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

New Sonnar 180/2.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Sort of on-topic, I think, regarding fitting the lens mount attachment to
my 1/4 inch tripod screw:

Does the tripod adapter take a 3/8 to 1/4 inch adapter insert, or is it a
7/16 to 1/4 inch adapter insert? Info would be greatly appreciated. I am
not home right now, or I would just find out using available screws I
have around the house.


The CZJ Sonnar 180 MC tripod collar has a 3/8" thread so you can either use a QR plate with a 3/8" stud or fit a 3/8-1/4 reducer.

I have this lens and can readily confirm this - it also applies to the CZJ Sonnar 300 MC as well.

If you can though Larry, try fitting a reasonably large diameter metal washer between the lens mount and your tripod to increase the footprint of the mount and help stabilise the lens as it's fairly heavy.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:

Good, since this brochure talks about lenses that are not meant for photography, but for film Smile . Considering the different requirements for film shooting, it might be sensible to have maximum performance at infinity.
However, for photographic lenses this would not be optimal vis-a-vis all-around performance, so I am still sceptical.
Also, please note that the brochure is a modern one - I'd love to see something from the good old days Wink


Well, I already told you that I have read this concept more than one time in Zeiss texts. I surely have no interest or advantage in inventing such thing if it wasn't real. You can believe me or not. I certainly have no time for searching for those quotes. I for sure know from direct source that Zeiss optimizes all their lenses for infinity, except Makro and of course those with floating elements are a case apart.

Evidently there must be a good reason for optimizing lenses for infinity, if Zeiss makes that choice, and if a reason is good for Zeiss lenses it must be good also for the lenses of the other makers.
We can only guess that evidently the average performance of a lens optimized for infinity is better than the average performance of lenses optimized for other distances.
We have a clear proof of that when we examine old macro lenses such as the Nikkor 60mm 2.8 macro lens, a super lens for macro shots, but a notable sucker at infinity.
While evidently lenses optimized for infinity give a decent performance in closeups down to a certain minimum focusing distance (which lens makers set wisely).

P.S. why should a lens made to shoot movies have requirements for infinity and a lens to shoot still have not? In movies they make close-up shots just like in still photography. Actually, thinking about it, movies use close-up shots a lot more than still photographers. There can be whole albums of infinity landscape photos. But in typical movies, usually it's one or two establishing shots and from then on it's all close-up shots or middle ground shots.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Olivier wrote:
Congratulations, Laurence. Very Happy

You asked me for some pictures. I don't think you saw them.
Here they are : http://forum.mflenses.com/some-sonnar-2-8-180-shots-up-for-laurence-t28288,highlight,sonnar+180.html
Wink


Wow! THANKS for remembering this, Olivier. I'm looking especially at
the image 6. The out-of-focus areas are like creamy butter. This shot
caught me, and I first focused my eye on the overall bokeh, but then the
snapping-sharp green flower pulled me right in! I actually think all of your
flower shots are gems, but number 6 really does it! Fine work, and I
respect your abilities with this obviously fine lens. I sure hope my copy
is a good one. As I said, I do have the little ZX-5N loaded, but it has been
a rainstorm outside today, and I really prefer to get some outdoor shots
for the first use of the Sonnar. And, of course, a good lens doesn't make
me a better photographer, but it sure helps to inspire me to do better.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bob! THANK YOU for your information, and for the tip on a washer. GREAT idea! I appreciate you responding to this question.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote: We can only guess that evidently the average performance of a lens optimized for infinity is better than the average performance of lenses optimized for other distances.

I absolutely agree, and I'm guessing that Zeiss would craft a lens with
optimizations for various distances, depending on various major uses,
and especially infinity.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:

I absolutely agree, and I'm guessing that Zeiss would craft a lens with
optimizations for various distances, depending on various major uses,
and especially infinity.


It doesn't seem so, Larry, since the Z version of the Planar 1.4/85, regarded by everyone as a portrait lens, comes in fact optimized for infinity when it leaves the factory.
Of course Zeiss must be aware of the main use of the lens, but still think that the lens should perform at the top level at infinity, rather than provide a deteriorated infinity performance.
Evidently, there must be just a small performance decrease in the closest range when the lens is optimized for infinity, while there must be a more significant performance decrease at infinity if the lens is optimized for the closest range.

And in fact all of the Zeiss MTF (as you may know, Zeiss is about the only company to perform real MTF tests on a production copy rather than fake MTF tests made by computers on the base of the lens design) are taken at infinity, except where otherwise noted.

I know from a 100% serious source of a person who had it's 1.4/85 Z optimized by a Zeiss technician for use at the closest range. It is done by shifting one of the internal elements of a very small distance. The adjustment must be performed with professional instruments. The modification causes a detriment to the optical performance at infinity, to gain a bit better sharpness wide open in the close range.

I personally don't think it's worth the hassle and I much prefer a versatile lens that can excel in both close range and infinity (albeit in close range just a little bit less), to a lens that is optimized for close range and sucks at infinity.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
And I can imagine that for "everyday use" the difference would be very
small - perhaps almost undetectable to the human eye in tests with
significant control measures. Shocked So yes, I too would rather have a lens
that is "good" at close and long focus, rather than "excellent" at one
focus and "moderately good" at another focus.

I have ordered the Pentacon 6 to Pentax 645 adapter. I used to have one,
but of COURSE I sold it earlier. It's rather disconcerting how many things
that I've sold turn out to be items that I want or need again! Laughing It's all
part of flailing around, trying to optimize equipment based on my needs (or
on my whims!). Perhaps I need to start a thread to see how many of us
have sold equipment, only to want it again later. Cool


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
....Perhaps I need to start a thread to see how many of us have sold equipment, only to want it again later. Cool


Sod's Law basically states that whatever you got rid of last week, you will definitely need the following week and the longer you had it before disposal, the quicker you will need it back... Rolling Eyes Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Regarding infinity optimization . . . I'm not an optical technologist and what follows is from memory but it might add to the picture of whether or not lenses are "optimized" for a particular distance.

Those of us with grey beards and bald heads will remember how Canon and Nikon rangefinder lenses impressed photgraphers during the Korean war era and afterwards - Life photographers put Canon lenses on their Leica bodies and bought Nikon cameras complete. Why? Because the Japanese lenses had "something extra" in what they turned out. Delve into the photo archives and look at the pics that appeared - almost all shot at ranges between 5 feet and 50 feet . . . Everybody whooped and whistled and said "Wow, these guys in Japan must have some talent the Germans don't" and for a good few years we all knew, we just knew, that those Canon and Nikon lenses would whup the pants off anything else. But we never knew why.

So fast forward to the 70s and 80s when the Japanese rf lenses were history and the few people who were still rf fans began to look back and wonder what actually made them so "good". No internet forums then but we did have the US magazine Modern Photography and the British Journal of Photography to entertain and educate us. The technical contributors occasionally refered back to the old lenses and the "rivalries" and I think it was Geoffrey Crawley in the BJ of P who commented that there were distinctly different design philosophies between German and Japanese designers in the 1950s and 60s. The former adopted the philosophy that lenses should be "corrected for infinity" whilst the latter worked on the basis that people usually aimed their lenses at targets which were much closer . . .

From my own experience, I can say that seems to be correct. 1960s rangefinder lenses certainly bear it out. If you can find a 50mm f1.4 Canon rf lens and a Leitz Summilux to compare, you'll find that the Canon wins at 15 feet but loses out to the Summilux at infinity. And the same goes for the Canon 135/3.5 and the 135 Hektor. Seems to me that whatever might be the theoretical justification for optimizing wide angles and standard lenses at infinity, the Japanese philosophy was better. Of course, in the case of longer lenses, then far distance makes sense. A bit like the difference between pistol shooting and sniping . . .

Are things the same today, I wonder?


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Anu wrote:

Good, since this brochure talks about lenses that are not meant for photography, but for film Smile . Considering the different requirements for film shooting, it might be sensible to have maximum performance at infinity.
However, for photographic lenses this would not be optimal vis-a-vis all-around performance, so I am still sceptical.
Also, please note that the brochure is a modern one - I'd love to see something from the good old days Wink


Well, I already told you that I have read this concept more than one time in Zeiss texts. I surely have no interest or advantage in inventing such thing if it wasn't real. You can believe me or not. I certainly have no time for searching for those quotes. I for sure know from direct source that Zeiss optimizes all their lenses for infinity, except Makro and of course those with floating elements are a case apart.

Nothing personal, but I just don't like to trust people even if they may be on something. I rather trust my own reason unless I am proven otherwise.

Quote:

Evidently there must be a good reason for optimizing lenses for infinity, if Zeiss makes that choice, and if a reason is good for Zeiss lenses it must be good also for the lenses of the other makers.
We can only guess that evidently the average performance of a lens optimized for infinity is better than the average performance of lenses optimized for other distances.
We have a clear proof of that when we examine old macro lenses such as the Nikkor 60mm 2.8 macro lens, a super lens for macro shots, but a notable sucker at infinity.
While evidently lenses optimized for infinity give a decent performance in closeups down to a certain minimum focusing distance (which lens makers set wisely).

P.S. why should a lens made to shoot movies have requirements for infinity and a lens to shoot still have not? In movies they make close-up shots just like in still photography. Actually, thinking about it, movies use close-up shots a lot more than still photographers. There can be whole albums of infinity landscape photos. But in typical movies, usually it's one or two establishing shots and from then on it's all close-up shots or middle ground shots.


There is absolutely no reason to believe that the performance of a lens through the whole focus range would be better is the lens is optimized to either end.

Refardin movies - how many close-ups you really see in a movie? A face whot is not really a close-up (ok, Sergio Leone face shot might be Wink ). Close-ups are not there too much in the movies, and they for sure do not last long and remain stationary enough for people to start looking at dfects in the optics. However, in the establish shots etc. the camera and the background are relatively still, and defects are more readily visible. All this of course IMHO.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu, if you jump from a skyscrape, you may hurt yourself, but, you'd better not trust me. Wink Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Anu, if you jump from a skyscrape, you may hurt yourself, but, you'd better not trust me. Wink Laughing


I'm like rubber and just bounce Smile


PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Wow! THANKS for remembering this, Olivier. I'm looking especially at the image 6. The out-of-focus areas are like creamy butter. This shot caught me, and I first focused my eye on the overall bokeh, but then the snapping-sharp green flower pulled me right in! I actually think all of your flower shots are gems, but number 6 really does it! Fine work, and I respect your abilities with this obviously fine lens..

Thank you Laurence. Embarassed
I got caught by the same shot when it appeared on my screen.

Laurence wrote:
And, of course, a good lens doesn't make me a better photographer, but it sure helps to inspire me to do better.

That's really true !
Some lenses bring you on creative ways you didn't expect before.
I'm looking forward for your photographies with this great lens. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I know from a 100% serious source of a person who had it's 1.4/85 Z optimized by a Zeiss technician for use at the closest range. It is done by shifting one of the internal elements of a very small distance. The adjustment must be performed with professional instruments. The modification causes a detriment to the optical performance at infinity, to gain a bit better sharpness wide open in the close range.

I personally don't think it's worth the hassle and I much prefer a versatile lens that can excel in both close range and infinity (albeit in close range just a little bit less), to a lens that is optimized for close range and sucks at infinity.


Well, that's exactly the reason to have floating elements in a lens. They correct for close-range focusing. Examples of 85mm lenses using this setup are Olympus Zuiko 85/2 and Nikkor AIS 85/1.4, both excellent performers throughout the range.

No doubt Zeiss could have built the CRC system into the lens. But they preferred the simpler (cheaper, and more mechanically robust) approach with this Planar 85/1.4. Also, the fact it's actually a portrait lens with people just expecting to obtain a certain kind of pictures from it might have played its role.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2