|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Pierantonio62 www.juzaphoto.com/p/Pierantonio62  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Zeiss Planar 135mm f/2 (C/Y) Pros: Contribution of blur, tonal range, sharpness Cons: Manual focus, weight Opinion: Really surprising lens, despite the "age", sharpness still at the highest levels, diaphragm holds up against the Apo Sonnar, yields instead to the maximum aperture (we would miss) where, however, it maintains a discreet detail and a very pleasant blur for progression and chromatic "restitution", highly recommended for portraiture, subjects in ambient light or outdoors with low lighting level. As I had already verified on film, even on digital prevails on the Sonnar 135 (although MM) at 2.8 in an evident way, but also at infinity at the central diaphragms, technical data also declared by the parent company and confirmed by MTF tests; Also better for a wider tonal range. This is probably why it maintains a high price on the second-hand market in addition to being relatively rare; Surely both things can be explained by the large difference in price compared to the 2.8 (over three times in the periods in which they were in production) difficult to justify by a single diaphragm of difference and quite exclusive features certainly not appreciable by everyone. The thing was different for the 100 mm and even more for the 85 where the Planar had 2 apertures of advantage and cost less than double. I conclude by saying that in addition to the considerable difference in price on the second-hand market compared to the Sonnar (which remains a Mr. objective) also has appreciably higher weight and size in addition to the inconvenience of the unincorporated hood, and therefore, to prefer it, you have to try it and ... falling in love with it sent on December 13, 2022 |
 | Leica Elmar-R 180mm f/4 Pros: Compact and lightweight, but above all Leitz Cons: For its characteristics, none Opinion: A lens that I particularly appreciate when travelling, compact and lightweight and with a yield in line with the Leica R production; with a minimum focusing distance of 1.8 m, it has greater versatility than the apo telyt for nearby subjects, it certainly yields something like a feeling of sharpness and brilliance. It does not have the contribution of blurred elmarit (it yields a stop ....) but has practically the same minimum focusing distance that allows an overlapping use; this makes it clear why Leitz had in the 80s three 180mm in the catalog, each has its own why with the consequence that whatever you own .... something is missing, except to have them all! sent on January 16, 2022 |
 | Leica Elmarit-R 180mm f/2.8 Pros: Sharpness, blurred contribution, tonal range Cons: For its characteristics, none Opinion: Excellent lens, typical Leitz rendering in color and for the contribution of blurred. Compared to the previous version it loses a third of the weight and thanks to an abnormal dispersion lens it improves for sharpness already at maximum aperture; closing the diaphragm of at least 2 stops holds the comparison with the apo telyt to which it is preferable for the portrait and for nearby subjects where the detachment of the planes is particularly pleasant. Not very sought after (it deserves more consideration), which allows the purchase at affordable prices sent on January 16, 2022 |
 | Leica APO Telyt R 180mm f/3.4 Pros: Unparalleled sharpness and color rendering. Cons: Minimum focusing distance, appreciable drop in performance by closing the diaphragm Opinion: Exceptional lens still today for the feeling of sharpness, image cleanliness and color saturation, ideal for distant subjects. Tested with both Canon and Sony the results are still at the highest levels; certainly not particularly suitable for the portrait where I prefer the Elmarit both for the limitation of the minimum focusing distance and for the contribution of blurred sent on January 12, 2022 |
 | Leica Summicron-R 90mm f/2 Pros: Sharpness, blurry contribution, single floor detachment, tonal range Cons: Yield at TA, for his times was good and remains in the portrait. Opinion: A lens that remains unique especially for the feeling of three-dimensionality and the pleasantness of the blurry. It is difficult to explain in words how, as just listed, it translates into the final image. Not least the mechanical construction. A Must Leica. A clarification on the comparison, already widely treated, with the Elmarit 90 f2.8: pros and cons are well balanced, it is not a question of a stop in more or less (today little relevant with digital and high ISO yield), are two "different" goals , prefer one or the other is a matter of personal tastes or needs. I have both of them sent on February 10, 2020 |
 | Zeiss Distagon 25mm f/2.8 (C/Y) Pros: Color Rendition, excellent definition, excellent distortion correction, weight and overall content Cons: Maybe the surrender at the corners Opinion: An objective largely underestimated mainly because of some unflattering judgments about the tests to which it was subjected. Definitely preferable to Brother 28, on which, in my opinion, prevails for the effect of three-dimensionality and airiness from the perspective point of view. Better also for the feeling of cleanliness of the image and for the most tonal range. With Regard to the issue of the versions, mine is West Germany not MM: In the past on film I had tried the MM Japan and the West Germany as the current not MM not experiencing significant differences. Incidentally the Zeiss has launched the MM version on the targets for Contax to the Photokina 1984 with the Contax 159: At the SICOF 1985 in Milan, the optics made in Japan (from 28 to 135 non-luminous + 50 1.4) were already available and soon also the optics produced in Germany pas They are the recognizable MM version for the more closed diaphragm indicated in green on the ring nut. The MM lenses are optically identical to the AE that preceded them as the parent company: the mechanical modification was the only purpose of being able to use on Contax 159, 167 and subsequent models of the program function and time priority. This is to clarify that officially between the 2 series in terms of optical performance there should be no difference. If then in time the Zeiss has improved its production so Dumbledore is not given to know... Certainly have not been modified, at least officially the optical diagrams. Finding it at a good price is a real bargain sent on April 07, 2019 |
 | Zeiss Tele-Tessar 200mm f/3.5 (C/Y) Pros: Global image quality, cost of used, mechanical construction Cons: Weight, footprint, manual MAF, minimum distance of focus, yield at full opening Opinion: Dated goal, not among the best of the Zeiss production for Contax: as already reported by experts, the Tele Tessar has historically been a bit in the shade compared to the eponymous Sonnar 180, brighter and performing at the major openings. The Tele Tessar, however, prevails from F8 and, at the central openings, still holds the comparison with modern optics. It gives particularly pleasant images with a good balance between sharpness, blurry contribution and color intonation typically Zeiss... A recommended purchase considering that you can take it home with less than 200 euros sent on December 31, 2017 |
 | Canon 5D Pros: Gorgeous sensor, price, battery life, robustness Cons: display Opinion: To date, an excellent camera body, file and wonderful crisp, personally than the Mark 2 beyond the nominal pixel I have not seen significant differences (indeed more pleasant portrait and landscape rendered on and autofocus, certainly has a mark2 better display makes videos and live view), is now a realization prices and get the absurd that you pay more for a used APS-C! sent on February 23, 2014 |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
