I love my fader though...
It WILL flare like a ***** pointed straight at the sun though, especially at higher ND levels (this was maxed out). I do have a feeling my lack of IR filter contributed to that looking funky too.
Full res wide open 35L, not much detail lost at all : http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5236/5852330074_7912113f2c_o.jpg
The above only happens when you go above the max ND, and you'll be able to see it in the VF, so just dial it down a tiny notch and it'll be all gone.
Originally Posted by mz-n10
hey...that hurts....u aint got to call me out like that...
nd faders are ok, if you plan to shoot crop. but once u go on FF wide they are worthless. i get maybe 4 stops with mine at 24mm anymore and i get the X pattern.
Heh not you. I meant the stupid elitist MF Zeiss shooters who are like MICRO CONTRAST YEAH HOLY CRAP! Heres the post right after that image:
One would expect that shot above was from a macro lens! You bring up the issue of marked differences in resolving power and contrast at different f stops. The problem I have with deciding on lenses is that the numbers on rating sites do not necessarily correlate with their perceived quality. On Photozone's site, they state up front that they are unable to rate micro contrast (or total contrast for that matter) and quality of bokeh. The Zeiss 35 mm F2 actually doesn't have particularly high MTF values, but it has the Zeiss look. Technically the 50 mm MP has slightly lower resolution in the center compared with the lowly Nikon 50 mm F1.8 at medium f stops. However, some of the most beautiful photos I've seen on FM site were those of Lofoten done with a Zeiss 50 MP with almost total absence of atmospheric haze.
What. Theres more to photography than sharpness, and that picture isn't even any sharper than a kit lens. I don't get people. This guy even says that Zeiss lenses suck but they have a look, these photos look the same to me its so enraging.Edited by dudemanppl - 1/28/12 at 11:07pm