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

Dispelling the Zeiss lens superiority Myth...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
trifox wrote:

In your case: Canon 55 has longer focal length and also different initial aperture than Contax 1.7

You would have to do a test between:

Canon FD 55 f1.2 and Contax Planar 1.2/55 and make a statement Smile


I disagree about having to match the aperture. If I have one lens with me and want to take a photo at, say, f/2, it doesn't matter what the maximum aperture of the lens is—I don't go “hmm, it would be unfair for this lens to be used at f/2 because I have a faster lens at home and it might be better at this setting”. Obviously we can't fairly compare f/1.2 against f/1.7 wide open (it'd be unfair for the f/1.2), but comparing them at the same f-stop is, in my opinion, entirely justified, especially when these two lenses are roughly in the same price range (depends on condition and luck, of course).

The different focal length is problematic, but in my opinion 50mm and 55mm are close enough that it doesn't matter. For example, I wouldn't be able to anticipate the difference that 5mm would make in the photos I'm about to take, so I could just as well take either lens when going out to take pictures. (Although the test photos should probably be composed similarly rather than shot from equal distance, instead of being resized later.)


The difference in crop size this case was only bewteen 6 and 11 pixels in width.

BTW, I did'nt say which crop was which and noone got it right so now I'll give you all the answer:
crop 1 is the Zeiss 50/1.7 at f2.8, crop 2 is the Zeiss 50/1.7 at f5.6, crop 3 is the FL 55mm/1.2 at f2.8 and crop 4 is FL 55mm/1.2 at f5.6.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Orio.

And Mr Zeiss Cool

Ok what i meant is that the original Planar 6 elements in 6 groups model , was the "father" of all ( most ) lenses to come. It doesn't mean that the other manufacturers do worse lenses, but they use and try to improve something that was worth it, i guess, instead of creating another lens scheme.

By the way Tessar is also Zeiss and was much ... used.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:

Ok what i meant is that the original Planar 6 elements in 6 groups model , was the "father" of all ( most ) lenses to come. It doesn't mean that the other manufacturers do worse lenses, but they use and try to improve something that was worth it, i guess, instead of creating another lens scheme.


Without Zeiss and Planar, all the best Leica lenses (which are double gauss based) would simply not exist.

Leica fans take note Wink Razz


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are many pre-planar symmetrical lenses, some of them even consists of 6-elements like planar. It would be likely invented even without Rudolph. The other possibility would be different design capable of similar performance, e.g. continuance of Sonnar evolution.

Or completely different way. There are modern lenses, which are excellent in every aspect and aren't based on any specific design. E.g. the APO Macro Lanthar. It is very likely that it would be possible to design a standard prime lens in a similar way. But it's easier, cheaper and less risky to base it on a proven design. Why to design a fast APO standard prime, if customers are willing to pay for recalculated derivate of 113 yers old idea Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hihihi..I still remember when, in an other forum, I was badly trashed for saying that even an unsharp photo can be good, that I am less concerned with sharpness but how a lens 'paints', it's character, was told that for that brushes and a canvas is needed, not a camera..by the same person who now.... Razz ..makes me very happy, really


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
hexi wrote:

Ok what i meant is that the original Planar 6 elements in 6 groups model , was the "father" of all ( most ) lenses to come. It doesn't mean that the other manufacturers do worse lenses, but they use and try to improve something that was worth it, i guess, instead of creating another lens scheme.


Without Zeiss and Planar, all the best Leica lenses (which are double gauss based) would simply not exist.

Leica fans take note Wink Razz


Thanks zeiss, without you the world couldn't know LEICA. To be the first not equal to be the best. Wink

Rino.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is not about testing the lenses here, it is more these excellent lenses are testing the test .... Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
****it is easier to unsharpen a picture than to to create sharpness in weak pictures - almost impossible.
So in terms of professionality I would always prefer a sharper lens.****

Indeed.....many times it is necessary to crop a shot, but you can get away with OOF or an unsharp lens at times.


Should be a sharp shot with an ETRS but I like it anyway.............
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/img287.jpg


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
****it is easier to unsharpen a picture than to to create sharpness in weak pictures - almost impossible.
So in terms of professionality I would always prefer a sharper lens.****

Indeed.....many times it is necessary to crop a shot, but you can get away with OOF or an unsharp lens at times.


Should be a sharp shot with an ETRS but I like it anyway.............
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn172/chakrata/img287.jpg


I don't agree with a definitive expression about artistic opus. I saw a lot of galleries with pics more sharp, less sharp and none sharp at all. If the photographer find the way to provocate in us certain emotional reaction in front of the image (evocative or admiring also rejection, etc) all way are OK still the unsharp image.

It's right that with the sharpest lens, i can obtain a sharp image and unsharped one. But how much sharpness I need to my artistic job? Do I need a summicron or elmarit or summilux (M of course Wink ) and no other?

One thing is looking for our favorite lenses, and other is to look for a lens to do an artistic opus. In some casus you should chose same lens (yourfavorite and sharper) and in others may be not



Rino.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
***But how much sharpness I need to my artistic job? Do I need a summicron or elmarit or summilux (M of course Wink ) and no other? ***

Well if we were all rich why not have the best just in case you want sharpness or whatever, with my medium format gear the lenses were so good I had to use a diffuser to hide the flaws in portrait shots of some women (before photoshop).
But this thread just shows we can't all agree and use/see photography in different ways.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:41 pm    Post subject: Re: Dispelling the Zeiss lens superiority Myth... Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
Amongst my 5-6 50mm (ish) lenses I own are my Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.7 Planar T* and the Canon FL 55mm f1.2.










Trying to bring this thread back to the original intent - I cheated and found I'd grouped the f5.6 photos as being from the same lens, and the f/2.8 - so clearly I'm wrong there Wink going by color tone.

I also thought 1 & 3 were more legible - Laughing Goes to show how good my eyes are!

Finally I thought the last image had a bit greater DOF - they do look a bit different on my home monitor - which again is probably bogus.

I'd say my eyes are worse than either lens, and at the prices they go for, that better be the case!

Using the fridge as a stand in for typical subjects, I couldn't pick between them reliably - as I've amply demonstrated Laughing And turns out the tone diff has more to do with the exposure than the lens... and now at home I'll be damned if I can tell any roundness related (i.e. OOF transition, resolution of slight distance cues) differences either.

These comparisons tend to stimulate a lot of discussion about 1) the test conditions and 2) the philosophy of design, with a slight subtext of brand favorites. I think you are fortunate indeed to have two such fine lenses - I doubt I have anything close to these in quality, especially physically.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Dispelling the Zeiss lens superiority Myth... Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
DSG wrote:
Amongst my 5-6 50mm (ish) lenses I own are my Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.7 Planar T* and the Canon FL 55mm f1.2.


- I doubt I have anything close to these in quality, especially physically.


You have a SMC takumar 1,4/50; Olympus 1,4/50; among others.

Rino.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Regarding this whole sharpness debate -- I guess I'm not much of an artiste, and more of a technician when it comes to this sort of thing.

I would much rather have a lens that delivers a critically sharp image than one that doesn't -- for any sort of photography. As others have pointed out already, one can always unsharpen an image, but sharpening can be taken only so far in post processing before serious artifacts and noise have been added. If the image information isn't there to begin with, no amount of sharpening is going to put it there.

Now, I would agree that some sorts of optics have their own charm because of their softness, but these are necessarily limited in what can be done with them. I'm thinking Holga here specifically. Hey, Holgas are cool in their own primitive fashion. However, one wouldn't use a Holga for producing critically sharp images anyway. But one could use a critically sharp lens, with the right filtration, to produce much the same effect as the Holga.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
scsambrook wrote:

I guess that Hexi was smiling when he wrote that last sentence, but I'm not sure that 'inventing' the Planar design makes Zeiss a winner. The Planar was one of a series of incremental innovations in the evolution of lens designs, by no means all of which originated in Jena. It might not actually have originated with Zeiss ... Shocked


Well, speculation is always interesting in a discussion, but the facts are facts. Planar was designed by Paul Rudolph in year 1896. At the time, Rudolph worked at -and for- Zeiss.
So I'm afraid, Planar is fully Zeiss Wink


Aha, Orio, please don't think I'm doubting Rudolph's role at Zeiss - my suggestion was that his work (and others both at Jena and elsewhere) may have been part of a process of innovation that built progressivley on what used to be called 'prior art'.

Rudolph's talent isn't disputed, what I'm trying to say is that it may be unsafe to assume that Zeiss (or any other firm) had, or has, an absolute originality or superiority in lens design. As the saying goes. "It's a wise child that truly knows its own father" Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
..........
I would much rather have a lens that delivers a critically sharp image than one that doesn't ............
Now, I would agree that some sorts of optics have their own charm because of their softness..........


Michael I want the lens to be sharp, but the ooF rendering and the colors, how the lens 'paints' I often find even more important.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For the purposes of "art" photography the quest for ultimate sharpness in a lens is a waste of effort. Some of the best art photographs in the history of photography were not crtitically sharp, but conveyed a certain feeling, evoked an emotion that had very little to do with the quality of the lens. Now there are areas of professional photography where ultimate technical quality is important, such as product or food photography or for a magazine cover. But unless you're making your living with that type of photography, don't waste your time with comparing MTF charts and instead concentrate on things like lighting, composition, etc.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
…on the other hand, if you are not on a quest to find the sharpest lens, but already have a lens (or several lenses that you would consider using in similar situations), why shouldn't you test their sharpness among other things to find out how they perform and what kind of situations they are most suited for?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
hihihi..I still remember when, in an other forum, I was badly trashed for saying that even an unsharp photo can be good, that I am less concerned with sharpness but how a lens 'paints', it's character, was told that for that brushes and a canvas is needed, not a camera..by the same person who now.... Razz ..makes me very happy, really


Hi Andreas,

think this was a hint of our discussion in the other forum.

To make the things clear to you.. sharpness is part of the lens behavior and the photographers intention. Its also mostly important for the main aspects/in focus parts/spots of an image for the Viewer.

Not more, but not less.

To do unsharp images is like the images discussed in the german forum, could be interesting in terms of astonishing, "painting like - effects". Thats all.
You can do this also in Photoshop.

But if we talking about about lenses, nobody would buy a "Super Albinar" in terms of unsharpness.

The important part of an image must be in focus.. That is no question of sharpness or not. To show "floor light traces" in the rain could be interesting and is a nice to see "painting" like the "lover-couple" in the unsharp black and white Image.. but these are not parts of la ens behavior.
Thats are parts of the photographers "creativity".

So dont mix this aspects...

You are right in Terms of bokeh, OOF Behavior and color-reendering. This is also for me important in addition to controlled sharpness and usabiltiy.
All this terms are important for a lens which wants to stay in my "TOOLBOX".




Cheers
Henry


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
scsambrook wrote:

I guess that Hexi was smiling when he wrote that last sentence, but I'm not sure that 'inventing' the Planar design makes Zeiss a winner. The Planar was one of a series of incremental innovations in the evolution of lens designs, by no means all of which originated in Jena. It might not actually have originated with Zeiss ... Shocked


Well, speculation is always interesting in a discussion, but the facts are facts. Planar was designed by Paul Rudolph in year 1896. At the time, Rudolph worked at -and for- Zeiss.
So I'm afraid, Planar is fully Zeiss Wink


Orio,

Originally Planar was truly symmetrical and suffered badly from coma and was quickly relegated to a macro lens. I might get flamed for this, but it was Taylor-Hobson who, in the Series X (code name OPIC) which turned the Planar's Double-Gauss (with buried surfaces in the inner groups) design into a viable lens, by mainly intrducing a bit of asymmetry into the design, making the front half bigger.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Dispelling the Zeiss lens superiority Myth... Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
Nesster wrote:
DSG wrote:
Amongst my 5-6 50mm (ish) lenses I own are my Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.7 Planar T* and the Canon FL 55mm f1.2.


- I doubt I have anything close to these in quality, especially physically.


You have a SMC takumar 1,4/50; Olympus 1,4/50; among others.

Rino.


Nice of you to point that out - however, the Oly has a lazy aperture, and the SMC Tak is a bit loose... my daughter stole my good Super Tak 50/1.4 Laughing

So, yeah, I lack a lens with the cachet and physical quality... Not that I complain, as the ones I have satisfy.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:


Thanks zeiss, without you the world couldn't know LEICA. To be the first not equal to be the best. Wink

Rino.


Now, Rino, that's not the case is it? If Berek hadn't "copied" the Tessar he could have "copied" something else - could he not? Very Happy
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2