Wayne, as I said, Zeiss is not what it used to be. They have been shifting their design criteria slowly in to a different direction from what the C/Y glass was known for. Please note that even old Zeiss glass does not all follow the same design criteria. Zeiss glass for MF Hasselblad and Contax has a different rendering, much more smooth and subtle, unlike the rather harsh rendering of the C/Y. Normally this smoothness didn't exist in Zeiss 35mm glass but has always been the norm with Leica glass. That is why I say the modern Zeiss glass has some of the Leica look, but I could have also said, it has the Zeiss MF look. The smoothness is not only in the bokeh, but also in the way the lens draws in focus elements. It's a much more sophisticated look than the older glass, and to give you examples of DSLR lenses with the modern look, I can include ZA 24/2 and 135/1.8, Z* 25/2, 35/1.4, 135/2, and also the Sonnar in the RX1.
Jman13 wrote:
There's no way the 12/2.8 has lower than 0.1% distortion. Just look at the sample shots...while not crazy, there is clearly visible distortion on the 12mm shots.
i wrote Zeiss an e-mail, asking about the distorting, this was the reply:
Sehr geehrter Herr Reeve,
vielen Dank für Ihre Anfrage an Carl Zeiss.
Wie in den Datenblättern angegeben, sind die Werte für die Vignettierung und Verzeichung praxisnah mit der NEX 7 ermittelt, somit inclusive der von der Kamera auf jpegs angewandten Korrekturen. Touit-Objektive sind vollständig in die Kamerasysteme (Sony NEX und Fuji X) integriert und nutzen die kamerainternen Korrekturmöglichkeiten. Nur dadurch ist es möglich, relativ kompakte Objektive mit hoher Leistung insbesondere im Weitwinkelbereich zu konstruieren, und gleichzeitig geringe Verzeichnungswerte zu erreichen.
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bertram Hoenlinger
which translates to: "we measured the corrected jpgs"
Nice... So, inclusive of the in-camera JPEG corrections, it's low. That's fine...I don't mind in-camera correction as long as the final result is good, and there's not major hit to corner sharpness as a result, though I find it odd that their literature takes these corrections into account for performance of the lens itself. Kind of strange. I guess it's OK as long as the MTF is also measured on the corrected file as well...if it isn't, then that's not right.
I do find it interesting that they are saying that this is the only way to make a wide angle this small with low distortion. (unless I'm misreading the above response (I speak German, but not natively...enough to get around and be dangerous).
Jman13 wrote:
Nice... So, inclusive of the in-camera JPEG corrections, it's low. That's fine...I don't mind in-camera correction as long as the final result is good, and there's not major hit to corner sharpness as a result, though I find it odd that their literature takes these corrections into account for performance of the lens itself. Kind of strange. I guess it's OK as long as the MTF is also measured on the corrected file as well...if it isn't, then that's not right.
Can you measure MTF-graphs with a camera? I thought you needed a special machine for that.
That's not right, then. The literature needs to show how the lens will either
a) perform on its own (so distortion and CA numbers should be based on uncorrected RAWs)
or
b) perform when corrected (so MTF chart needs to be adjusted based on the corrections that are made.) I understand that you can't do the measurement itself, but there has to be a way to note the change in resolution after distortion correction and extrapolate the 'corrected' MTF from that, otherwise, you're looking at data that will never show itself in real life. Distortion correction has an impact on resolution capabilities of a lens. Now, it might be slight, but it looks to me from the RAW images I've seen that the 12mm has barrel distortion at least in the 2-4% range, and that will affect how sharp the corners get. Looking at the MTF, my guess is they'll still be pretty sharp after corrected, but there will be an impact.
Funny that I'm nitpicking this, though...as I generally care only how the final images look, but if you're going to publish charts on how the lenses perform, all aspects need to be evaluated under the same criteria.
I certainly agree with both a and b. They are very reasonable expectations IMO.
But I have noticed from the review on the Spanish site linked previously that the uncorrected distortion and vignetting are quite low on their own. So I do not really think correction is necessary for raw shooters.
I would have preferred if Zeiss showed their standard vignetting and distortion graphs not the ones measured on the Nex.
I took a look at the full version of the shot with the camels lying down (4th image) taken with the 12mm @ f/10 on the X-E1 and it doesn't look that impressive to me. Look at the camels on the right lower part of the frame. I would have expected more from a prime of this caliber.
I took a look at the full version of the shot with the camels lying down (4th image) taken with the 12mm @ f/10 on the X-E1 and it doesn't look that impressive to me. Look at the camels on the right lower part of the frame. I would have expected more from a prime of this caliber.
Yeah, that camel shot doesn't just look soft in the corner; it looks soft everywhere. Also, that exif seems strange to me. I know it's at f/10, but still: 1/40 sec at ISO 800 in the desert sun?
alwang wrote:
Yeah, that camel shot doesn't just look soft in the corner; it looks soft everywhere. Also, that exif seems strange to me. I know it's at f/10, but still: 1/40 sec at ISO 800 in the desert sun?
It's at Petra, deep in a slot canyon...I'm sure the light is much lower there than in full sun.
Anybody knows if these Touits are future compatible with FF Nexes n Fuji X?
If the answer is a definite 'no', I'll probably opt for speed booster & my existing ZEs & CYs. (I don't own a mirrorless yet and shoot w a 5DM2 which I find heavy)
After a while, i do get tired of buying (and selling) lenses. And FF mirrorless are rumored to appear in late 2014... round the corner, so to speak.
mojoh wrote:
Anybody knows if these Touits are future compatible with FF Nexes n Fuji X?
If the answer is a definite 'no', I'll probably opt for speed booster & my existing ZEs & CYs. (I don't own a mirrorless yet and shoot w a 5DM2 which I find heavy)
After a while, i do get tired of buying (and selling) lenses. And FF mirrorless are rumored to appear in late 2014... round the corner, so to speak.
They are designed for APS-C, not FF.
Using those big and heavy lenses on a mirrorless camera still doesn't make any sense to me. Balance is completely gone.
They might work in the crop mode like VG900 (full frame video camera) works with existing nex lenses.
mojoh wrote:
Anybody knows if these Touits are future compatible with FF Nexes n Fuji X?
If the answer is a definite 'no', I'll probably opt for speed booster & my existing ZEs & CYs. (I don't own a mirrorless yet and shoot w a 5DM2 which I find heavy)
After a while, i do get tired of buying (and selling) lenses. And FF mirrorless are rumored to appear in late 2014... round the corner, so to speak.
Edward, I hear what you are saying but terms like sophistication and full zeisness are too nebulous for me as I prefer more technical descriptions like "better color corrected" etc. I feel zeiss lenses still have a common element to their drawing style which make them unique from Leica. Zeiss keep improving their designs in different areas. Mostly they have been going for better color correction, less CA . Bokeh rendering and focus to out of focus transition rate is different amongst the new lenses.
A new trend started with RX1 might be giving up a little in distorsion area to gain better sharpness across the frame at wide open apertures and rely on software or in camera firmware to correct the distortion like 'blad has been doing with its digital MF systems and lenses.
We will see. Just my $.02.
Jochenb wrote:
They are designed for APS-C, not FF.
Using those big and heavy lenses on a mirrorless camera still doesn't make any sense to me. Balance is completely gone.
I agree, using big lens with NEX isn't quite practical... I have done that (with Nikon mount lens).
Some samples photos suggested that Speed booster is not optimized for corner sharpness... it 's commonly accepted that TCs degrade optical quality... why would a speed booster really give you speed and quality and everything?
I shoot Nikon FF, but starting to think a APS-C NEX is actually sufficient for situations that I find FF kit is too heavy. I'm quite satisfied with the sensorof NEX-6(not so much for NEX-7), just I don't like their operations much (DSLRs are still much better).
ytwong wrote:
I agree, using big lens with NEX isn't quite practical... I have done that (with Nikon mount lens).
Some samples photos suggested that Speed booster is not optimized for corner sharpness... it 's commonly accepted that TCs degrade optical quality... why would a speed booster really give you speed and quality and everything?
I shoot Nikon FF, but starting to think a APS-C NEX is actually sufficient for situations that I find FF kit is too heavy. I'm quite satisfied with the sensorof NEX-6(not so much for NEX-7), just I don't like their operations much (DSLRs are still much better).
I do understand the desire to use existing manual DSLR lenses on mirrorless, but it's definitely not for me. I bought a Nikon adapter for my NEX, but as soon as I put a FF manual focus Nikkor on, I immediately knew I would never do it again.
I'm actually in the process of selling all of my Nikon equipment. They say the best camera you have is the one you have with you. I carry my NEX with me everywhere. A small, discrete camera is very liberating. Actually, I got a chance to play with an RX1 today, and it's making me wonder if I could downsize even more, but that FF NEX always tell me to wait before making any further purchases.
