p.34 #2 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tamron is perfectly capable of the best QC in the business; their niche has been a lower cost alternative, but just as Sigma, they are chasing the high end market for the extra profit. T coating is just a marketing term to differentiate Zeiss coatings from every other manufacture's coating. As has been pointed out numerous times with the Sony Zeiss lenses, the amount of tweaking by Z engineers is highly suspect.
p.34 #3 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
mogul wrote:
Tamron is perfectly capable of the best QC in the business; their niche has been a lower cost alternative, but just as Sigma, they are chasing the high end market for the extra profit. T coating is just a marketing term to differentiate Zeiss coatings from every other manufacture's coating. As has been pointed out numerous times with the Sony Zeiss lenses, the amount of tweaking by Z engineers is highly suspect.
Tamron and Sigma are capable of the best QC in the business and manufacturing tolerances are just specified by the client. Now what is Tamron and Sigma interest in doing top level QC and very strict tolerances. They can do it but will they do it? They will be forced to price their lenses at Zeiss and Leica levels.
T* coatings are really unique in my opinion and experience. They are soft, scratch prone, but they will enhance contrast and 3D pop in a way no other coatings from any other manufacturer do.
p.34 #4 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
I have a number of Sony Zeiss lenses and even a filter or 2 with T coating and they are great. Thanks for the heads up about being soft, I wasn't aware of that.
p.34 #5 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
mogul wrote:
I have a number of Sony Zeiss lenses and even a filter or 2 with T coating and they are great. Thanks for the heads up about being soft, I wasn't aware of that.
You're welcome. T* coatings just need some extra care while cleaning. They're not as hard or water repellent as nano coatings from Nikon or B+W.
p.34 #6 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Steve Spencer wrote:
Seeing the lens designs is nice. I really like the look of the 85 f/1.8 design. Clearly based on a Sonnar design. Three elements with special glass, a floating element, and no asphericals. I have good hope for this lens. The 25 looks nice too. A lot more special glass and 5 aspherical surfaces, but that is needed I suppose to both keep it small and to get performance that wide.
I'm reading backwards through these posts and looked at the Flickr links first. Browsing the 85/1.8 images, there were a number where I had a strong impression of Sonnar rendering, both good and bad (mostly good). The 85 looks like it will be a nice, sharp lens with some character. The 25 is promising too.
Interesting to read the possible Tamron connection. Doesn't bother me. I started with Tamron Adaptall lenses back in the 80s because I couldn't afford much from Canon (being in high school at the time. ). Glad to see them still in the game and that Zeiss feels they're a suitable partner. Looking at what Cosina has produced for Zeiss over the years, as well as their own Voigtlander lenses, lately they appear to have improve their products a fair amount. It's probable such partnerings are beneficial for both sides.
p.34 #7 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Reading the few posts above mine, it seems I'm late to the party.. I just compared lens designs from a rumour website and Zeiss' brochure.. Seems Zeiss is buying designs for their Batis line then? Or at least for their 85mm.
Don't really care either way. Would rather just judge it on performance then who build it. But I find it a bit ridiculous that Zeiss claimed it was an in house design from the ground up. They essentially lied to everyone.
Also, kinda makes me wonder who built the lens for the Leica Q...
p.34 #9 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
GMPhotography wrote:
It's really about the glass itself and the quality of the glass process not the manufacturing of putting a lens together. This is Leicas BIG claim to fame is the glass they use is very high quality glass from the very beginning. Most folks completely over look the glass process itself.
According to this article I ran across recently by Puts, that's not the case any longer (if one is talking about a company like Leica making their own glass that is. If you are referring to just care in selection/ handling of the glass produced by other glass manufacturers, then disregard this).
"Here lie the origins of the famous, but short lived Leitz glass laboratory. When more glass types became available and automatic calculations were added to the design process, the role of the own glass lab was reduced and later even made obsolete. Of course it would be nice if a designer could use extremely specific glass properties to create an even better lens. But today the catalogues form Schott, Hoya and Ohara offer a wide selection of glass and the design process is highly automated.
It is now more important to study the properties of a glass and employ specific characteristics from this glass in unusual ways to get the required performance.
Leitz made the existence of the proprietary glass lab as an argument for the superior quality of their lenses and in a limited number of cases this was true. But progress of the glass companies made this argument obsolete.
It does linger on however in books and articles and the common knowledge of the Leica world.
The modern Leica M lenses are certainly world class lenses and all glasses employed are made by the well known companies. In a few cases Leica ave the required specs and the glass company melted a glass to conform to these specifications."
....
"Cosina does indeed own a glass manufacture plant that produces some glass types for their own consumption. There is no published catalogue of the glass types that are manufactured so no one outside the company can assess the characteristics and quality of the glass.
There is no theoretical or inherent advantage nowadays in using glass from their own glass manufacture and in fact it may be a limiting factor for getting the best possible performance.
Leica and Zeiss are good examples of companies who work with glass form the main companies in the world and can deliver outstandingly good lenses. The optical design process and the selection of glass and the handling of the glass are more important that the fact that a company makes its own glass."
p.34 #10 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Anyone care to comment/ speculate about how the distortion figures in these Zeiss MTF's were achieved? The numbers are extremely low for both lenses but don't we know for a fact that the 85 has a lot of native optical distortion that gets corrected digitally? Is Zeiss now only giving us results that represent post digital distortion correction and no longer true optical distortion numbers?
p.34 #11 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
adamdewilde wrote:
Reading the few posts above mine, it seems I'm late to the party.. I just compared lens designs from a rumour website and Zeiss' brochure.. Seems Zeiss is buying designs for their Batis line then? Or at least for their 85mm.
Don't really care either way. Would rather just judge it on performance then who build it. But I find it a bit ridiculous that Zeiss claimed it was an in house design from the ground up. They essentially lied to everyone.
Also, kinda makes me wonder who built the lens for the Leica Q...
Probably Panasonic for the the Q (who often use 1.7 for Summilux and likely are also responsible for the EVF) .
p.34 #12 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
adamdewilde wrote:
Reading the few posts above mine, it seems I'm late to the party.. I just compared lens designs from a rumour website and Zeiss' brochure.. Seems Zeiss is buying designs for their Batis line then? Or at least for their 85mm.
Don't really care either way. Would rather just judge it on performance then who build it. But I find it a bit ridiculous that Zeiss claimed it was an in house design from the ground up. They essentially lied to everyone.
Also, kinda makes me wonder who built the lens for the Leica Q...
Haha, I'm wondering the exact same thing about the Q, but didn't mention it to avoid injecting Leica into the thread. But I think it's a relevant point about how premium brands may not necessarily be producing or designing everything in-house.
I wouldn't be surprised that it's Panasonic. Some of their m43 lenses are excellent, by all accounts. Same with a number of their fixed lens cameras (which may have been Leica partnered designs). But then, maybe they outsource lens production to someone else? Pure guessing...
p.34 #13 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
To answer my own question with regard to the distortion number, I just noticed this on the MTF's for both distortion and relative illumination/ vignetting:
"Measured on Sony a7R, camera correction “on""
So, I guess we no longer get true numbers, at least for this Batis lens line.
p.34 #14 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
My first thought when I saw the Q was "Panasonic was involved". Sure looks a lot like a Panasonic lens and they use that same sequential field display tech on a few of their cameras.
p.34 #15 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
To answer my own question with regard to the distortion number, I just noticed this on the MTF's for both distortion and relative illumination/ vignetting:
"Measured on Sony a7R, camera correction “on""
So, I guess we no longer get true numbers, at least for this Batis lens line.
I wonder if the footnote for autocorrection being on applies to the Sharpness measurements as well or if that is without the sharpness reducing correction?
The problem would be if the distortion and sharpness readings were with different settings.
But if you get that level of sharpness and distortion with the in camera correction on, then it sb acceptable.
p.34 #17 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Anyone care to comment/ speculate about how the distortion figures in these Zeiss MTF's were achieved? The numbers are extremely low for both lenses but don't we know for a fact that the 85 has a lot of native optical distortion that gets corrected digitally? Is Zeiss now only giving us results that represent post digital distortion correction and no longer true optical distortion numbers?
Wouldn't it be a matter of contacting one of the Batis reviewers and getting them to load their images in ACR/LR and turning off lens corrections? I thought this is how it works with Sony cameras - or is the correction baked into the RAW file? I'd be surprised if Lloyd Chambers, for one, hasn't looked into this.
From what I've been reading elsewhere about systems that do this, leaving distortion correction to software may be a lesser of evils, which allows other aberrations to be better corrected by lens design, which otherwise may not be as easily corrected (if at all) in software. Looking ahead a few years, we'll likely be in the 100MP neighborhood sooner than later. Images will have a lot more information in them to allow such software corrections. Results should be very good, especially if later down sampled to more manageable file sizes.
With the FE mount not being backwards compatible with anything, at least anything legacy where such distortion would become visible and a problem, I expect we'll see a lot more of software correction.
p.34 #18 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
I do think that is the future - distortion correction in software. I mean it shouldn't be correcting something outrageous, but it is an aberration that software is well-suited for. All the other aberration types are much more complicated to address after the fact.
p.34 #19 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Taylor Sherman wrote:
I do think that is the future - distortion correction in software. I mean it shouldn't be correcting something outrageous, but it is an aberration that software is well-suited for. All the other aberration types are much more complicated to address after the fact.
Digital distortion correction has more detrimental effect on IQ (in the form of lower peripheral sharpness) than most other types of digital correction (such as for CA). With an MTF, I think the optical charecteristics of the lens should be what is measured - pre digital correction. Otherwise, the usefulness of a measurement like distortion and vignetting is of very little practical use (well, of course it looks that good after digital correction!). If I know the true optical measurement as a buyer, then I know if I'm willing to accept any tradeoffs IQ wise based on how much actual correction is required.
p.34 #20 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
ecarlino wrote:
I wonder if the footnote for autocorrection being on applies to the Sharpness measurements as well or if that is without the sharpness reducing correction?
The problem would be if the distortion and sharpness readings were with different settings.
But if you get that level of sharpness and distortion with the in camera correction on, then it sb acceptable.
Yes, it's a very good question but I'm afraid you will not like the answer as 1) there is no footnote specifying that the A7r was used with corrections "on" as in the other measurements for distortion and relative illumination and 2) I don't think MTF's are measured using the camera body by Zeiss. Here is what they use to measure MTF but I guess they don't use the more accurate "distortion tester" shown here but rather the A7r with corrections "on" instead (ridiculous imo):
(mostly good). The 85 looks like it will be a nice, sharp lens with some character. The 25 is promising too.
). If I know the true optical measurement as a buyer, then I know if I'm willing to accept any tradeoffs IQ wise based on how much actual correction is required.