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 Twins (2x Distagon) ... pics added!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
A head to head of the Contax 2/35 and 1.4/35 would be very interesting IMO. Comparing head to head Glatzel's Hollywood with the new Z 2/28 would be also cool.


Don't forget the new and the old 2.8/21 Wink


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK, I have shot some bathroom tiles at different apertures (2-2.8-4-5.6-8 ) from almost the same distance (28 and 35) and from a tripod.

I have zipped the RAW-files and uploaded them here.

I hope this helps a little. As I said, I must send them back and cannot do anymore shooting. Crying or Very sad

Careful huge file!! (>100MB)


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

That wouldn't make any sense with these pictures, because the edges are out of focus wide open.


It's stil possible to see from the blur, too.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Carsten, thanks for the large images.
On such a subject vignetting seems bad wide open but for my experience, once photographing varied subjects (such as landscape) it is not so bad, although visible.
Corner image quality, not easy to tell from smooth ceramics. The lines however don't look so bad.
The 28mm lens has annoying barrel distortion. Hmm that's the thing that is pleasing me less. I would like to compare it with the Hollywood. The Hollywood is not distortion free either. But I don't recall it to distort so strong.
The 35mm has just very light barrel distortion, in practical use it will be almost invisible.
I have inspected carefully the 28mm images and for what it's possible to tell, the 28mm lens doesn't seem to have noticeable field curvature. However I assume you were shooting very close to subject. That might have an influence.

Well, I don't have the lenses in my hands, so I can not give a real judgement, but based on your evidences, I'd say both the 28mm and the 35mm are good lenses with many qualities and a few weak points.
For the 28mm, the weak point in my opinion is the barrel distortion.
For the 35mm, the weak point is the CA in the blur areas.
The strong points: both lenses seem very sharp, they render crisp clear images with good flare control and colour saturation. The bokeh is very good in both, especially the 28mm displays an excellent bokeh for being so wide. The close focusing distance makes of the 28mm the ideal lens for wide landscapes that feature some foreground objects: ideal setting to display the "3D" potential.
The 35mm probably peaks in the very low distortion and good speed, which would indicate it best for street and live events photography, where a mix of geometrical building lines and fast living subjects happens.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
For the 28mm, the weak point in my opinion is the barrel distortion

you can compare distortion between old and new 28mm
pdf's are available at Zeiss


PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Orio wrote:
For the 28mm, the weak point in my opinion is the barrel distortion

you can compare distortion between old and new 28mm
pdf's are available at Zeiss


The distortion graphs are identical.
How couldn't I notice this distortion in my Hollywood yet. Perhaps because I used it mostly to photograph people or landscapes. I need to take it out and try it on architecture.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:


Can you please try again, Chris?


It works now! Yay.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Orio wrote:
Carsten, will you post central and corner crops from these images?


That wouldn't make any sense with these pictures, because the edges are out of focus wide open.


It would serve to examine the axial CA, which applies to out of focus or partially in focus areas.

This is especially evident in the top left of
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucispictor-photo/4158245596/in/set-72157622809359689/
with bright purple and emerald green axial CA very prominent on those out of focus branches. (But flare is very well controlled, certainly).


PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would like to express my opinion --

The best thing on the old Zeiss lenses for Contax is that the CA is in DARK GREEN / DARK RED colour balance whereas the COSINA'S lenses have more CA in LIGHT BLUE COLOUR on the inner side of edges.

One paradox : even older (70's optical scheme) lenses like Contax Distagon 4/18 have CA which is EASY-TO-FIX in modern PP applications like LightRoom -

I don't know how much the Zeiss' engineers could have been aware of this fact.. Smile

tf


PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To Orio.. Wink

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/727101/2#lastmessage


PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
magnet-2009 wrote:
To Orio.. Wink
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/727101/2#lastmessage


thanks Magnet
but I am afraid this is a super bull ****
Why? Because Biogon is a lens type for rangefinder cameras. It can not be used on Canon reflex.

-


PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
magnet-2009 wrote:
To Orio.. Wink
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/727101/2#lastmessage


thanks Magnet
but I am afraid this is a super bull ****
Why? Because Biogon is a lens type for rangefinder cameras. It can not be used on Canon reflex.

-


1st page..... Wink Laughing

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/727101/0

Check on this page the 35L's CA....... Cool



.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
magnet-2009 wrote:

Check on this page the 35L's CA....... Cool
.


Oh my goodness! Shocked


PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
magnet-2009 wrote:
To Orio.. Wink
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/727101/2#lastmessage


thanks Magnet
but I am afraid this is a super bull ****
Why? Because Biogon is a lens type for rangefinder cameras. It can not be used on Canon reflex.

-


ehmm -- not REALLY, Orio -- there used to be Biogon (Contarex mount) for Contarex cameras -- which is 35mm SLR system -- with viewfinder, of course ...

so it doesn't have to be a bull*** Smile - I don't know ..

tf


PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:

ehmm -- not REALLY, Orio -- there used to be Biogon (Contarex mount) for Contarex cameras -- which is 35mm SLR system -- with viewfinder, of course


They must have locked the mirror then - otherwise there is no way. Have you seen the Biogons for the Contax G? Or the Biogon 35mm for prewar Contax?
The rear lens nearly touches the film plane.

trifox wrote:
so it doesn't have to be a bull*** Smile - I don't know ..
tf


I exclude that Zeiss today wants to build a weird lens that requires mirror locking.
All the opposite, they have actually started to build retrofocal Distagon lenses for rangefinder - because of Distagon's inferior vignetting compared to Biogon.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:
The best thing on the old Zeiss lenses for Contax is that the CA is in DARK GREEN / DARK RED colour balance whereas the COSINA'S lenses have more CA in LIGHT BLUE COLOUR on the inner side of edges.


We must not confuse (and this easily happens) CAs with purple fringing. CA ist a lens problem whereas PF is a sensor thing.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
trifox wrote:
The best thing on the old Zeiss lenses for Contax is that the CA is in DARK GREEN / DARK RED colour balance whereas the COSINA'S lenses have more CA in LIGHT BLUE COLOUR on the inner side of edges.


We must not confuse (and this easily happens) CAs with purple fringing. CA ist a lens problem whereas PF is a sensor thing.


And we also mustn't confuse lateral CA (which gives cyan/red fringing especially at the edges and corners of the frame, who's severity depends on distance from the optical centre, and is fairly readily corrected in raw processing) and axial CA (whose colours depend on the lens design, but for an achromatic disign with two wavelengths in focus typically has green on one side of the focus and red and blue on the other, giving the green/reddish purple fringing noted by trifox and also noted by other commentors. Axial CA is much harder to suppress in post.

The proponents of 'CCD bloom' do not seem able to explain why this alleged sensor effect also applies to CMOS sensors and varies with the optical design of the lens. But quite commonly when purple fringes are noticed, green fringes on the opposite side of the focal plane are also found - this is axial CA.

Axial CA is reduced by apochromatic lens designs, which are available from Leica, Mamiya, Voigtlander - and Zeiss, in their Hasselblad range but not, to date, in their ZF/ZE/ZA/ZK/ZM ranges.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:


I exclude that Zeiss today wants to build a weird lens that requires mirror locking.
All the opposite, they have actually started to build retrofocal Distagon lenses for rangefinder - because of Distagon's inferior vignetting compared to Biogon.


Cosina Voigtländer did make two non-retrofucus wide angle lenses - a 12mm Ultrawide Heliar and a 15mm Superwide Heliar - in Nikon F mount and requiring full-time mirror lockup. These were sold with hotshoe-mounted finders.

But yes, its not a popular option. Even DSLR that have mirror lockup only apply it per shot, not for the whole time the lens is mounted.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chris wrote:
The proponents of 'CCD bloom' do not seem able to explain why this alleged sensor effect also applies to CMOS sensors and varies with the optical design of the lens. But quite commonly when purple fringes are noticed, green fringes on the opposite side of the focal plane are also found - this is axial CA

read those explanations Chris
blooming
"Purple Fringing" usually refers to a typical digital camera phenomenon that is caused by the microlenses


PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very naive question:
if sensor blooming exists, then why, on the same camera and at the same subject, with one lens I don't get purple fringing and with another lens, I get it?
If sensor is the culprit, shouldn't the phenomenon happen regardless of which lens is mounted?


PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Very naive question:
if sensor blooming exists, then why, on the same camera and at the same subject, with one lens I don't get purple fringing and with another lens, I get it?
If sensor is the culprit, shouldn't the phenomenon happen regardless of which lens is mounted?


As I said, Orio. Also, wondering why CCD blooming is shown by CMOS sensors as well.

Aberrations in microlenses is a bit more plausible, except it would tend to give multicoloured fringing.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Deep are the riddles of digital photography. Wink

I cannot answer precisely, all I have are ideas about it. But since these would not be more than wild suggestions, based on no scientific explanation whatsoever, I won't start here. Laughing
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3