Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell
1       2      
3
       4       …       6       7       end
   

Archive 2011 · Followup to zeiss 25 review
  
 
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Jorge,
You usually just post some pictures using your latest new lens and gush how good it is.
Don't know why you changed now and tried doing a lens comparison.
Plus 9 times out of 10, a 1.4 lens outperforms a 2.0 lens at 2.0, that is the raison d'etre of fast 1.4 lenses. I would like to see bokeh comparisons too.
Dec 01, 2011 at 11:21 AM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


wayne seltzer wrote:
Jorge,

Plus 9 times out of 10, a 1.4 lens outperforms a 2.0 lens at 2.0, that is the raison d'etre of fast 1.4 lenses. I would like to see bokeh comparisons too.


Disagree. The reason for a 1.4 lens is 1.4!
Dec 01, 2011 at 11:31 AM
redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


wayne seltzer wrote:
Plus 9 times out of 10, a 1.4 lens outperforms a 2.0 lens at 2.0, that is the raison d'etre of fast 1.4 lenses. I would like to see bokeh comparisons too.

um, no.

your statement is not in keeping with the paradigms of lens design. the only thing the faster lens is likely to beat an f2 lens is vignetting. with many manufacturers they simply don't put as much effort into the slower lenses because they are trying to sell them at a much lower price point. you also need to compare lenses with relatively similar designs and chosen optimizations (i.e. no macro vs infinity optimized lenses). you are comparing apples to oranges.

compare an f1.4 and f2.0 lens where the manufacturer really went all out on both and you will see the f2 lens win most of the time. not always, but most of the time.

the reason f1.4 lenses exist is to gather more light. thinking they will be sharper than a lens design that, by the way physics works, has far less errors to correct, is wishful thinking.
Dec 01, 2011 at 12:59 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


It would be interesting then to compare the Zeiss 35mm F2 vs the Zeiss 35mm F1.4. The latter is around double the price.
Dec 01, 2011 at 01:00 PM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Tariq, and Redisburning, you act like all f2/f2.8 lenses are generally at their peak sharpness wide open. Except for my Leica 180/2.8 APO, and the 90 AA Cron there are not many lenses which are near peak sharpness wide open and don't significantly improve when stopped down. Usuallly the difference between 1.4 and 2.0/2.8 lenses is that the 1.4 's usually have aspherical elements to reduce the SA except in special cases like the ZE 35/1.4 and the Leica R 85/1.4 where the designers went for the undercorrected SA look (Mandler glow) to improve bokeh and have slow focus-transition to OOF.
Unfortunately the Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 designs are not the strongest either due to not having any aspherical elements and being relatively cheaper designs (no exotic ED glass), but I would then cite their 1.2 * Jahre versions which do have aspherical elements and you can see that they outperform the f2 versions at wide apertures like f2 and f2.8.
I agree that f2 lenses are easy to design since they don't have as much SA to correct at f2 compared to f1.4 but I disagree that they are sharper at f2 most of the time compared to 1.4 lenses.The f2 lenses generally outperform the 1.4's stopped down to ~f8 as they usually perform better/more even across the frame and usually the 1.4 designs have field curvature.
Cite me some great lens examples which are not the exceptions I mentioned above which back your theory.
Dec 01, 2011 at 01:51 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


FlyPenFly wrote:
It would be interesting then to compare the Zeiss 35mm F2 vs the Zeiss 35mm F1.4. The latter is around double the price.

Lloyd/ Digilloyd did just that comparison and the 35 F2 was the winner for detail and contrast at F2 compared to the 35 1.4.

Edit. Wayne, here is "a great lens example" for you!

Edited on Dec 01, 2011 at 01:56 PM · View previous versions
Dec 01, 2011 at 01:55 PM
akul
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Wayne - I did not see your photo when I wrote. Excellent shot.


Dec 01, 2011 at 01:56 PM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


FlyPenFly wrote:
It would be interesting then to compare the Zeiss 35mm F2 vs the Zeiss 35mm F1.4. The latter is around double the price.
There were many threads on this comparison awhile back and you can see on Lloyd Chambers site the comparison if you have a subscription. The Zeiss 35/1.4 ZE has undercorrected SA design so it has a veiling haze at 1.4 and f2 which reduce sharpness at those apertures and thus doesn't beat the f2 lens at f2. The 35/1.4 has nearly no CA and slightly more vivid color than the ZE 35/2 but also has field curvature which is apparent in stopped down landscape type shooting.
Dec 01, 2011 at 01:57 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


wayne seltzer wrote:
Tariq, and Redisburning, you act like all f2/f2.8 lenses are generally at their peak sharpness wide open. Except for my Leica 180/2.8 APO, and the 90 AA Cron there are not many lenses which are near peak sharpness wide open and don't significantly improve when stopped down. Usuallly the difference between 1.4 and 2.0/2.8 lenses is that the 1.4 's usually have aspherical elements to reduce the SA except in special cases like the ZE 35/1.4 and the Leica R 85/1.4 where the designers went for the undercorrected SA look (Mandler glow) to improve bokeh and have slow focus-transition...Show more →

all this is true, but it is mainly because f/2 and f/2.8 lenses are typically designed to be cheap. high end slower lens will usually outperform their faster counterparts at the slower lenses max aperture. these lenses are outliers however, because there isn't much money in making them.
Dec 01, 2011 at 01:59 PM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


If you read my above post I cite the ZE 35/1.4 and the Leica R 80/1.4 as bad examples/exceptions because the designers sacrificed wide open sharpness for a smooth bokeh, undercorrected SA design which gives portraits that soft beauty lens (SoftTar) look.
Next example pls!


Dec 01, 2011 at 02:01 PM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


If you read my above post I cite the ZE 35/1.4 and the Leica R 80/1.4 as bad examples/exceptions because the designers sacrificed wide open sharpness for a smooth bokeh, undercorrected SA design which gives portraits that soft beauty lens (SoftTar) look.
Next example pls!


Dec 01, 2011 at 02:01 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


I'm sure I could dig examples up all day Wayne, but another one is the Minolta 35 1.4 vs the Minolta 35 F2 AF, and this also holds with the Minolta 35 F2 vs the Samyang 35 1.4 at F2 in the center. (I did the comparison).

http://www.kurtmunger.com/misclenscompsid100.html
Dec 01, 2011 at 02:02 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


wayne seltzer wrote:
If you read my above post I cite the ZE 35/1.4 and the Leica R 80/1.4 as bad examples/exceptions because the designers sacrificed wide open sharpness for a smooth bokeh, undercorrected SA design which gives portraits that soft beauty lens (SoftTar) look.
Next example pls!

So we have quickly four examples which already beats your "9 out of 10" axiom.
Dec 01, 2011 at 02:03 PM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Maybe someone like Luka(Denoir) who has these M lenses can confirm but I will throw out the examples of M 50/1.4 Lux latest edition vs. its M 50/2 Cron brother and
same for M 35/1.4 FLE latest edition vs. M 35/2.
Dec 01, 2011 at 02:06 PM
redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


wait so a lens with expensive, hard to make correctors perform better than lenses without them? it's almost like they were designed that way.

all you are saying is that f1.4 lenses that are designed to a much higher price point than their f2 counterparts are better. at f8 any good lens should have the exact same resolution. the same is true at f5.6.

I am not sure why I have to go out of my way to give examples that disprove your hypothesis which goes against popular convention. a trivial example is the 50 Cron, which until the most recent version was better at f2 than the 50 lux. the original Rigid/DR cron is STILL one of the highest resolution lenses at f2 around the center.
Dec 01, 2011 at 02:06 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


sebboh wrote:
all this is true, but it is mainly because f/2 and f/2.8 lenses are typically designed to be cheap. high end slower lens will usually outperform their faster counterparts at the slower lenses max aperture. these lenses are outliers however, because there isn't much money in making them.

This is true and one reason why you will often find the better lenses - Zeiss, Leica, some older Nikkors, the F2 Minolta's - which are not cheaply made that prove the point.
Dec 01, 2011 at 02:07 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


wayne seltzer wrote:
Maybe someone like Luka(Denoir) who has these M lenses can confirm but I will throw out the examples of M 50/1.4 Lux latest edition vs. its M 50/2 Cron brother and
same for M 35/1.4 FLE latest edition vs. M 35/2.

If you compare these lenses of the same generation, I think you will find the opposite. It's actually the case Puts mentions with some of the Leica's. Newer gen fast lens vs older gen slower lens, all bets are off.
Dec 01, 2011 at 02:09 PM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Minolta 35/1.4 is another undercorrected SA 35 design like the ZE 35/1.4 which sacrifices the sharpness for soft beauty look and smooth bokeh/ slow focus transition.
Samyang 35/1.4 is a bargain lens, you get what you pay for!


Dec 01, 2011 at 02:09 PM
redisburning
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


boy you sure have a lot of excuses wanye.

I have a feeling that you will have an excuse that can exclude every single example that proves you wrong, even if they outnumber the rare exception 100 to 1.
Dec 01, 2011 at 02:11 PM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


wayne seltzer wrote:
Samyang 35/1.4 is a bargain lens, you get what you pay for!

Except of course with the Zeiss 35 1.4 as compared to the above Samyang!
Dec 01, 2011 at 02:14 PM
1       2      
3
       4       …       6       7       end
FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       …       6       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.