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

Distagon T* 1,4/35
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't think he has the C/Y version, or does he? Otherwise there could be a more direct comparison...


PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aleksanderpolo wrote:
I don't think he has the C/Y version, or does he? Otherwise there could be a more direct comparison...


I bet he doesn't, because a) he never mentions it, nor he did ever mention any other Contax lenses previously, and b) he made a comment in the end of his review, where he says something like "you should not mind the MTFs for this lens, because for this time I think Zeiss wanted to come up with something different". I mean, he talks like if he thinks that this is a brand new design conceived by Zeiss today to make a breakthrough in the world of photography.
I bet he does not even know who Erhard Glatzel was.

Sic transit gloria mundi...

I hate it when people, and reviewers especially, are history-unaware, and act and think as if the world has started today...


PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I bet he does not even know who Erhard Glatzel was.


I don't see how that could even remotely influence the qualitative judgements he makes in his reviews. Didn't he use to be an all AF Nikon shooter mostly? He's certainly not a manual lens nut like us here in this forum and I really don't get why you would discount Lloyd's opinion because he doesn't know the history of Contax lenses. He's seems like a practical guy to me (which shows in his pictures Wink ), so it doesn't surprise me that he doesn't know.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
Orio wrote:
I bet he does not even know who Erhard Glatzel was.


I don't see how that could even remotely influence the qualitative judgements he makes in his reviews. Didn't he use to be an all AF Nikon shooter mostly? He's certainly not a manual lens nut like us here in this forum and I really don't get why you would discount Lloyd's opinion because he doesn't know the history of Contax lenses. He's seems like a practical guy to me (which shows in his pictures Wink ), so it doesn't surprise me that he doesn't know.


I am not discounting anybody's opinion. I am saying that a reviewer that calls himself a professional and who sells his reviews for money should have a deeper knowledge of the things that he reviews.
Also because it's not about an obscure no-name lens, it's about one of the landmark stones of the history of optics.
It's like if a movie critic would watch the 1998's remake of Rear Window, and write about it, ignoring the original Hitchock movie.

On another subject: I am of the impression that you are following me through different threads trying to be polemic with everything that I write.
This does not flatter me.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
Orio wrote:
I bet he does not even know who Erhard Glatzel was.


I don't see how that could even remotely influence the qualitative judgements he makes in his reviews. Didn't he use to be an all AF Nikon shooter mostly? He's certainly not a manual lens nut like us here in this forum and I really don't get why you would discount Lloyd's opinion because he doesn't know the history of Contax lenses. He's seems like a practical guy to me (which shows in his pictures Wink ), so it doesn't surprise me that he doesn't know.


One thing that I know a lot of people are concerned is whether the new Zx 35/1.4 will have a similar or different drawing style compared with the C/Y or Rollei version. So if he has used those two versions before, his review will be more valuable and helpful to the intended audience.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aleksanderpolo wrote:
One thing that I know a lot of people are concerned is whether the new Zx 35/1.4 will have a similar or different drawing style compared with the C/Y or Rollei version. So if he has used those two versions before, his review will be more valuable and helpful to the intended audience.


(Like I've said before) I don't think Lloyd is specifically aiming at the audience of alternative lens users (i.e. people who are adapting old lenses to modern bodies). I think he has almost only reviewed lenses that are commercially available today, always providing links to B&H where the lenses can be bought.

I agree that it is a bit odd that he doesn't seem to be knowledgeable about Zeiss history (considering his interest in Zeiss lenses and binoculars), but at the same time it doesn't surprise me because it's not in the line of all that he has been posting on his site.


@Orio: No, I am not following you. Smile Sorry if it came across like that. I just chose to browse this forum and happened to disagree with another of your posts.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Being a subscriber (but not for long anymore), I've read the full version of his report, and well... I have to smile at the enthusiastic report as he's discovering this lens that we have known and loved for so many years now... he sounds so naive Very Happy
I mean... like discovering the Americas in 2010, or something... Laughing


I agree. It is not worth paying for his material.
I was very reluctant to pay for a lens review. I was right.

Lloyd is no authority on optics or a great artist.
He just pretends he is. Effective self-marketing.

Some of us made the mistake...

Last edited by Nikos on Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:39 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:

Of course, I guess there's always the chance that they've improved the coating, better control for CA, and perhaps, being a wide angle lens, perform better on digital sensors with better control over telecentricity.

At least, one would hope so with the price they're asking Very Happy


The 2/100 MP has exactly the same price.
However CA control is not optimal.
Taking into account that the 35mm is much wider, and the CA performance of my 2/35 ZE, I would not hope for much...


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Regarding improving the coating for the Z version of Distagon 1.4/35... do you think it's possible?



I don't think so. Wink Very Happy
Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Regarding improving the coating for the Z version of Distagon 1.4/35... do you think it's possible?


I don't think so. Wink Very Happy
Laughing


Hehe, OK coating is perfect. CA is really the only thing that *might* bother me at times. But I'm a dickish pixel-peeper at times Smile


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Regarding improving the coating for the Z version of Distagon 1.4/35... do you think it's possible?



I don't think so. Wink Very Happy
Laughing


Is this wide open?
Isn't this too much DoF for 1.4?


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nkanellopoulos wrote:

Is this wide open?
Isn't this too much DoF for 1.4?


I don't remember which aperture it was. The DOF is not always trustable indicator when the lens is a wide angle and you focus beyond the 5 meters, which is what I did. Plus the image is resized, so the apparent DOF increases by compression together with the apparent sharpness. I rarely shoot wide open unless I am absolutely forced to do so. It surely was not stopped down much because it was evening and I had to freeze people's movements. It was probably something in the f/2 to f/2.8 range.

But, when you have direct light sources in the frame, does not matter if the lens is wide open or stopped down. If there is inclination to flare, flare will hit. Stopping down may help in the daylight, when you frame to avoid the sun but the wide open lens picks parasite rays from the side. And then you see a veil. But here, we have a full row of strong tungsten lamps inside the frame. How could a lateral not-seen light cause flare from parasite rays, when 6-7 in-frame strong lamps with direct rays can't?

P.S. take a look at the highlights in the distance. They are almost round, with just a hint of blades edge. My guess is it was f/2 or f/2.8 at the "worst".


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nkanellopoulos wrote:
rawhead wrote:

Of course, I guess there's always the chance that they've improved the coating, better control for CA, and perhaps, being a wide angle lens, perform better on digital sensors with better control over telecentricity.

At least, one would hope so with the price they're asking Very Happy


The 2/100 MP has exactly the same price.
However CA control is not optimal.
Taking into account that the 35mm is much wider, and the CA performance of my 2/35 ZE, I would not hope for much...


If you are so unsatisified with Zeiss's CA performance, would you consider selling your lens at a price fitting to their horrible performance and built quality and go back to the superior Canon? Wink

But seriously, no matter how expensive/overprice you think a lens is, I don't think it is realistic to expect the designer to correct for every aberration. If Zeiss choose to correct primarily for CA or LoCA, you will probably be complaining about the lack of sharpness, micro-contrast, bad bokeh, etc. If CA is your primary concern, perhaps an Apo lens will be more suitable for you?


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree that CA should not be treated as absolute tragedy. Yet, it should not be understated, either. It can become a problem in certain situations.

Nikos comments make sense when you think that there are competitor lenses that do better for the same price - I mean the Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 105mm Macro has no CA which is perfect for product macro shooting such as jewels, watches, etc.
The Zeiss 100 Makro has the same overall image qualities (sharpness, bokeh), but it does aberrate visibly, which creates a quality problem for professional work under certain lighting situations. If I had to shoot macro for work, I would buy the Voigtlaender.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2