Focus technique

[Larken]

Originally Posted by kennylovrin

Just to kind of finish of this thread, I've decided to go for either a C Biogon or a Biogon instead. So I'll swap the 28mm for a 35mm first, then get a 28 Zeiss later. In the midst of all this I've realized I'm more of a 50mm FOV guy, so I'll go back to 35mm at the same time here - I had the 35mm nokton before but I didn't like that one either (which is why i switched to the ultron).

Not that it may interetst anyone, but I felt I needed to "close" the thread as I started it.

if it matters to you, 'tests' have shown the f2.8 c biogon to be generally a little sharper than the f2.0 variant for zeiss wide open (its tough to see the difference, as the f2.0 is an awesome lens in its own right too). However, the extra stop in f2 can make the difference in a usable shot night.

I use the c biogon myself, and I am extremely satisfied with the lens, for day shooting only. At night, I hardly need bother. I suppose the only alternatives is to either get the f1.2/f1.4 noktons (affordable, but I just can't bring myself to give up the biogon), or the f1.4 summilux (which is the ideal lens to go for, but hardly affordable to me).

[kennylovrin]

Originally Posted by Larken

if it matters to you, 'tests' have shown the f2.8 c biogon to be generally a little sharper than the f2.0 variant for zeiss wide open (its tough to see the difference, as the f2.0 is an awesome lens in its own right too). However, the extra stop in f2 can make the difference in a usable shot night.

I use the c biogon myself, and I am extremely satisfied with the lens, for day shooting only. At night, I hardly need bother. I suppose the only alternatives is to either get the f1.2/f1.4 noktons (affordable, but I just can't bring myself to give up the biogon), or the f1.4 summilux (which is the ideal lens to go for, but hardly affordable to me).

I have been debating the f/2 vs the f/2.8 actually. When I think about how I've been using my R-D1 I've realized I use it 99% of the time in situations where I can't even get close to 2.8 because the shutter only goes to 1/2000 - like bright daylight. So in that sense the 2.8 is completely fine, especially weighing in that it's a bit cheaper.

However, when I start considering the 1% of lower light shots and the possibility to add an ND filter as I like shallower DOF, then the f/2 starts to look like a more valuable option. However, it is so rare that I'm not sure I need to go that route at the moment, so I'm still leaning towards the 2.8. The thing is that if I really want to shoot in low light of with really thin DOF, I'm better of using my 5dmkii for those shots. And if I one day chose to drop the SLR kit then that will leave me with money for a faster lens for my R-D1.

[agz]

Hi, I use the same lens (Ultron 28mm f/2) on an RD1. The sharpness of your shots is similar in my case. Based on experience, images taken with the Ultron are contrasty but need some additional sharpening in PP to get that 'crispness' I look for.

Focus shift and pixel-peeping sharpness aside, the Ultron still presents one of the best value normal (42mm equiv) and fast (f/2) lenses for the RD1.

Hope this helps.

[rollbahn]

f2 on my ZM 35/2 is definitely a little softer than 2.8 but I seem to always be somewhere where I need that extra light so it comes in handy. As usual, it's a tradeoff game between sharpness, high ISO and shutter speed.

I find that with static images I can get a usable image out of the R-D1 at 1/15 second and I shoot quite often at 1/30. I'm quite amazed how slow it can go and still keep steady so 2.8 might work ok for you.