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

Zeiss for dummies
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:38 pm    Post subject: Zeiss for dummies Reply with quote
Is there a Zeiss lenses for-dummies guide somewhere on the net?

Not something like: 6 elements in 5 groups, etc., that would be way too advanced for dummy like me. But more like, what's a planar/sonar/distagon/flektogon is designed/good for, its characters, close focus, infinity focus, close bokeh, far bokeh, etc.

Thank you


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A good question...I too await the answer.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
google is your friend
you can read this summary
http://photo.net/equipment/contax/shea-lenses


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
google is your friend
you can read this summary
http://photo.net/equipment/contax/shea-lenses


Wow! thank you, I'll read that!

ETA: I'm still confused (dummy as I am). For example, as a photographer, why would you use a Planar 85 vs a Sonnar 85 when shooting at f4.0?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am no Zeiss connoisseur, but from what I have experienced with ZF Planars (100/2 and 85/1.4) is that they aren't originally optimized for close focusing. Take the bokeh CA with the Macro Planar 100/2 for instance.

The 85/1.4 ZF is in fact by Zeiss admitted to paint the best detail at medium to long distances. Despite this I use it for close (portrait) photography due to a wonderful fingerprint, bokeh and detail suitable for skin/face without post-processing.

The Sonnars, I have not used sufficiently to describe performance.

This forum must have afficionados who can correct or complete with better information?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
fact by Zeiss admitted to paint the best detail at medium to long distances. Despite this I use it for close (portrait) photography due to a wonderful fingerprint, bokeh and detail suitable for skin/face without post-processing.


I have been told, by sure reliable source, that it's possible (for expert people with the right custom precision tools, i.e. Zeiss tools, i.e. none of us can do it at home), with a simple very little shift of one of the inner glass elements, to optimize the Z Planar 1.4/85 for the minimum focusing distance use (i.e. portrait use).
This modification was made customly (i.e. non officially and privately) by a Zeiss technician for an Italian user.
Please don't ask me more because I was instructed not to reveal more than this.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
bogolisk wrote:

as a photographer, why would you use a Planar 85 vs a Sonnar 85 when shooting at f4.0?


Because I bought the Planar and not the Sonnar? Laughing Wink

Seriously, at f/4 both lenses perform excellently.

In general the performance would be nearly identical, as it is easily verifyable by comparing the MTFs at f/5.6 in the Zeiss PDFs, where the two diagrams are almost overimposable, with even an almost identical perihperic falloff of the tangential curves, especially at the highest frequencies (40lpm).

The only notable difference is the bell shaped peak of the sagittal curve in the 40lpm curve of the Planar, which means a sensible resolvance peak performance at about mid-way between the centre and edge of the glass, but the Sonnar curve was higher at the centre to start with, so the Sonnar resolvance performance is more homogeneous and the PLanar performance more "characterial", so to say. The final user however is likely not to notice anything of that because the most part of the sharpness impression is given by the curves at 10lpm and 20lpm and those are almost identical between the two lenses.

This is what the MTFs tell us about the sharpness... then there is the bokeh, the colour rendition, the dimensionality... all things that are not told by the MTF.
The colour rendition of the two lenses is identical to my eye. This is perhaps the strongest point of modern West Zeiss lenses since the Contarex onwards: the colour rendition is optimized to be as identical as possible in all the lenses. Different layers of T* coating are used on different types of glass just to obtain this nearly perfect colour identity. These are the things that most people who complain about the prices of the Zeiss lenses ignore. But imagine how many studies and tests and work did it take to create lenses with 6,7,9, 12 glass elements, each with it's own bilateral coating, that all create the same colour rendering.
As for bokeh, at f/4 and narrower the differences in the bokeh tend to shorten to the almost invisible.
As for the "3D", it has a lot to do with the curvature of field, and so it's likely that lenses that look less homogeneous like the Planar do have that peculiar curvature of field that, in the right situation and conditions, might create that "wow" 3D effect that a more controlled, more homogeneous lens like the Sonnar 85 is less likely to create.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
bogolisk wrote:

as a photographer, why would you use a Planar 85 vs a Sonnar 85 when shooting at f4.0?


Because I bought the Planar and not the Sonnar? Laughing Wink

Seriously, at f/4 both lenses perform excellently.

In general the performance would be nearly identical, as it is easily verifyable by comparing the MTFs at f/5.6 in the Zeiss PDFs, where the two diagrams are almost overimposable, with even an almost identical perihperic falloff of the tangential curves, especially at the highest frequencies (40lpm).

The only notable difference is the bell shaped peak of the sagittal curve in the 40lpm curve of the Planar, which means a sensible resolvance peak performance at about mid-way between the centre and edge of the glass, but the Sonnar curve was higher at the centre to start with, so the Sonnar resolvance performance is more homogeneous and the PLanar performance more "characterial", so to say. The final user however is likely not to notice anything of that because the most part of the sharpness impression is given by the curves at 10lpm and 20lpm and those are almost identical between the two lenses.

This is what the MTFs tell us about the sharpness... then there is the bokeh, the colour rendition, the dimensionality... all things that are not told by the MTF.
The colour rendition of the two lenses is identical to my eye. This is perhaps the strongest point of modern West Zeiss lenses since the Contarex onwards: the colour rendition is optimized to be as identical as possible in all the lenses. Different layers of T* coating are used on different types of glass just to obtain this nearly perfect colour identity. These are the things that most people who complain about the prices of the Zeiss lenses ignore. But imagine how many studies and tests and work did it take to create lenses with 6,7,9, 12 glass elements, each with it's own bilateral coating, that all create the same colour rendering.
As for bokeh, at f/4 and narrower the differences in the bokeh tend to shorten to the almost invisible.
As for the "3D", it has a lot to do with the curvature of field, and so it's likely that lenses that look less homogeneous like the Planar do have that peculiar curvature of field that, in the right situation and conditions, might create that "wow" 3D effect that a more controlled, more homogeneous lens like the Sonnar 85 is less likely to create.



Thank you so much Orio. Would you mind tell me about the bokeh at f2.8?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
bogolisk: I think your question was asked more like this was a science as opposed to an art. For instance, a carpenter or machinist will choose a drill bit based on a specific need or material to be drilled, but I see lens choice as more like an artist selecting the tool that best reflects their expressive style. For the record, I do realize that there is considerable science that goes into the making of a lens, but the use of a lens is art.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
bogolisk wrote:

Thank you so much Orio. Would you mind tell me about the bokeh at f2.8?


Of course the Sonnar would have circular OOF highlights due to the fact that f/2.8 is it's widest aperture. The Planar lensof type MM instead would show an octagonal shape with rounded corners (or a ninja star if the AE version)


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Z* version of the Planar T* 85/1.4 will show close to perfect round bokeh highlights at f/2.8 thanks to the shape of the diaphragm. See this link for some examples taken with my Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mureena/tags/planarf28/
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1