After reading alundeb's post I checked out the 58/1.4 at PZ; my word, what performance, right out to f11 (if reliable testing) after suitably soft open aperture results. Every bit as good, and probably better, at f5.6-f8 than the ZE CZs.
A most under-rated lens, they also report less distortion than either ZE 50mm lens, and negligible CA. I never thought their (PZ) bokeh appeciation did justice to the phenomenon, and you see good examples of pleasant OOF out of this one - nice CV colour too.
Btw for those seeking more info re the 1.4 v the 2 please visit the reviews on this site. Most reviewers of the 1.4 are busy talking the lens up while F.2 reviewers are merely exhilarated.
philip_pj wrote:
After reading alundeb's post I checked out the 58/1.4 at PZ; my word, what performance, right out to f11 (if reliable testing) after suitably soft open aperture results. Every bit as good, and probably better, at f5.6-f8 than the ZE CZs.
A most under-rated lens, they also report less distortion than either ZE 50mm lens, and negligible CA. I never thought their (PZ) bokeh appeciation did justice to the phenomenon, and you see good examples of pleasant OOF out of this one - nice CV colour too.
I have made quick comparison between just arrived CV 58/1.4 and ZF II 50/1.4 - the CV seems to have less CA and better corner sharpness on FF Nikon D600 from f1.4 to f2.8.I like CV colours too.From 2.8 up their sharpness is comparable.Planar is better in the microcontrast and 3D department though.All those differences don't mean much in real life shooting.Both are very good lenses.
which says to me that this issue is not so simple as some make it out to me. rather, it would seem to me that the MP has higher contrast at lower lp/mm levels but tails off more quickly as we go to higher lp/mm and that terminal resolution goes to the planar.
these lenses are being shot on cameras that cannot get to the terminal resolution of either lens at any rate, and it may very well be that the MP has higher apparent sharpness because at the pixel level it a graph of relative lp/mm for each lens hasn't crossed over to the planar's favor.
remember we are dealing with a digital sensor. it can capture "perfectly" anything within the nyquist limit but there is an immediate and absolute cutoff where the sampling rate ends. or at least that's how it works with recording, I wouldn't assume that this is a different application of Nyquist's theorem.
Sandy I do like your analogy. My ZM planar must be Italian then, since they are prone to falling apart.
as a followup, I am immensely interested in seeing how appreciation for these lenses will change as pixel density continues to increase and a few other questions.
Is there actually a point where the 50P will start to look better at 100% or am I a right idiot?
If we were to move the test to a high resolution film would things be noticeably different? (ps Im sure we could find an FM member with a drum scanner and another with both lenses and work something out to shoot on CMS 20 or something like that).
How much better will the 55/1.4 distagon be than either of these two, if at all?
The first person to suggest that sharpness was overrated said that photographers ought to stop counting the number of bricks on their daguerreotypes; yet we (myself included) still seek the ultimate resolution for our format. Will we ever as a hobby reach a point where our competitive nature and bloodlust for only the best of the best tools/toys really and truly become a non-issue?
redisburning wrote:
remember we are dealing with a digital sensor. it can capture "perfectly" anything within the nyquist limit but there is an immediate and absolute cutoff where the sampling rate ends. or at least that's how it works with recording, I wouldn't assume that this is a different application of Nyquist's theorem.
sorry to be pedantic, but just like with audio it's pretty much impossible to design a perfect "cliff" filter. it's more of hill with gentle roll off to a steep drop. this is one of the reasons we still see moire etc in photographs even on cameras with AA filters. also, even below the nyquist frequency you can end up with a fair bit of sampling induced filtering.
sebboh wrote:
sorry to be pedantic, but just like with audio it's pretty much impossible to design a perfect "cliff" filter. it's more of hill with gentle roll off to a steep drop. this is one of the reasons we still see moire etc in photographs even on cameras with AA filters. also, even below the nyquist frequency you can end up with a fair bit of sampling induced filtering.
why apologize over a correction?
I have seen printouts of cd vs vinyl frequency response and on those it did look pretty dramatic and it was from that I made my assumption. If it's not right it's not right.
Yeah, my apologies was for posting those test charts with a disturbing 4D effect.
There are some trivial takeaways.
In resolving power at minimum MTF, there is not much between those lenses at all. They all reach about 250 lp/mm, or 6000 lp/ih for a FF sensor with the same pixel density. Conventional sensors using the 50% MTF criterion reach only 940-980 lp/ih at lensrentals' tests. If maximum resolution is the goal, sensor resolution is the single most important factor, and with good lenses it is with an overwhelming margin.
There is residual longitudinal color with all these lenses at F/4.
This is not about sharpness it is about a coterie of the alt forum deciding the 50 1.4 is an art lens with special qualities some of us philistines don't get. I've spent a few years being taught drawing and charcoal drawing and my eye is reasonably tuned and while I can see it has properties that are admirable it is being given more credit than it deserves. Fashion.
Except he has been saying the same thing like 5 times over now, which gets tiresome. He is also not putting forward any constructive point but just whines that people give the lens in question too much credit (even though the thread title is "how bad is the Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar").
.