Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

A value of 50
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
Gardener wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Zeiss 1.2/85 outperforms the Canon

Two points here - first, as a custom produced lens (I understand only 2000 were ever made) that costs $5-6k it damn better outperform Canon. Second - not in this test it does not.

The test on the Chinese site clearly shown the the Planar 1.2/85 is superior to the Canon 1.2/85 L interns of resolution and field flatness. Only the contrast of Canon L is better than the Planar.

In my opinion, the Contax 1.4/50 and 1.4/85 from Zeiss are designed as portrait lens and both of them are not very sharp at wide open. On the other hand, both Contax 1.2/55 and 1.2/85 are designed to delivery sharp iamge from wide open.


One other factor is the build quality - Canon lenses are cheap and nasty in their build quality, I always remember the L 1.2/50 where the optical block just fell out one day because it was secured to the barrel with double-sided sticky tape!


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All the 85mm lenses tested by Roger Cicala are excellent, and perfectly suitable for professional use.
The test showed that the best Nikon and Canon lenses can be as good or better than the Zeiss.

If I were to rank the lenses by performance, it would be something like this:
Canon: the best lens for portrait
Nikon: the best lens for landscape, astrophotography, general use
Sigma: the best lens for low-budget buyers
Zeiss: the best lens for Zeiss loyalists

An important point that Roger Cicala did not mention was that the Zeiss was the only MF-only lens in the test.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
An important point that Roger Cicala did not mention was that the Zeiss was the only MF-only lens in the test.


In the comments he actually mentions that they attempted to test Samyang 85 as well, but the 7 copies they have were all over the place, so they decided to exclude them.

PS. I got so interested by this whole Zeiss/Nikon thing that I decided to run my Planar 50/1.7 against 50/1.4 and 1.8 Ai Nikkors. And guess what - I spent an hour looking for that planar with no success whatsoever. OTOH, I realized I have accumulated five 35/2's - now that would be a test!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:


Zeiss: the best lens for Zeiss loyalists

.


appreciate your summary... I like the Zeiss loyalists tag. My only question is, would the Zeiss choice always be the best choice for the "Zeiss loyalist"?

Here is my summary of your summary:

Canon: the best lens for portraiture
Nikon: the best lens for landscape, astrophotography, general use, professional photographry of all types and everything else including portraiture (I know I said Canon was best for portraits but that was before I realized Nikon was in this list)
Sigma: the best lens for those who cannot afford Nikon lenses
Zeiss: the best lens for those who only care about the brand name on the barrel, similar to those who wear designer jeans for status, etc.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Please spread the message to that Zeiss are not as good as other brands to people all over the world. I will buy some Zeiss lenses when the price drops. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
Please spread the message to that Zeiss are not as good as other brands to people all over the world. I will buy some Zeiss lenses when the price drops. Wink


Maybe that's what Gerald is really upto - destroy the reputation of Zeiss lenses so he can afford to add more of them to his collection of 14. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Maybe that's what Gerald is really upto - destroy the reputation of Zeiss lenses so he can afford to add more of them to his collection of 14. Wink


Oh My Gosh! That would be so insane as to destroy the reputation of a girl before marrying her!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kenetik wrote:
Gerald wrote:


Zeiss: the best lens for Zeiss loyalists

.


appreciate your summary... I like the Zeiss loyalists tag. My only question is, would the Zeiss choice always be the best choice for the "Zeiss loyalist"?

Here is my summary of your summary:

Canon: the best lens for portraiture
Nikon: the best lens for landscape, astrophotography, general use, professional photographry of all types and everything else including portraiture (I know I said Canon was best for portraits but that was before I realized Nikon was in this list)
Sigma: the best lens for those who cannot afford Nikon lenses
Zeiss: the best lens for those who only care about the brand name on the barrel, similar to those who wear designer jeans for status, etc.


Here is MY summary of the summary of the summary:

Just use any lens, it does not matter, what only matters is,
if a good photographer uses it - or a bad one Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:21 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:21 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OOOHHHH nice watch. Cool ( surely a Zeiss among lesser timepieces Wink )


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bernhardas wrote:
And the Zeiss lens might be good for watch photography. (In my humble opinion)

A Zeiss lens would be even better for hourglass photography!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
GOOLY GOSH!

your Ziess can tell the time! Shocked

I can only get my Ziess to tell me about metal fatigue Sad

I wish mine told the time. Not very useful




Cololur bigger
Sans Colour bigger

Yeah Ziess are crap.


# Oh that's the metal jacket of a screw in cable release


PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
But designing even a standard 50mm lens for a 46.5mm register distance was not so easy in the 1950s. Even to produce a "simple" 2/50, Nikon had to come up with this:

And while generally a lens with such modest specifications performs excellently from just about any manufacturer, the Nikkor-S was not particularly good (or at least it does not stand out from its competitors). When Nikon tried again and came up with its replacement, the Nikkor-H they produced something really nice.

I only point this out because I tire of hearing the legend about how legendary Nikon's lenses were. Some of them, even very basic ones, were not legendary let alone great.

Even to produce a "simple" 1.8/50, Zeiss had to come up with this:


Interesting, isn't it? Nikon took a 6-element double-Gauss lens and placed a negative element in front. Nine years later, Zeiss took a 6-element double-Gauss lens and placed a negative element in front.

Bottom line: Nikon was a company with great difficulty to design a weird and mediocre 50mm lens in 1959, and Zeiss was a brilliant company that designed an elegant and outstanding 50mm lens in 1968. Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm like Michael, in that I'm listening quietly and don't have much to add of any value. Except that so far the effect of fashion has been
overlooked. It became fashionable for pro-photographers to have a Nikon hung on their shoulder, not necessarily because it was "the
best", but simply because they didn't want feel they were out of the loop. So, although the ad may not be untruthful about the numbers
using Nikon, it says nothing about quality.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:
But designing even a standard 50mm lens for a 46.5mm register distance was not so easy in the 1950s. Even to produce a "simple" 2/50, Nikon had to come up with this:

And while generally a lens with such modest specifications performs excellently from just about any manufacturer, the Nikkor-S was not particularly good (or at least it does not stand out from its competitors). When Nikon tried again and came up with its replacement, the Nikkor-H they produced something really nice.

I only point this out because I tire of hearing the legend about how legendary Nikon's lenses were. Some of them, even very basic ones, were not legendary let alone great.

Even to produce a "simple" 1.8/50, Zeiss had to come up with this:


Interesting, isn't it? Nikon took a 6-element double-Gauss lens and placed a negative element in front. Nine years later, Zeiss took a 6-element double-Gauss lens and placed a negative element in front.

Bottom line: Nikon was a company with great difficulty to design a weird and mediocre 50mm lens in 1959, and Zeiss was a brilliant company that designed an elegant and outstanding 50mm lens in 1968. Laughing

There are more than one reason for a relatively complex design. I think it is better to compare lenses with real world samples than just looking at the lens diagrams.

FYI: The Carl Zeiss Ultron is deigned by Voigtländer(Patent US3612663). Zeiss put the name on it after they competely take over Voigtlander .


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, the Ultron is a Tronnier design for Voigtlander, nothing to do with Zeiss, only carried the Zeiss name because Voigtlander was bought out by Zeiss.

The Western Zeiss produced the Contarex Planar f2 50mm in 1953 using a classical 6/4 Planar design, so Gerald is completely wrong in saying Zeiss needed to use a 7th element to produce a 50mm for SLR. The Contarex appeared before the Nikon F and was equipped with the 2/50 from launch. Nikon supplied a 58mm lens with the F and didn't develop a 50mm for more than two years later.



Marco Cavina provides a wonderful article on the development of the Planar for 35mm SLRs:

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Zeiss_Planar_50mm_story/00_pag.htm

It includes this diagram showing the three 1950's designs for the Contarex which shows Zeiss were developing very advanced types that fully took advantage of new glass types computer assistance from the early 1950s.

In the East, Carl Zeiss Jena produced the f2 50mm Flexon/Pancolar less than a year after the Planar 2/50 using only 6 elements, same with the later 1.8/50 Pancolar.



German companies lead the way in optical design in the 1950s and early 1960s, the Japanese were largely copying German designs and didn't catch up in innovation of their own designs until well into the 1960s.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Do you forget what american war reporters during the Korea's war said about Nikon lenses, the italian rrp list or the advertising of Nikon?

By the way, it is wellknown that this Ultron is a Voigtlaender. It is even written on the document produced by Gerald. It does not help to use document that you can't read yourself.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
I'm like Michael, in that I'm listening quietly and don't have much to add of any value. Except that so far the effect of fashion has been
overlooked. It became fashionable for pro-photographers to have a Nikon hung on their shoulder, not necessarily because it was "the
best", but simply because they didn't want feel they were out of the loop. So, although the ad may not be untruthful about the numbers
using Nikon, it says nothing about quality.


It's also very important to look beyond both fashion and quality in assessing Nikon's success in marketing professional photo equipment from the 1960s through to the late 1980s. Although it's seemingly impossible to obtain reliable figures for the financial value of different market segments to Nikon, the propaganda value of becoming the principal player in the high-profile professional market was very, very considerable in further influencing amateur sales. The key segments in the pro market were press photography and photo-journalism and Nikon employed a then-novel strategy meant to ease the company's penetration and domination of both fields.

Building on a successful foundation based on mechanical reliability and the provision of 'unusual' lenses, the company used its foreign distributors to engage with corporate purchasers and persuade them that Nikon cameras would not only do the job but that the company would provide support services far in advance of what any other firm was willing or able to do. The most obvious example was the presence of technicians at major sporting events such as motor races, an area where Nikon held a hegemonical position through its array of long lenses and motor drive units. If something broke down, Team Nikon would either fix it or provide a substitute. Less obvious was the provision of loan or trial equipment and - though hard evidence is hard to produce - preferential purchase facilities, either directly from national distributors or through selected dealers.

One point of particular importance is that nowhere in this process was it necessary for Nikon to have had the 'best' lenses. They had to be good enough to provide images suitable for press reproduction but that was all. Nor did Nikon have to make the 'best' cameras - they simply had to be good enough for the job and supported by a first class and comprehensive back-up facility to keep the photographers going. Nikon's pre-eminence in 'heavy duty' professional photography had as much to do with long-term marketing strategy as with optical superiority. Once major newspapers and weekly or monthly publications had adopted Nikon, what amounted to a form of peer-group pressure eased the brand's infiltration of much, if not most, of the rest of the world of professional photography. By the time a truly potential rival to the Nikon appeared in the form of the Canon F1, Nikon had built up a momentum that Canon were never able to overcome in the film era, despite adopting many of the tactics used earlier by Nikon.

When I wrote earlier in this thread that truth is not always to be found in adverts, I was trying to indicate that even if a statement is materially correct it may not show fully the nature or extent of what it refers to. And as for being able to substantiate what I say, I worked in the photo retail business throughout the period when Nikon was the 'brand of choice' for most professionals. I can testify to the near impossibility of most retailers selling Nikon to corporate buyers and to the protracted repair times for Nikon amateur-owned equipment because priority was accorded to professionals.

I have no axe to grind - I've owned enough Nikon gear to know it's good and have lived long enough to know that good enough for the task is all that's needed to do the task properly.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
peterqd wrote:
I'm like Michael, in that I'm listening quietly and don't have much to add of any value. Except that so far the effect of fashion has been
overlooked. It became fashionable for pro-photographers to have a Nikon hung on their shoulder, not necessarily because it was "the
best", but simply because they didn't want feel they were out of the loop. So, although the ad may not be untruthful about the numbers
using Nikon, it says nothing about quality.


It's also very important to look beyond both fashion and quality in assessing Nikon's success in marketing professional photo equipment from the 1960s through to the late 1980s. Although it's seemingly impossible to obtain reliable figures for the financial value of different market segments to Nikon, the propaganda value of becoming the principal player in the high-profile professional market was very, very considerable in further influencing amateur sales. The key segments in the pro market were press photography and photo-journalism and Nikon employed a then-novel strategy meant to ease the company's penetration and domination of both fields.

Building on a successful foundation based on mechanical reliability and the provision of 'unusual' lenses, the company used its foreign distributors to engage with corporate purchasers and persuade them that Nikon cameras would not only do the job but that the company would provide support services far in advance of what any other firm was willing or able to do. The most obvious example was the presence of technicians at major sporting events such as motor races, an area where Nikon held a hegemonical position through its array of long lenses and motor drive units. If something broke down, Team Nikon would either fix it or provide a substitute. Less obvious was the provision of loan or trial equipment and - though hard evidence is hard to produce - preferential purchase facilities, either directly from national distributors or through selected dealers.

One point of particular importance is that nowhere in this process was it necessary for Nikon to have had the 'best' lenses. They had to be good enough to provide images suitable for press reproduction but that was all. Nor did Nikon have to make the 'best' cameras - they simply had to be good enough for the job and supported by a first class and comprehensive back-up facility to keep the photographers going. Nikon's pre-eminence in 'heavy duty' professional photography had as much to do with long-term marketing strategy as with optical superiority. Once major newspapers and weekly or monthly publications had adopted Nikon, what amounted to a form of peer-group pressure eased the brand's infiltration of much, if not most, of the rest of the world of professional photography. By the time a truly potential rival to the Nikon appeared in the form of the Canon F1, Nikon had built up a momentum that Canon were never able to overcome in the film era, despite adopting many of the tactics used earlier by Nikon.

When I wrote earlier in this thread that truth is not always to be found in adverts, I was trying to indicate that even if a statement is materially correct it may not show fully the nature or extent of what it refers to. And as for being able to substantiate what I say, I worked in the photo retail business throughout the period when Nikon was the 'brand of choice' for most professionals. I can testify to the near impossibility of most retailers selling Nikon to corporate buyers and to the protracted repair times for Nikon amateur-owned equipment because priority was accorded to professionals.

I have no axe to grind - I've owned enough Nikon gear to know it's good and have lived long enough to know that good enough for the task is all that's needed to do the task properly.


Sounds about right.
Thank you for a well thought through and succinct summary of the times involved.
I too have no dog in this fight, but I could not agree more with your last statement........
..........good enough for the task is all that's needed to do the task properly.
Well said.
OH


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:

Bottom line: Nikon was a company with great difficulty to design a weird and mediocre 50mm lens in 1959, and Zeiss was a brilliant company that designed an elegant and outstanding 50mm lens in 1968. Laughing


Well you've got that right. The Nikkor S 2/50 is mediocre. Whereas the Icarex Ultron was the best performing 50mm SLR lens of its era. Go ahead and test them against each other. Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
Gerald wrote:

Bottom line: Nikon was a company with great difficulty to design a weird and mediocre 50mm lens in 1959, and Zeiss was a brilliant company that designed an elegant and outstanding 50mm lens in 1968. Laughing


Well you've got that right. The Nikkor S 2/50 is mediocre. Whereas the Icarex Ultron was the best performing 50mm SLR lens of its era. Go ahead and test them against each other. Laughing


I was being ironic but it seems I was too subtle ... Sad
The point you may not have realized is that the optical scheme of the Zeiss Ultron is almost a copy of a Nikkor designed 9 years ago.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
FYI: The Carl Zeiss Ultron is deigned by Voigtlander(Patent US3612663). Zeiss put the name on it after they competely take over Voigtlander .

Briefly, long ago Zeiss got used to put its own name on products made by other companies. Today, most Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina in Japan. Nonetheless, if "mother" Zeiss "adopted" the Ultron as its "daughter", the Zeiss Ultron is a Zeiss!

What I wanted to highlight was that the Zeiss Ultron 1968 had a similar design to a Nikkor lens from 1959. If some people consider that the design of the 1959 Nikkor 50mm F2 is a proof that Nikon had difficulty in designing a 50mm lens in 1959, why don't they explain why Voigtlander copied in 1968 a Nikon design from 1959?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
By the time a truly potential rival to the Nikon appeared in the form of the Canon F1, Nikon had built up a momentum that Canon were never able to overcome in the film era, despite adopting many of the tactics used earlier by Nikon.


Canon overtook Nikon already in the film era with the EOS system. Nikon started losing the battle for Canon when autofocus technology became mature and Nikon was late in making fast autofocusing professional lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
By the time a truly potential rival to the Nikon appeared in the form of the Canon F1, Nikon had built up a momentum that Canon were never able to overcome in the film era, despite adopting many of the tactics used earlier by Nikon.


Canon overtook Nikon already in the film era with the EOS system. Nikon started losing the battle for Canon when autofocus technology became mature and Nikon was late in making fast autofocusing professional lenses.


Gerald - yes indeed, I think I must agree with your comment about autofocusing. I should have made clear that I was writing about 'old fashioned' manual focus cameras. I ceased to be involved in the photo-retail business soon after the first autofocus systems started to appear and my knowledge of the industry beyond then is less complete. But I do recall we used to say that the Nikon F301 wouldn't even focus on a Zebra Very Happy I think the problem lay in the body, though, rather than the lenses.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7