Edward, can't say I've been able to determine additional flare or image degradation due to the chrome ring. My only problem with the design is when shooting through windows. I generally use my ZM lenses without hoods or filters.
rscheffler wrote:
Edward, can't say I've been able to determine additional flare or image degradation due to the chrome ring. My only problem with the design is when shooting through windows. I generally use my ZM lenses without hoods or filters.
Thank you Ron. I think in both your case and timballic, the problem is the reflection of the ring in glass that is in front of it, not within the lens itself.
It's clear to me that on the ZF lenses I have(several from 21mm to 100mm), the chrome ring is not 'visible' to the optics--meaning, the ring is placed well to the outside of the view of the optics, therefore cannot generate flare or reflections to the optics.
Check this yourself by looking through the rear of the lens. You cannot see the chrome ring.
It would be nice if they had found a way to make it black for the benefit of through-window shots and those that use uncoated, plastic filters.
Unfortunately, black chrome doesn't seem to be as durable as shiny chrome. Remember all the brassed out Leica black chrome bodies?
Even you can't see the ring, make no guarantee there is no reflection. It is all about right condition (angle of light) hit the ring and reflect multiple times through element. The contrast will be low at some location or more seriously flare will show up. However, with hood on, pretty much eliminate this since there is no way light can hit the ring and reflect to sensor.
There is definitely a design flaw for silver ring. As mentioned earlier, with silver ring uv filter, I got pretty bad flare with 50lux asph. Without filter, I never have problem like that.
Keith B. wrote:
It's clear to me that on the ZF lenses I have(several from 21mm to 100mm), the chrome ring is not 'visible' to the optics--meaning, the ring is placed well to the outside of the view of the optics, therefore cannot generate flare or reflections to the optics.
Check this yourself by looking through the rear of the lens. You cannot see the chrome ring.
It would be nice if they had found a way to make it black for the benefit of through-window shots and those that use uncoated, plastic filters.
Unfortunately, black chrome doesn't seem to be as durable as shiny chrome. Remember all the brassed out Leica black chrome bodies?...Show more →
Why not just anodize the brass in a similar fashion to most every other metal object. A good thick amount of anodization should be able to take significantly more of a beating than chrome.
Keith B. wrote:
It's clear to me that on the ZF lenses I have(several from 21mm to 100mm), the chrome ring is not 'visible' to the optics--meaning, the ring is placed well to the outside of the view of the optics, therefore cannot generate flare or reflections to the optics.
Check this yourself by looking through the rear of the lens. You cannot see the chrome ring.
It would be nice if they had found a way to make it black for the benefit of through-window shots and those that use uncoated, plastic filters.
Unfortunately, black chrome doesn't seem to be as durable as shiny chrome. Remember all the brassed out Leica black chrome bodies?...Show more →
As Zhangyue mentioned, it is very possible.
The fact that you don't see the ring through the optics is irrelevant. Otherwise you would get mechanical vignetting.
You can think about the chrome ring as if you are using a mirror or metallic reflector on the side of the camera. Usually you would use the reflector to lighten up the shadows in your subject, the result being reduced local contrast. The ring works in the same way, and can be even worse because it can produce specular reflections that are much more intense than a regular reflector.
But so far no-one has shown a single image that demonstrates the chrome ring causing lower contrast/flare in Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses.
The closest we have come to a 'problem' is the ring reflecting in glass elements that are in front of the lens - at which point you may as well berate Canon, Nikon etc. for writing their names in white on their cameras and every camera maker who made a chrome body (Leica) because they show up in reflections too.
Maybe because no one thought the image degradation is caused by the chrome ring. It could also be most people use the hoods. Afaik only the RF guys use their lenses without hoods because they block the VF. Or it could be that the ring doesn't cause any deterioration but somehow it doesn't sound logical to me.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Maybe because no one thought the image degradation is caused by the chrome ring. It could also be most people use the hoods. Afaik only the RF guys use their lenses without hoods because they block the VF. Or it could be that the ring doesn't cause any deterioration but somehow it doesn't sound logical to me.
The original Zeiss hood would not have helped in Timballics example, because it does not shield the chrome ring from light sources within the field of view.
I agree with simonw. You need at least two reflections for flare to show, so the Cokin filter or train window is part of the problem. Cokin filters are optically inferior, but if you desperately need the filter effect and insist on using them, and otherwise want the smallest possible amount of flare, you can also complain about the white text engraved on the front of the lens.
The question whether the chrome ring alone leads to a noticeable reduction in contrast has not been answered; so far nobody has proven it. The light path from the ring to the front element has a highly oblique incident angle, and it might well be that the fraction of reflected light that reaches the sensor is totally negligible.
Of course, if it would be possible to make a matte black ring with the same mechanical quality, that would be preferred.
For what it is worth, similar flare rings have been reported for lenses without chrome ring.
It would seem that flare (reduced contrast throughout image) would occur anytime a bright direct light source is bounced off the chrome rim into the lens.
It should be easy to test -- take the shots of complex high-contrast scene/subject with light well off-axis hitting the rim, then another shot with the rim completely covered in black. Multiple set-ups and angles of light should be tried.
Afterward, compare shots for the chrome and the masked shots for difference in shadow areas. That should settle if and how much flare is affecting the exposure.
I agree with the majority that Zeiss has taken an optical risk in solving the friction contact between hood and lens.
Thank you toothwalker. Your opinion is always appreciated.
I have to say that I have no worries in using the Zeiss UV filters permanently on the lenses. If I had any doubts, they totally disappeared tonight when I shot a night scene with a multitude of specular lights with the filter on. Normally in exactly the same situation, my B+W and Sony Zeiss filters would cause many ghosts and reflections, but not with the Zeiss filter. The T* coatings are amazing and I could not find any trace of ghosts or image degradation.
I am still going to test for reflections from the chrome ring asap, but at least I have the peace of mind that using the Zeiss filters permanently will solve this issue, if it ever was an issue.
