar when stopped down.
The framing of those two shots isn't identical btw, and it looks like the Tak shot was taken from a slightly shorter distance. The DOF is much shallower than the Pancolar shot anyway.
I also like the 0.35m MFD on the Pancolar and it works quite well on extension tubes as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
