p.35 #1 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
rscheffler wrote:
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....Show more →
I don't know if Lloyd has shown the native, non-corrected distortion for the Batis lenses or not as I'm not a current subscriber. Sean Reid does typically show this though in his lens reviews. I'm not sure what Sony (or more like Adobe) is currently doing with third party lenses like the Batis on Sony bodies but I know in some cases with other cameras, hidden corrections sometimes still take place even when the software is set to do no auto corrections. The work around is often to use a different raw converter (Sean Reid uses AccuRaw for this purpose). Hopefully, he will review these lenses.
p.35 #2 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Not sure there are any software corrections yet for him to use with ACR. I doubt it very highly.
Im not worried about distortion so much in a 85 lens and I doubt the reality on it is less than what the numbers are visually. My theory buy it try it.
p.35 #4 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
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. ...Show more →
But doesn't the CA correction only affect the color of fringes? I would think that the focus spread, and loss of information, would not be so easily recoverable.
p.35 #5 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
GMPhotography wrote:
Not sure there are any software corrections yet for him to use with ACR. I doubt it very highly.
Im not worried about distortion so much in a 85 lens and I doubt the reality on it is less than what the numbers are visually. My theory buy it try it.
I was mostly curious about the 25 and the examples posted in the 3D-Kraft review look really great. Sharp across the frame and with seemingly very little distortion (and since a lens correction profile is not used, it's the optical result). Not sure why on earth Zeiss would simply not list the true distortion level for this lens (which really flies in the face of what a lens data sheet and MTF are about, particularly one from Zeiss).
I have seen in previous posted images that the native distortion is a bit higher than I would like from the 85 and I don't care for how the correction distorts certain shapes (and that includes the bokeh shapes).
p.35 #6 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Taylor Sherman wrote:
But doesn't the CA correction only affect the color of fringes? I would think that the focus spread, and loss of information, would not be so easily recoverable.
I'm sure severe CA correction would be detrimental but in most lenses I have used, minor corrections of lateral CA at high contrast edges have never come close to equaling the loss of peripheral sharpness encountered when correcting for strong distortion.
My general opinion is that lens designs which include a lot of distortion - say like the Sony FE 28/2 - do so as a trade off for cost and size (which can of course be a great benefit for the consumer). I'm afraid though that we will see more and more lenses that still take the short cut of necessary digital correction but offer no to little cost benefit (at least to the consumer. The manufacturer will make more profit selling the cheaper to make lens at a higher price of course). I'm not saying these Batis lenses are doing this as the 25 looks as if it may be decent distortion wise but I think it's a slippery slope when a company like Zeiss no longer provide true optical distortion amounts in their technical lens data sheets.
p.35 #7 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Im a little surprised by Zeiss also. Usually you can count on there numbers. I think personally the 25mm is the better of the two. The 85 I'm sure its great but we may have something better in Canon at 85 if it can focus fast than it might be worth a look. See the Sony 85 1.4 like my dang Minolta 200mm 2.8 HS are screw drives and i would love to get all the AF points and tracking but not sure that is going to happen. I need one of these guys with a A7rII to try it. Better yet Sony just send me one and let me go at it. Im going to buy the 85 Batis regardless since I sold my 85 ZA 1.4 and I have a nice gap between 50-200 and that not going to work.
p.35 #9 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Don't be over critical.
Seriously just go enjoy shooting art. This stuff will just make your head spin. I love gear like the next person but at some point at least for me its just a tool. Now lets talk golf thats my hobby.
Jun 15, 2015 at 10:41 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.35 #10 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I was mostly curious about the 25 and the examples posted in the 3D-Kraft review look really great. Sharp across the frame and with seemingly very little distortion (and since a lens correction profile is not used, it's the optical result). Not sure why on earth Zeiss would simply not list the true distortion level for this lens (which really flies in the face of what a lens data sheet and MTF are about, particularly one from Zeiss).
I have seen in previous posted images that the native distortion is a bit higher than I would like from the 85 and I don't care for how the correction distorts certain shapes (and that includes the bokeh shapes)....Show more →
Tariq:
The digilloyd blog has the uncorrected distortion graphs for both lenses. The 85 is about 3% pincushion at it worst and the 25 is 1.5% barrel with just a bit of moustache. The 25 is really quite good uncorrected for a wide. Here are the links:
Personally I am not too bothered by the 85's distortion. I suspect I will get the lens for my wife who shoots AF lenses and I will correct about 1% or so. I doubt I will use the default lens correction--it looks too strong for most uses. I don't mind a little distortion in a portrait and that will be my wife's primary use.
p.35 #11 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
In all truth I just don't see going forward with cost concerns at least to keep them low that lens designers are going to take the least problem area and let that go to keep the design and production costs down when they can use software to correct the least problem areas and that is distortion. The net effect of the correction is so minor most people will never know it.
p.35 #12 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
GMPhotography wrote:
Don't be over critical.
Seriously just go enjoy shooting art. This stuff will just make your head spin. I love gear like the next person but at some point at least for me its just a tool. Now lets talk golf thats my hobby.
Golf! If you get me on the subject of golf and golf courses (water/ land use, fertilizers, etc), you will definitely get pissed off at what I say!
p.35 #13 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Steve Spencer wrote:
Tariq:
The digilloyd blog has the uncorrected distortion graphs for both lenses. The 85 is about 3% pincushion at it worst and the 25 is 1.5% barrel with just a bit of moustache. The 25 is really quite good uncorrected for a wide. Here are the links:
Personally I am not too bothered by the 85's distortion. I suspect I will get the lens for my wife who shoots AF lenses and I will correct about 1% or so. I doubt I will use the default lens correction--it looks too strong for most uses. I don't mind a little distortion in a portrait and that will be my wife's primary use....Show more →
Thanks Steve. I do remember seeing that 85 graph previously. It's about 3-4x the amount of distortion I expect for an 85. I typically use my 85-90's for not only portrait work but also for stuff where I need to correct for distortion fully. I don't mind minor corrections of a lens that has say .7-1% distortion but 3% is too high for my use. The 25 looks outstanding/ impressive. If I was looking for a 25, this would likely be tough to beat.
p.35 #14 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Golf! If you get me on the subject of golf and golf courses (water/ land use, fertilizers, etc), you will definitely get pissed off at what I say!
p.35 #15 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
That was my disappointment also after seeing the distortion correction on 85mm. I don't need the correction for the portraits, but I checked 24-70mm has 3% pincushion distortion and I remember some my corrected jpgs did not look very good when I had the family shots with corners filled...
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thanks Steve. I do remember seeing that 85 graph previously. It's about 3-4x the amount of distortion I expect for an 85. I typically use my 85-90's for not only portrait work but also for stuff where I need to correct for distortion fully. I don't mind minor corrections of a lens that has say .7-1% distortion but 3% is too high for my use. The 25 looks outstanding/ impressive. If I was looking for a 25, this would likely be tough to beat.
p.35 #16 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
serhan_ wrote:
That was my disappointment also after seeing the distortion correction on 85mm. I don't need the correction for the portraits, but I checked 24-70mm has 3% pincushion distortion and I remember some my corrected jpgs did not look very good when I had the family shots with corners filled...
Yeah, I'm sure the Sony 90 is great but it's a monster size wise. I have a small OM 85/2 that is working fine for me right now and I'm sure I will add a smaller alt 90 or 100 soon (small Voigtlander 90/3.5, CY 100/3.5 or similar).
p.35 #17 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thanks Steve. I do remember seeing that 85 graph previously. It's about 3-4x the amount of distortion I expect for an 85. I typically use my 85-90's for not only portrait work but also for stuff where I need to correct for distortion fully. I don't mind minor corrections of a lens that has say .7-1% distortion but 3% is too high for my use. The 25 looks outstanding/ impressive. If I was looking for a 25, this would likely be tough to beat.
3% is too high for me too, and this is lens that costs $1,200. The Canon 85/1.8 has about 0.24% barrel, costs about $350 and is smaller & lighter.
p.35 #18 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I'm afraid though that we will see more and more lenses that still take the short cut of necessary digital correction but offer no to little cost benefit (at least to the consumer. The manufacturer will make more profit selling the cheaper to make lens at a higher price of course).
Great minds think alike, Tariq That's what worries me too. For over 100 years, great lenses were designed and manufactured without any digital correction and they worked great. If you look at Sony's own offerings, all FF ZA primes are superb without needing any correction, whether for A or FE mount. I'm suspicious that the whole distortion thing is a way for the manufacturers to make more money, by selling us an inferior product. I will refuse to pay any penny from my own money to finance and thus encourage such scheme. Heck even Leica has joined with the ridiculous Q lens not even covering the whole image frame.
Luckily, M mount lenses are superbly designed, fully optically corrected, with great performance and small size. Some of the lenses I own were designed during early 2000, and they work perfectly.
p.35 #19 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
edwardkaraa wrote:
Great minds think alike, Tariq That's what worries me too. For over 100 years, great lenses were designed and manufactured without any digital correction and they worked great. If you look at Sony's own offerings, all FF ZA primes are superb without needing any correction, whether for A or FE mount. I'm suspicious that the whole distortion thing is a way for the manufacturers to make more money, by selling us an inferior product. I will refuse to pay any penny from my own money to finance and thus encourage such scheme. Heck even Leica has joined with the ridiculous Q lens not even covering the whole image frame.
Luckily, M mount lenses are superbly designed, fully optically corrected, with great performance and small size. Some of the lenses I own were designed during early 2000, and they work perfectly....Show more →
Leica Q lens was designed in house. The Q camera is also manufactured in house. Glass is built to specs. Camera parts are sourced. Sensor is unique to the Leica Q. And isn't Sony or CMOSIS (we know this part already.) So this is technically a Leica camera, not panasonic rebadged. According to Leica.
Though Zeiss has just recently lied to us... So who knows.
I'm honestly thinking it's a money thing... The camera body costs around $3k in their eyes, if it were sold solo without a mount they'd probably ask $4k for it or more (assuming lenses are around). If they wanted to make lenses that compete with M lenses, they'd need to be priced at M lens pricing or more. So this lens is around $1k in their eyes, which is cheap for leica, and honestly I'm starting to like it, despite the digital corrections (which really won't have any effect on the way I take images). Although I would have loved a proper summicron lens on the front of my Q.
So the whole cutting costs and using digital corrections.. That's what it is.
Sure you "can" make cheap lenses without digital corrections, but they're not going to be small, and they're not going to be good, unless they're not cheap.
Look at the 35/1.4ZM it's not cheap, it's not small (for an M lens), but it's good.
Though I have to admit the rest of the ZM line is pretty decent, though they're not FAST lenses. And the price isn't cheap like say the sony 28/2 FE.
p.35 #20 · Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Adam, cheap lenses that rely on digital corrections are fine by me. I won't buy them but they are what they are. My worry is that guys like Zeiss and Leica are starting to use digital corrections on mainstream glass, like we see with the Batis 85. I mentioned M mount glass as an example of small, light, and excellent performance without digital correction. I can even say cheap (Voigtlander) or not so expensive (Zeiss).
). 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