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 East vs West?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:20 am    Post subject: Zeiss East vs West? Reply with quote
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...


PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You must have both -- unfortunately .. Very Happy

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


PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:07 am    Post subject: Re: Zeiss East vs West? Reply with quote
aleksanderpolo wrote:
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?


They are mostly different species. Zeiss Jena largely used old, classic pre-war designs; Zeiss Oberkochen largely improved on them. Here's a brief lens-by-lens comparison for you from someone who has (or had) both:

CZJ MC Sonnar 135/3.5 vs. Contax Zeiss Sonnar T* 135/2.8: the Jena is sharp from wide open; pleasant rendeding unique to true Sonnar design (Contax is in fact an Ernostar); slightly low contrast and some very faint blue/purple CA in OOF zones is visible wide open. The Contax is also very sharp straight from wide open; *excellent* contrast at all apertures; very nice colors; no vignetting; pleasant rendering (typical to most Ernostar lenses; slightly different of legacy Sonnar designs; you really have to see it to decide what you like better).

CZJ MC Sonnar 180/2.8 vs. Contax Zeiss Sonnar T* 180/2.8: the Contax is better for 35mm bodies hands down. It's smaller, lighter and more usable; smooth rendering; sharper and way more contrasty wide open; focuses closer. However, the Jena was designed for medium format, and there it SHINES! From f/4 and on, it's about as good as the Contax; it's mostly f/2.8 where it shows lesser contrast and resolution than the Contax.

I don't have any other pairs to compare. Would be interesting to see what other owners can say about them.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for sharing, Aoleg. Mike


PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Fight! Smile


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

Smile


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.Cool as I haven't used those lenses extensively yet.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:
You must have both -- unfortunately .. Very Happy



That's exactly what I don't want to hear Laughing

Thanks all for your input. Anyone want to share more about the shorter focal length lens (<=50mm)? I am particularly interested in knowing about the coating and color transmission.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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?


PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Paul wrote:
How many lp/mm does a grainy film or any particular DSLR resolve?

for 35mm film it is 400 lp/mm, for 5DII 80 lp/mm
http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/30536193ed0c97a7c125711c006fc2c2


PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Paul wrote:
How many lp/mm does a grainy film or any particular DSLR resolve?

for 35mm film it is 400 lp/mm, for 5DII 80 lp/mm
http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/Contents-Frame/30536193ed0c97a7c125711c006fc2c2


That's an ISO16 black and white film that I'd never even heard of, not exactly practical everyday stuff.

The point I was trying to make originally is that in normal, practical, everyday use the superior quality of West German lenses may be almost impossible to detect because of external factors.

If that link I gave estimating DSLR lp/mm around the mid-50s after allowing for the sensor filter effects is right, then the Mother of Lens Tests data would suggest that in some conditions a couple of the West German lenses do outresolve the sensor, and some of the East German lenses are already at or abover the 50 lp/mm at 10% MTF.

If the 5D2 genuinely resolves 80lp/mm then it would still be able to resolve everything the very best lenses throw at it - assuming you are not using it in a way that results in any camera shake, of course.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Paul wrote:
That's an ISO16 black and white film

take a better look Paul, on my lcd the sky is Blue

the Orthopan have a resolution of 800 Lp/mm but the diffraction limit to 400lp/mm

Quote:
normal, practical, everyday use

someone who need 400lp/mm have a solution
a kit with 2 films and developer kit cost less than 20 euros http://www.phototec.de/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2691
for everyday use, mobile phone is probably more practical


PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 wrote:
Paul wrote:
That's an ISO16 black and white film

take a better look Paul, on my lcd the sky is Blue

the Orthopan have a resolution of 800 Lp/mm but the diffraction limit to 400lp/mm

Quote:
normal, practical, everyday use

someone who need 400lp/mm have a solution
a kit with 2 films and developer kit cost less than 20 euros http://www.phototec.de/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=2691
for everyday use, mobile phone is probably more practical


PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Paul wrote:
But if you read the page

my bad, always enjoying pics and not enough the text
anyway the color sample must have more than 100lp/mm
and the biogon 25 more than 400lp/mm


PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Paul wrote:
But if you read the page

my bad, always enjoying pics and not enough the text
anyway the color sample must have more than 100lp/mm
and the biogon 25 more than 400lp/mm



Which brings us back to the point, which is that a 400lp/mm biogon on an 80lp/mm 5D Mk2 isn't necessarily going to produce an image that looks vastly better than the image from a 70 lp/mm Flektogon. All the extra cash you are paying for that combination is not getting you an effective additional 330lp/mm, it is only getting you the 10 lp/mm that the camera can "see".
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1