Zeiss East vs West?

[aleksanderpolo]

Can some general statement be drawn about the difference in character between Zeiss East (Jena) and their West counterpart (Contax or Rollei), in terms of bokeh, contrast (global and micro), coating, resistance to flare and ghost, sharpness (wide open and stop down), color transmission, etc?

Or if this question is too general and dumb, can someone with experience using both compare some specific pairs (say Planar 50 vs Pancolar 50, or Distagon vs Flektogon, etc)?

Thanks, I still have a long way to learn...

[trifox]

You must have both -- unfortunately ..

Both Zeiss brands (West + East) have their OWN CHARACTER ...

I have started with West and now I've been doing EAST for some time and I am VERY VERY happy - I must say ..

tf

[aoleg]

[djmike]

Thanks for sharing, Aoleg. Mike

[rawhead]

Fight!


OK, I think I'm in a pretty good position to discuss this since I have/had:

West:
Biogon 38/4.5 (SWC)
C Distagon 40/4
CF Distagon T* 50/4
CF Distagon T* 60/3.5
CFE Planar T* 80/2.8
CF Planar T* 100/3.5
CF Sonnar 150/4

East:
MC Flektogon 50/4
MC Biometar 80/2.8
MC Biometar 120/2.8
MC Sonnar 180/2.8




OK, first and foremost, WEST tend to have only 5 blades, which render absolutely terrifyingly ugly pentagonal bokeh circles when stopped down. I hate those. EAST lenses usually have 8 blades. East wins.


Wide angle:

Now with my SWC, there's nothing on the East side that can win in terms of wideangle. With the 50/4s, I like the Flek for its color rendition and bokeh, but the Dist has advantage with less distortion.

Normal:

CFE Planar is friggin sharp sharp sharp!! Although I like to shoot wide open, and when it comes to bokeh rendering etc. I like my Biometar just as much as the Planar.

Tele:

I hardly use the Sonnar 150/4 on my 501CM (might even sell it), because when it comes to that focal length, you just CANNOT beat the Sonnar 180/2.8 on P6 mount (i.e., 6x6).



The verdict is still out on the portraits (Planar 100/3.5 vs. Biometar 120/2. as I haven't used those lenses extensively yet.

[aleksanderpolo]

[PaulC]

Given the price differential, that isn't a terribly pleasing conclusion from the Western standpoint.

The best comparison has to be the Mother of All Lens Tests http://www.rickdenney.com/mother_lens_test.htm where the Western lenses almost always win (exceptions being the Flek 50 and the Biometar 80 - the 120 isn't in that test). It is pretty hard to understand the meaning of all the results, though.

While the Western lenses may be superior, it is quite possible that the improvement in quality is impossible to see in everyday use. There may be no difference at all in the number of line pairs per mm that any of these lenses can resolve if you shoot hand-held instead of on a rigid tripod. How many lp/mm does a grainy film or any particular DSLR resolve?

[poilu]

[PaulC]

Fuji's technical data lists Velvia 50 as resolving at 160 l/mm for a chart with contrast 1000:1 and just 80 for a contrast of 1.6:1

I don't understand why the chart contrast makes a difference, but that is what Fuji says. I presume that as they are quoting l/mm we have to halve the figures to get lp/mm giving from 80 to 40.

This calculation for dslrs is giving around 52 to 58 lp/mm (http://www.zen20934.zen.co.uk/photography/resolution.htm), which appears to put DSLR resolving power in the same range as film.

I'm not a techie so I might be misunderstanding this.

[PaulC]

[poilu]

[PaulC]

It is, indeed, blue. But if you read the page you are quoting you will see that this is the carousel picture that made them do the test with Orthopan which is a panchromatic - i.e. black and white - film. You can find out more about it here: http://www.spur-photo.com/dat_ort_ure.pdf

A cameraphone would certainly be more use than a 16ISO black and white film if you wanted to photograph a carousel. But an 800ISO colour film and and SLR would be even better.

[poilu]

[PaulC]