carstenw wrote:
He did disclose a bunch of his processing, I think he even started a thread about it! AFAIR he used Clarity liberally early on, and then realised how destructive it was to IQ (at the time; LR is not quite so hamfisted now). I am not aware of any problems with Contrast?
there are two versions of that image in the link I gave. the one you posted is where he boosted contrast and saturation.
I have got a question for whoever...since Zeiss is Zeiss for their lens designs (which anyone can do) and their "T" coating which is proprietary, if you put a Sony Zeiss filter (which advertises "T") in front of the lens, does that negate the flare internally since it is being stopped from entering the lens groups?
mogul wrote:
I have got a question for whoever...since Zeiss is Zeiss for their lens designs (which anyone can do) and their "T" coating which is proprietary, if you put a Sony Zeiss filter (which advertises "T") in front of the lens, does that negate the flare internally since it is being stopped from entering the lens groups?
Nope, the coatings are on the surfaces of each lens element inside the lens. Each air to glass interface inside the lens is a potential for flare. The T* coating on a filter only reduces the flare caused by the filter. While the Zeiss T* coating is good, there are other good lens coatings out there from other brands, too.
I don't think I would lose hope Nikon or Canon would ignore the manufacturing convenience of mirrorless. Someone on FM said that the mirrorbox for a DSLR cost about $250. An EVF costs ? I think the Loxia series of lenses could work across a lot of mirrorless bodies with changes to the mount. But in light of the above discussions, there would seem to need to be a consensus on AA stack design.
rscheffler wrote:
Well, it would be an exciting development. My assumption was Zeiss canned it when the a7 series was announced to concentrate on Loxia... but who knows, maybe they were fairly far ahead in the process and just delayed it. Wasn't the rumor a 35/1.4? It would be hilarious if it's a 28/1.4 and coincides with the 28 Lux.
Taylor Sherman wrote:
That would definitely be an "oh snap!" moment. But actually it looks too big. It'd be huge compared to most other ZMs. I can't imagine what new ZE/ZF.2 it would be though.
Edit: OK I think that's a ZM. You can just barely see what I think is a tab on the aperture ring on the upper left. 35/1.4!
What makes me think ZM is the extended rear element from the lens mount. That's only ever present with rangefinder lenses and in particular, wide angle rangefinder lenses. 35/1.4 would be the safe bet, though I'm open to being surprised. It does look quite large/wide... but when has Zeiss ever shied away from making large lenses? (compared to Leica, that is)
---------------------------------------------
rscheffler wrote:
Regarding Luka's image: he never really disclosed much about his processing. My assumption was always that he was very liberal with the clarity and contrast sliders. That said, the ZM35/2 definitely has a busy bokeh character. Reminds me of the Canon 35/2 LTM.
carstenw wrote:
He did disclose a bunch of his processing, I think he even started a thread about it! AFAIR he used Clarity liberally early on, and then realised how destructive it was to IQ (at the time; LR is not quite so hamfisted now). I am not aware of any problems with Contrast?
OK, I must have missed it, or simply forgotten. Anyway, I think what I was trying to imply is when looking at all these great photos in the various images threads, almost none are SOOC and have been tweaked by their creator to some extent. Sometimes by a lot. It can be a bit misleading for those without as much PP experience, who may not realize this. But I think most of us are well aware of it.
Increasing contrast will change the range of brightness in background tonality, creating a wider range that is more pronounced, increasing subtle variations in shading, making them more obvious. Contrast, clarity and sharpening adjustments are the essentially the same thing - changes to contrast - just applied in different ways.
Matt Grum wrote:
The only evidence I've seen that you can "reverse" the astigmatism that results from oblique rays hitting the filter stack is patent from Brian Caldwell on behalf of Panavision for a system of corrective lenses inserted between the original lens and sensor.
astigmatism is one of the optical flaws that must be addressed in the design of every lens. designers choose to what degree and how to correct it. you can see some of the choices they make by looking at Roger's latest field curvature tests. minor changes to the correction of astigmatism already in the zm designs could concievibly make the correction a better match for what the cover glass will do.
Matt Grum wrote:
If it were easy to counteract this smearing by tweaking the shape of the elements slightly or changing glass types then surely Olympus/Panasonic would have done this instead of designing lenses toward telecentricity.
it seems they did, micro 4/3 lens are much less telecentric than 4/3 lenses and the micro 4/3 lenses perform worse if you remove the cover glass.
rscheffler wrote:
Well, it would be an exciting development. My assumption was Zeiss canned it when the a7 series was announced to concentrate on Loxia... but who knows, maybe they were fairly far ahead in the process and just delayed it. Wasn't the rumor a 35/1.4? It would be hilarious if it's a 28/1.4 and coincides with the 28 Lux.
You're right Ron, but the 35/1.4 part was no rumor, just wishful thinking. All what we know is that it's a high quality fast prime. I would be surprised if Zeiss changed their minds ultimately and decided to go ahead with the production.
JaKo wrote:
That's a funky bokeh for sure, but checking his other Biogon ZM 2/35 shots the posted example is very extreme (and possibly that's why he kept it!)
The 35 biogon bokeh can be above average if one, like with any other lens, knows it's strengths and weaknesses. I personally know how to extract good bokeh from the biogon. I know how to make it produce ugly bokeh too, but never as successfully as Luka.
carlitos wrote:
I don't think I would lose hope Nikon or Canon would ignore the manufacturing convenience of mirrorless. Someone on FM said that the mirrorbox for a DSLR cost about $250. An EVF costs ? I think the Loxia series of lenses could work across a lot of mirrorless bodies with changes to the mount. But in light of the above discussions, there would seem to need to be a consensus on AA stack design.
The beauty of nikon getting rid of the mirror is enjoying a huge set of native lenses with the added benefit that they'd probably focus more accurately because of mirrorless focusing (once it matures) and evf. I'm holding out hope nikon is just waiting for a few more advances in focusing and evf technologies.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The 35 biogon bokeh can be above average if one, like with any other lens, knows it's strengths and weaknesses. I personally know how to extract good bokeh from the biogon. I know how to make it produce ugly bokeh too, but never as successfully as Luka.
i do kinda feel like luka was trying to provoke the worst from that lens, there's a lot of examples of really bad bokeh in the link to is archive. some of his other lenses can have really bad bokeh in certain situations too, but he mostly avoids it.
it certainly can have good bokeh but all the good examples i've seen are at pretty long distance (5m or more), stopped down considerably, or just nothing at at all in the background.
ecarlino wrote:
The beauty of nikon getting rid of the mirror is enjoying a huge set of native lenses with the added benefit that they'd probably focus more accurately because of mirrorless focusing (once it matures) and evf. I'm holding out hope nikon is just waiting for a few more advances in focusing and evf technologies.
+1
Waiting for a D800M - essentially Nikon's version of the A7R, but without the A7R ergonomic issues. A short mount would be fine with me (so would just keeping the current F-mount) as I'm mostly interested in the focusing accuracy that you get with mirrorless. Zeiss Loxia glass for a mirrorless Nikon would be very very nice.
sebboh wrote:
i do kinda feel like luka was trying to provoke the worst from that lens, there's a lot of examples of really bad bokeh in the link to is archive. some of his other lenses can have really bad bokeh in certain situations too, but he mostly avoids it.
it certainly can have good bokeh but all the good examples i've seen are at pretty long distance (5m or more), stopped down considerably, or just nothing at at all in the background.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The 35 biogon bokeh can be above average if one, like with any other lens, knows it's strengths and weaknesses. I personally know how to extract good bokeh from the biogon. I know how to make it produce ugly bokeh too, but never as successfully as Luka.
sebboh wrote:
i do kinda feel like luka was trying to provoke the worst from that lens, there's a lot of examples of really bad bokeh in the link to is archive. some of his other lenses can have really bad bokeh in certain situations too, but he mostly avoids it.
it certainly can have good bokeh but all the good examples i've seen are at pretty long distance (5m or more), stopped down considerably, or just nothing at at all in the background.
Exactly; as usual, know your lens and work around its weaknesses.
This afternoon I took few shots with Biogon 2/35 in order to reproduce similar odd bokeh, but my example shown earlier was the best of worst I could come up with.
On other hand if specific type of backgrounds at mid distance are avoided then Biogon's bokeh can even pass as fairly pleasing. Hopefully the new Loxia 2/35 bokeh will be on less nervous side. http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC2077_640.jpg
JaKo wrote:
Exactly; as usual, know your lens and work around its weaknesses.
This afternoon I took few shots with Biogon 2/35 in order to reproduce similar odd bokeh, but my example shown earlier was the best of worst I could come up with.
On other hand if specific type of backgrounds at mid distance are avoided then Biogon's bokeh can even pass as fairly pleasing. Hopefully the new Loxia 2/35 bokeh will be on less nervous side. http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC2077_640.jpg
I don't see how this discussion about the ZM 35 bokeh is that relevant to the Loxia, because the Loxia needs to be changed from the ZM to clear up the very nasty smearing. If Zeiss didn't take care of it (highly unlikely, near impossible IMHO), then nervous bokeh will be the least of their worries. And, if they did, this means a redesign that will inevitable affect bokeh as well. Another 3 days...
"The Loxia 2/50 will be available worldwide starting October 2014 and the Loxia 2/35 from the end of the fourth quarter of 2014. The recommended retail price of the Loxia 2/35 will be EUR 965.55* (US$ 1,299.00)* (excl. VAT) and that of the Loxia 2/50 will be EUR 713.45* (US$ 949.00)* (excl. VAT)."
Also interesting to see that the lenses are weathersealed (the blue rings are gaskets). I could be wrong, but I think that's a first for "true" Zeiss lenses?
(compared to Leica, that is)
