This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
p.13 #1Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Gunzorro wrote:
I'm probably going to be the odd man out here, but that "signature look" is what originally drove me away from Zeiss, in favor of "sharper lenses" such as Canon's TSE and macro, and further into the new 24 IS and 35 IS primes. I was happy to sell my ZE 21/2.8 and ZE 35/2, as Zeiss seemed to be creatively defining the lens aberrations they infused the lenses with. Very similar situation with Leica -- keeping only the R 60/2.8 macro.
I've only recently started purchasing a few inexpensive Zeiss ZF and ZF.2 for the D800e, partly due to...Show more →
This is certainly not without merit. There is undoubtedly a Zeiss (and ESPECIALLY Leica) RDF. Some of the "look" of these lenses is...poor performance (and don't get me started on the guys who think the digital R back is a better performer than a D810). But you can go too far in the other direction. The 50 Art is sterile.
I'm probably going to be the odd man out here, but that "signature look" is what originally drove me away from Zeiss, in favor of "sharper lenses" such as Canon's TSE and macro, and further into the new 24 IS and 35 IS primes. I was happy to sell my ZE 21/2.8 and ZE 35/2, as Zeiss seemed to be creatively defining the lens aberrations they infused the lenses with. Very similar situation with Leica -- keeping only the R 60/2.8 macro.
I've only recently started purchasing a few inexpensive Zeiss ZF and ZF.2 for the D800e, partly due to...Show more →
This is certainly not without merit. There is undoubtedly a Zeiss (and ESPECIALLY Leica) RDF. Some of the "look" of these lenses is...poor performance (and don't get me started on the guys who think the digital R back is a better performer than a D810). But you can go too far in the other direction. The 50 Art is sterile.
Sep 14, 2015 at 05:43 PM
p.13 #2Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Gunzorro wrote:
I was happy to sell my ZE 21/2.8 and ZE 35/2, as Zeiss seemed to be creatively defining the lens aberrations they infused the lenses with.
...
The 25/2.8 and 35/2 are wonderful on the higher rez sensor, but I consider these to be two of the lowest "bs quotient" in the Zeiss line up.
i'm confused, you didn't like the ZE 35/2 on the lower res 5DII but you do like it on the d800e? or you just like it better than the nikon 35/1.8 but not better than the EF 35/2 IS?
i've not been sold on any of the ZE/ZF line myself, they don't really match my preferred set of tradeoffs as well as the contax line did.
the new 50 looks interesting as a wide open shooter, where the ZE was nearly unusable. the corner bokeh looks like it could get crazy in a lot of situations though. i doubt i'd ever get one just because of the size. the 85 looks awesome, but way bigger than anything i'd use.
I was happy to sell my ZE 21/2.8 and ZE 35/2, as Zeiss seemed to be creatively defining the lens aberrations they infused the lenses with.
...
The 25/2.8 and 35/2 are wonderful on the higher rez sensor, but I consider these to be two of the lowest "bs quotient" in the Zeiss line up.
i'm confused, you didn't like the ZE 35/2 on the lower res 5DII but you do like it on the d800e? or you just like it better than the nikon 35/1.8 but not better than the EF 35/2 IS?
i've not been sold on any of the ZE/ZF line myself, they don't really match my preferred set of tradeoffs as well as the contax line did.
the new 50 looks interesting as a wide open shooter, where the ZE was nearly unusable. the corner bokeh looks like it could get crazy in a lot of situations though. i doubt i'd ever get one just because of the size. the 85 looks awesome, but way bigger than anything i'd use.
Sep 14, 2015 at 06:45 PM
p.13 #3Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
bjornthun wrote:
The oldest generation Zeiss I've shot is ZF/ZF.2 and a couple of ZM lenses, ZM 50/2, ZF 50/1.4 among them. I've never used any Contax C/Y or Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. Could you guys explain in short what's changed from the old to the new? I'm a bit confused now.
It's difficult to describe a "look" with words, but I would say Contax lenses had a cool to neutral color balance, with unusually high micro contrast (but not high resolution), combined with some field curvature (and surprisingly low wide open veiling haze). It resulted in images that are very lively on the focus plane with tons of 3D with a much lower contrast in the oof areas. When I look at photos taken with my old Contax glass, it strangely has an air of familiarity with modern Leica M glass. I'm not sure others see it this way.
Sep 14, 2015 at 09:00 PM
p.13 #4Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
The two new Milvus lenses are interesting because they are marked departures from their predecessors. The ZE/ZF 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 are quite symmetrical designs with a lot of SA wide open that resolves nicely as the lens is stopped down. That SA is a prime characteristic of the lenses. It accounts for their weakness wide open, but its elimination as the lens is stopped down reveals what fine lenses they are. Definitely not the modern approach, however.
The new lenses take a very different approach. They are not very symmetrical at all (especially the 50) and they have greatly reduced SA compared to their predecessors (especially the 50). They don't correct all of the aberrations, however, like an Otus. What you get is good sharpness wide open and excellent sharpness across the frame stopped down. They are sharp lenses.
What you don't get is Otus/APO colour correction. You also don't get small size like Leica M lenses or the high price of Otus and Leica M lenses. They are very large, very sharp, lenses with above average but not exceptional control of aberrations including CA, and you get that at a high but not exceptionally high price.
Compared to the Otus lenses they are almost as big with more aberrations and a lower price. Compared to Leica M lenses they are much larger and control aberrations almost as well at a lower price. So, if you can put up with the weight you get fairly close to Leica M performance at a lower price.
Now it is still early, and we have only seen a few samples and heard bloggers talk about these lenses. Will they be as good as the Otus lenses? I think even now we know they won't be. Will they be as good as the Leica M 50 lux Asph and the 75 or 90 cron AA or the 75 lux? I expect the Milvus 50 D, to have a flatter field, similar level of colour correction, but not as good of contrast wide open and nowhere near the bokeh of the 50 lux Asph? Used the 50 lux Asph now costs about $2000 to $2,500, whereas the Milvus 50 D will probably settle at around $1,000 used. The Milvus is over three times the size, however, and about 3 times the weight of the Leica. Reasonable people could pick either depending on what matters to them most. Personally, I love great bokeh, but I also like a flat field; both lenses have their strengths and drawbacks including weight and price. Both lenses have a number of advantages over almost all other 50s.
The 85 is a bit different. It looks to have excellent bokeh as well as a flat field at least stopped down. It may not be as sharp wide open as the 50, but it should still be nicely sharp. Compared to the Otus it is actually a little larger and likely has more aberrations but may have bokeh that at least rivals the Otus if not surpasses it. Personally, if I could live with a lens that large (which I think I can't), then I might well pick the Milvus over the Otus. I like it strengths and weakness a bit better. Compared to Leica M glass, I expect it will be less sharp wide open than the 75 and 90 APO, but I doubt it will be better corrected (but we will have to see when they are compared). The Milvus is over double the size and will probably settle about $1,000 less on the used market. I expect the Milvus might have a small bokeh advantage over the 75 and 90AA as well. In many ways the Milvus may have more in similarity with the 75 Lux. The Lux isn't very sharp wide open, but has wonderful bokeh and is very sharp with a quite flat field stopped down. It would seem the 85 Milvus has much of the same characteristics as the 75 Lux, but has managed to be a little sharper wide open. Even though the 75 lux is not small the Milvus 85 is double its size, but about $2,000 less. If I could handle the size, which I can't, the Milvus seems like a slightly better lens at a much lower price.
The new lenses take a very different approach. They are not very symmetrical at all (especially the 50) and they have greatly reduced SA compared to their predecessors (especially the 50). They don't correct all of the aberrations, however, like an Otus. What you get is good sharpness wide open and excellent sharpness across the frame stopped down. They are sharp lenses.
What you don't get is Otus/APO colour correction. You also don't get small size like Leica M lenses or the high price of Otus and Leica M lenses. They are very large, very sharp, lenses with above average but not exceptional control of aberrations including CA, and you get that at a high but not exceptionally high price.
Compared to the Otus lenses they are almost as big with more aberrations and a lower price. Compared to Leica M lenses they are much larger and control aberrations almost as well at a lower price. So, if you can put up with the weight you get fairly close to Leica M performance at a lower price.
Now it is still early, and we have only seen a few samples and heard bloggers talk about these lenses. Will they be as good as the Otus lenses? I think even now we know they won't be. Will they be as good as the Leica M 50 lux Asph and the 75 or 90 cron AA or the 75 lux? I expect the Milvus 50 D, to have a flatter field, similar level of colour correction, but not as good of contrast wide open and nowhere near the bokeh of the 50 lux Asph? Used the 50 lux Asph now costs about $2000 to $2,500, whereas the Milvus 50 D will probably settle at around $1,000 used. The Milvus is over three times the size, however, and about 3 times the weight of the Leica. Reasonable people could pick either depending on what matters to them most. Personally, I love great bokeh, but I also like a flat field; both lenses have their strengths and drawbacks including weight and price. Both lenses have a number of advantages over almost all other 50s.
The 85 is a bit different. It looks to have excellent bokeh as well as a flat field at least stopped down. It may not be as sharp wide open as the 50, but it should still be nicely sharp. Compared to the Otus it is actually a little larger and likely has more aberrations but may have bokeh that at least rivals the Otus if not surpasses it. Personally, if I could live with a lens that large (which I think I can't), then I might well pick the Milvus over the Otus. I like it strengths and weakness a bit better. Compared to Leica M glass, I expect it will be less sharp wide open than the 75 and 90 APO, but I doubt it will be better corrected (but we will have to see when they are compared). The Milvus is over double the size and will probably settle about $1,000 less on the used market. I expect the Milvus might have a small bokeh advantage over the 75 and 90AA as well. In many ways the Milvus may have more in similarity with the 75 Lux. The Lux isn't very sharp wide open, but has wonderful bokeh and is very sharp with a quite flat field stopped down. It would seem the 85 Milvus has much of the same characteristics as the 75 Lux, but has managed to be a little sharper wide open. Even though the 75 lux is not small the Milvus 85 is double its size, but about $2,000 less. If I could handle the size, which I can't, the Milvus seems like a slightly better lens at a much lower price.
Sep 14, 2015 at 10:17 PM
p.13 #5Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
I think there are too many paradoxes in the search for the classical Zeiss look. High micro contrast was an important part of it, and the modern lenses that are deemed too clinical have even higher micro contrast. Lenses are by default not corrected for secondary LoCA (bokeh color fringing) and examples of lenses without specific APO correction and with low SLoCA are very rare. People seem to want to get rid of SLoCA, but lenses without it are either too clinical for them or have too harsh boke. The classical look seems to be a mythological state of a certain mix of aberrations, and even improving all of them slightly and simultaneously would give a different and more clinical rendering with worse boke. People who want the classical look have to stick to the old lenses as new ones with the same look and improved optics just aren't gonna happen. That is not to say that modern lenses could and should be designed for a slightly different look than many of them are now.
Sep 15, 2015 at 12:15 AM
p.13 #6Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
sebboh wrote:
i'm confused, you didn't like the ZE 35/2 on the lower res 5DII but you do like it on the d800e? or you just like it better than the nikon 35/1.8 but not better than the EF 35/2 IS?
I have tried all the ZE lenses and IMO 35/2 was the best. I loved this lens.
i'm confused, you didn't like the ZE 35/2 on the lower res 5DII but you do like it on the d800e? or you just like it better than the nikon 35/1.8 but not better than the EF 35/2 IS?
I have tried all the ZE lenses and IMO 35/2 was the best. I loved this lens.
Sep 15, 2015 at 03:45 AM
p.13 #7Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
hiepphotog wrote:
I'm confused then, how can they sacrifice sharpness to improve micro-contrast? In the lab, micro-contrast is the 30/40 lpmm that would represent lens sharpness. They probably mean global or across the frame performance.
It's different is Zeiss world, the engineers themselves said something about this. When they say contrast they really mean MICROCONTRAST. The zeiss mtf is the actual measure... not theoretical like the canons. etc.
I'm confused then, how can they sacrifice sharpness to improve micro-contrast? In the lab, micro-contrast is the 30/40 lpmm that would represent lens sharpness. They probably mean global or across the frame performance.
It's different is Zeiss world, the engineers themselves said something about this. When they say contrast they really mean MICROCONTRAST. The zeiss mtf is the actual measure... not theoretical like the canons. etc.
Sep 15, 2015 at 03:58 AM
p.13 #8Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
bushwacker wrote:
I'm confused then, how can they sacrifice sharpness to improve micro-contrast? In the lab, micro-contrast is the 30/40 lpmm that would represent lens sharpness. They probably mean global or across the frame performance.
It's different is Zeiss world, the engineers themselves said something about this. When they say contrast they really mean MICROCONTRAST. The zeiss mtf is the actual measure... not theoretical like the canons. etc.
I think it is most common to refer to 40 lp/mm in the MTF as an indicator of resolution, and the 20 lp/mm and 10 lp/mm as indicators of micro contrast.
In practice, it is hard to find examples of lens pairs with an inverse relationship between these in comparable measurements. In the cases where it exists, the effect is subtle. The overall trend is that resolution and microcontrast follow each other mor than they diverge.
hiepphotog wrote
It's different is Zeiss world, the engineers themselves said something about this. When they say contrast they really mean MICROCONTRAST. The zeiss mtf is the actual measure... not theoretical like the canons. etc.
I think it is most common to refer to 40 lp/mm in the MTF as an indicator of resolution, and the 20 lp/mm and 10 lp/mm as indicators of micro contrast.
In practice, it is hard to find examples of lens pairs with an inverse relationship between these in comparable measurements. In the cases where it exists, the effect is subtle. The overall trend is that resolution and microcontrast follow each other mor than they diverge.
Sep 15, 2015 at 04:13 AM
p.13 #9Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
alundeb wrote:
bushwacker wrote
hiepphotog wrote
I think it is most common to refer to 40 lp/mm in the MTF as an indicator of resolution, and the 20 lp/mm and 10 lp/mm as indicators of micro contrast.
In practice, it is hard to find examples of lens pairs with an inverse relationship between these in comparable measurements. In the cases where it exists, the effect is subtle. The overall trend is that resolution and microcontrast follow each other mor than they diverge.
That's correct but when they talk about resolution lenses are able to resolve way more than 40 lpmm. 300 lpmm is very common with good modern lenses. I believe this is what they mean when they say they sacrifice a bit of resolution in favor of higher micro contrast.
One perhaps oversimplified analogy is to pencil drawing. A 0.2mm tip will allow the drawing of the finest detail but the result lacks in contrast, while using a 0.5mm tip will create a higher perception of sharpness due to the higher contrast, even though it is physically impossible to achieve the same level of detail as with the finer tip.
Sep 15, 2015 at 04:51 AM
p.13 #10Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
I'm confused then, how can they sacrifice sharpness to improve micro-contrast? In the lab, micro-contrast is the 30/40 lpmm that would represent lens sharpness. They probably mean global or across the frame performance.It's different is Zeiss world, the engineers themselves said something about this. When they say contrast they really mean MICROCONTRAST. The zeiss mtf is the actual measure... not theoretical like the canons. etc.I think it is most common to refer to 40 lp/mm in the MTF as an indicator of resolution, and the 20 lp/mm and 10 lp/mm as indicators of micro contrast.
In practice, it is hard to find examples of lens pairs with an inverse relationship between these in comparable measurements. In the cases where it exists, the effect is subtle. The overall trend is that resolution and microcontrast follow each other mor than they diverge.
That's correct but when they talk about resolution lenses are able to resolve way more than 40 lpmm. 300 lpmm is very common with good modern lenses. I believe this is what they mean when they say they sacrifice a bit of resolution in favor of higher micro contrast.
One perhaps oversimplified analogy is to pencil drawing. A 0.2mm tip will allow the drawing of the finest detail but the result lacks in contrast, while using a 0.5mm tip will create a higher perception of sharpness due to the higher contrast, even though it is physically impossible to achieve the same level of detail as with the finer tip.
Yeah, I'm using a 120 pixel pair / mm sensor right now and would think that 80 lp/mm MTF data would be more relevant than 40 lp/mm as an indicator of resolution.
I don't agree with the pencil drawing analogy though. The thinner tip will allow both a darker black and less smearing (local contrast reduction) and is better both for resolution and contrast.
It's more like that it is not always possible to design a brush with a well defined tip without getting stray hairs hanging around, but it is possible to design a slightly broader brush that doesn't have as many stray hairs.
alundeb wrote
bushwacker wrote
hiepphotog wrote
In practice, it is hard to find examples of lens pairs with an inverse relationship between these in comparable measurements. In the cases where it exists, the effect is subtle. The overall trend is that resolution and microcontrast follow each other mor than they diverge.
That's correct but when they talk about resolution lenses are able to resolve way more than 40 lpmm. 300 lpmm is very common with good modern lenses. I believe this is what they mean when they say they sacrifice a bit of resolution in favor of higher micro contrast.
One perhaps oversimplified analogy is to pencil drawing. A 0.2mm tip will allow the drawing of the finest detail but the result lacks in contrast, while using a 0.5mm tip will create a higher perception of sharpness due to the higher contrast, even though it is physically impossible to achieve the same level of detail as with the finer tip.
Yeah, I'm using a 120 pixel pair / mm sensor right now and would think that 80 lp/mm MTF data would be more relevant than 40 lp/mm as an indicator of resolution.
I don't agree with the pencil drawing analogy though. The thinner tip will allow both a darker black and less smearing (local contrast reduction) and is better both for resolution and contrast.
It's more like that it is not always possible to design a brush with a well defined tip without getting stray hairs hanging around, but it is possible to design a slightly broader brush that doesn't have as many stray hairs.
Sep 15, 2015 at 05:28 AM
p.13 #11Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
alundeb wrote:
I'm confused then, how can they sacrifice sharpness to improve micro-contrast? In the lab, micro-contrast is the 30/40 lpmm that would represent lens sharpness. They probably mean global or across the frame performance.It's different is Zeiss world, the engineers themselves said something about this. When they say contrast they really mean MICROCONTRAST. The zeiss mtf is the actual measure... not theoretical like the canons. etc.I think it is most common to refer to 40 lp/mm in the MTF as an indicator of resolution, and the 20 lp/mm and 10 lp/mm as indicators of micro contrast.
In practice, it is hard to find examples of lens pairs with an inverse relationship between these in comparable measurements. In the cases where it exists, the effect is subtle. The overall trend is that resolution and microcontrast follow each other mor than they diverge.That's correct but when they talk about resolution lenses are able to resolve way more than 40 lpmm. 300 lpmm is very common with good modern lenses. I believe this is what they mean when they say they sacrifice a bit of resolution in favor of higher micro contrast.
One perhaps oversimplified analogy is to pencil drawing. A 0.2mm tip will allow the drawing of the finest detail but the result lacks in contrast, while using a 0.5mm tip will create a higher perception of sharpness due to the higher contrast, even though it is physically impossible to achieve the same...Show more →
Yeah, I'm using a 120 pixel pair / mm sensor right now and would think that 80 lp/mm MTF data would be more relevant than 40 lp/mm as an indicator of resolution.
I don't agree with the pencil drawing analogy though. The thinner tip will allow both a darker black and less smearing (local contrast reduction) and is better both for resolution and contrast.
I too would like to see 80 lpmm MTF and even 160 lpmm just for the heck of it
As for the pencil analogy, have you ever done any architectural drawing? I have, and the finer the pencil tip, the lighter the black, even though the carbon used in both is the same color and density.
Anyhow, just for the sake of discussion, let's say you draw 2 grids. The 0.2mm tip will allow you to draw 0.4mm grids, while the 0.5mm pencil will not allow anything below 1mm grid. But if you look at the grids with the naked eye at viewing distance, the 1mm grid will look sharper and contrastier.
And effectively, if you look at MTF graphs, the 10 lpmm lines are always above the 20 lpmm, and the 40 lpmm lines are at the bottom, which means they have the lowest contrast. (ok, I have seen MTF where the lines intersect and the 40 lpmm line goes higher than the 20 lpmm line at some point, but that would be quite rare). So basically, the higher the resolution, the lower the micro-contrast.
edwardkaraa wrote
alundeb wrote
bushwacker wrote
hiepphotog wrote
In practice, it is hard to find examples of lens pairs with an inverse relationship between these in comparable measurements. In the cases where it exists, the effect is subtle. The overall trend is that resolution and microcontrast follow each other mor than they diverge.
One perhaps oversimplified analogy is to pencil drawing. A 0.2mm tip will allow the drawing of the finest detail but the result lacks in contrast, while using a 0.5mm tip will create a higher perception of sharpness due to the higher contrast, even though it is physically impossible to achieve the same...Show more →
Yeah, I'm using a 120 pixel pair / mm sensor right now and would think that 80 lp/mm MTF data would be more relevant than 40 lp/mm as an indicator of resolution.
I don't agree with the pencil drawing analogy though. The thinner tip will allow both a darker black and less smearing (local contrast reduction) and is better both for resolution and contrast.
I too would like to see 80 lpmm MTF and even 160 lpmm just for the heck of it
As for the pencil analogy, have you ever done any architectural drawing? I have, and the finer the pencil tip, the lighter the black, even though the carbon used in both is the same color and density.
Anyhow, just for the sake of discussion, let's say you draw 2 grids. The 0.2mm tip will allow you to draw 0.4mm grids, while the 0.5mm pencil will not allow anything below 1mm grid. But if you look at the grids with the naked eye at viewing distance, the 1mm grid will look sharper and contrastier.
And effectively, if you look at MTF graphs, the 10 lpmm lines are always above the 20 lpmm, and the 40 lpmm lines are at the bottom, which means they have the lowest contrast. (ok, I have seen MTF where the lines intersect and the 40 lpmm line goes higher than the 20 lpmm line at some point, but that would be quite rare). So basically, the higher the resolution, the lower the micro-contrast.
Sep 15, 2015 at 06:03 AM
p.13 #12Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
edwardkaraa wrote:
As for the pencil analogy, have you ever done any architectural drawing? I have, and the finer the pencil tip, the lighter the black, even though the carbon used in both is the same color and density.
Anyhow, just for the sake of discussion, let's say you draw 2 grids. The 0.2mm tip will allow you to draw 0.4mm grids, while the 0.5mm pencil will not allow anything below 1mm grid. But if you look at the grids with the naked eye at viewing distance, the 1mm grid will look sharper and contrastier.
Remember we are drawing with light here. What you say about pencil drawing is correct, but it does not translate to lenses. It is not a valid analogy.
We are painting with white paint on a black canvas, and only have a limited amount of paint (light). The paint is semi-transparent and thicker paint gives brighter white. The low frequency micro contrast is mostly determined by unwanted stray paint away from the center of the bush. The thickness of the paint in the center also matters some, but not as much. The broader the brush, the less the paint will cover the black canvas, as it is more widely spread. The design tradeoff is that it is not possible to design a brush with the tip shape you want. If the tip is very fine, the compromise you may (or may not) have to make, is that the brush as a whole is a litte broader, and painting very faintly somewhere away from the center. A brush with a tip that is not as fine, may be narrower overall. That brush will give lower resolution but higher micro contrast
And effectively, if you look at MTF graphs, the 10 lpmm lines are always above the 20 lpmm, and the 40 lpmm lines are at the bottom, which means they have the lowest contrast. (ok, I have seen MTF where the lines intersect and the 40 lpmm line goes higher than the 20 lpmm line at some point, but that would be quite rare). So basically, the higher the resolution, the lower the micro-contrast.
Lower microcontrast at higher resolution is a given. It is not what we discuss. For this discussion to have any meaning, we must settle for for comparison of micro contrast at a common frequency.
As for the pencil analogy, have you ever done any architectural drawing? I have, and the finer the pencil tip, the lighter the black, even though the carbon used in both is the same color and density.
Anyhow, just for the sake of discussion, let's say you draw 2 grids. The 0.2mm tip will allow you to draw 0.4mm grids, while the 0.5mm pencil will not allow anything below 1mm grid. But if you look at the grids with the naked eye at viewing distance, the 1mm grid will look sharper and contrastier.
Remember we are drawing with light here. What you say about pencil drawing is correct, but it does not translate to lenses. It is not a valid analogy.
We are painting with white paint on a black canvas, and only have a limited amount of paint (light). The paint is semi-transparent and thicker paint gives brighter white. The low frequency micro contrast is mostly determined by unwanted stray paint away from the center of the bush. The thickness of the paint in the center also matters some, but not as much. The broader the brush, the less the paint will cover the black canvas, as it is more widely spread. The design tradeoff is that it is not possible to design a brush with the tip shape you want. If the tip is very fine, the compromise you may (or may not) have to make, is that the brush as a whole is a litte broader, and painting very faintly somewhere away from the center. A brush with a tip that is not as fine, may be narrower overall. That brush will give lower resolution but higher micro contrast
And effectively, if you look at MTF graphs, the 10 lpmm lines are always above the 20 lpmm, and the 40 lpmm lines are at the bottom, which means they have the lowest contrast. (ok, I have seen MTF where the lines intersect and the 40 lpmm line goes higher than the 20 lpmm line at some point, but that would be quite rare). So basically, the higher the resolution, the lower the micro-contrast.
Lower microcontrast at higher resolution is a given. It is not what we discuss. For this discussion to have any meaning, we must settle for for comparison of micro contrast at a common frequency.
Sep 15, 2015 at 07:08 AM
p.13 #13Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
So folks, I got I mixed up then, thank you for the reminder 
. In summary: no global contrast on MTF chart, micro-contrast is measured at low frequency. High frequency indicates the resolving power of the lens (the higher frequency with the associated contrast indicates the resolving power of smaller and smaller details).
With that, I'll call all of what Sigma is saying is B.S. and that IR doesn't know what they are talking about in term of Zeiss is being muddier. FWIW, Zeiss is still going for high micro-contrast and lower resolving power in comparison to its nearest competitor.
MTF charts from Lensrentals (avg. from at least 10 copies)
. In summary: no global contrast on MTF chart, micro-contrast is measured at low frequency. High frequency indicates the resolving power of the lens (the higher frequency with the associated contrast indicates the resolving power of smaller and smaller details).With that, I'll call all of what Sigma is saying is B.S. and that IR doesn't know what they are talking about in term of Zeiss is being muddier. FWIW, Zeiss is still going for high micro-contrast and lower resolving power in comparison to its nearest competitor.
MTF charts from Lensrentals (avg. from at least 10 copies)
 |
||
| http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2015/07/sigotus1.jpg | ||
|
Sep 15, 2015 at 07:52 AM
p.13 #14Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
sebboh wrote:
...
The 25/2.8 and 35/2 are wonderful on the higher rez sensor, but I consider these to be two of the lowest "bs quotient" in the Zeiss line up.i'm confused, you didn't like the ZE 35/2 on the lower res 5DII but you do like it on the d800e? or you just like it better than the nikon 35/1.8 but not better than the EF 35/2 IS?
i've not been sold on any of the ZE/ZF line myself, they don't really match my preferred set of tradeoffs as well as the contax line did.
the new 50 looks interesting as a wide open shooter, where the ZE was nearly unusable. the corner bokeh looks like it could get crazy in a lot of situations though. i doubt i'd ever get...Show more →
Yes!
(The second posit.)
I prefer the handling, AF/IS, and overall "look" of the 35 IS over the Zeiss 35/2 on the Canon. On the Nikon, I'd rather shoot the Zeiss (used) than buy a new 35/1.8 without IS. Sorry, I didn't differentiate those positions very well.
At the time I bought the ZE 35/2 used, it was running around $700-800, so not a good value compared to the 35/2 IS, which could be bought more recently for $450 used. It wasn't a matter of the sensor being 21MP or 36MP.
My real tipping point came with the ZE 21/2.8, purchased on the same invoice from B&H as the 24 TSE II (that was a costly spree!). Although the TSE cost more ($2200 vs. $1800), its features and lack of terrible vignetting and distortion were a huge plus, in addition to its greater flexibility with movements and its terrific IQ. Otherwise, I liked the ZE very much, but couldn't justify keeping it when they were so close in AOV, as well as owning the EF 16-35L II and the 17 TSE. Recently I find the ZF and ZF.2 models of the 21/2.8 are coming way down in price (used) and might be worthwhile picking up.
I still have a rather tenuous commitment to Nikon, so keep looking for great imaging solutions at the lowest prices. Plus, the ZF lenses can be re-purposed over to Canon in full manual mode with simple adapters. The ZF.2 35/2 at $500 filled that dance card nicely and preforms very well. The real star for me is the ZF 25/2.8, even with it's "defects", selling for just over $400, it is a wonderful lens on that body for landscape and urban shots. On a cost/benefit ratio, the 25/2.8 is close to my top lens in either system for the types of photography I do. So, I haven't written off Zeiss, and no boycott intended. I may eventually look toward the ZF 100/2 macro to fill that gap in my Nikon performance.
Gunzorro wrote
I was happy to sell my ZE 21/2.8 and ZE 35/2, as Zeiss seemed to be creatively defining the lens aberrations they infused the lenses with....
The 25/2.8 and 35/2 are wonderful on the higher rez sensor, but I consider these to be two of the lowest "bs quotient" in the Zeiss line up.
i've not been sold on any of the ZE/ZF line myself, they don't really match my preferred set of tradeoffs as well as the contax line did.
the new 50 looks interesting as a wide open shooter, where the ZE was nearly unusable. the corner bokeh looks like it could get crazy in a lot of situations though. i doubt i'd ever get...Show more →
Yes!
(The second posit.) I prefer the handling, AF/IS, and overall "look" of the 35 IS over the Zeiss 35/2 on the Canon. On the Nikon, I'd rather shoot the Zeiss (used) than buy a new 35/1.8 without IS. Sorry, I didn't differentiate those positions very well.
At the time I bought the ZE 35/2 used, it was running around $700-800, so not a good value compared to the 35/2 IS, which could be bought more recently for $450 used. It wasn't a matter of the sensor being 21MP or 36MP.
My real tipping point came with the ZE 21/2.8, purchased on the same invoice from B&H as the 24 TSE II (that was a costly spree!). Although the TSE cost more ($2200 vs. $1800), its features and lack of terrible vignetting and distortion were a huge plus, in addition to its greater flexibility with movements and its terrific IQ. Otherwise, I liked the ZE very much, but couldn't justify keeping it when they were so close in AOV, as well as owning the EF 16-35L II and the 17 TSE. Recently I find the ZF and ZF.2 models of the 21/2.8 are coming way down in price (used) and might be worthwhile picking up.
I still have a rather tenuous commitment to Nikon, so keep looking for great imaging solutions at the lowest prices. Plus, the ZF lenses can be re-purposed over to Canon in full manual mode with simple adapters. The ZF.2 35/2 at $500 filled that dance card nicely and preforms very well. The real star for me is the ZF 25/2.8, even with it's "defects", selling for just over $400, it is a wonderful lens on that body for landscape and urban shots. On a cost/benefit ratio, the 25/2.8 is close to my top lens in either system for the types of photography I do. So, I haven't written off Zeiss, and no boycott intended.
I may eventually look toward the ZF 100/2 macro to fill that gap in my Nikon performance. Sep 15, 2015 at 08:27 AM
p.13 #15Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Steve Spencer wrote:
The 85 is a bit different. It looks to have excellent bokeh as well as a flat field at least stopped down. It may not be as sharp wide open as the 50, but it should still be nicely sharp.
Why you say that, looks like it is sharper both WO and stop down than new 50 from their MTF. Both lenses seems priced not bad consider their better build quality for manual focus and a plus for video use.
Again, I want point out the old Planar 85 is fine WO if you don't mind focus shift. (I think video people must don't like it for changing aperture on fly) It weight around 600g with gorgeous bokeh.
I don't want draw any conclusion yet and will just wait for pictures. but I doubt I will buy these unless they have very special rendering compare to OTUS. Like I said early, I might willing to accept weight if it is really special like OTUS or Leica S system, but it has to be really special or something I want pay for it.
The 85 is a bit different. It looks to have excellent bokeh as well as a flat field at least stopped down. It may not be as sharp wide open as the 50, but it should still be nicely sharp.
Why you say that, looks like it is sharper both WO and stop down than new 50 from their MTF. Both lenses seems priced not bad consider their better build quality for manual focus and a plus for video use.
Again, I want point out the old Planar 85 is fine WO if you don't mind focus shift. (I think video people must don't like it for changing aperture on fly) It weight around 600g with gorgeous bokeh.
I don't want draw any conclusion yet and will just wait for pictures. but I doubt I will buy these unless they have very special rendering compare to OTUS. Like I said early, I might willing to accept weight if it is really special like OTUS or Leica S system, but it has to be really special or something I want pay for it.
Sep 15, 2015 at 11:12 AM
p.13 #16Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
alundeb wrote:
Lenses are by default not corrected for secondary LoCA (bokeh color fringing) and examples of lenses without specific APO correction and with low SLoCA are very rare. People seem to want to get rid of SLoCA, but lenses without it are either too clinical for them or have too harsh boke. T
Unless I miss understand SLCA, I found green/purple outline in Bokeh high contrast area usually looks more offensive with lens better corrected and seldom a problem with old fast, character lens.
I have seen it happen with 90APO, 100MP, FE55, ZM35 and also a few long leica APO R lens and I bet BATIS 85 will also have this problem (though I haven't seen enough samples.)
Maybe old under corrected lens have other aberration overwhelm the SLCA, not sure.
Lenses are by default not corrected for secondary LoCA (bokeh color fringing) and examples of lenses without specific APO correction and with low SLoCA are very rare. People seem to want to get rid of SLoCA, but lenses without it are either too clinical for them or have too harsh boke. T
Unless I miss understand SLCA, I found green/purple outline in Bokeh high contrast area usually looks more offensive with lens better corrected and seldom a problem with old fast, character lens.
I have seen it happen with 90APO, 100MP, FE55, ZM35 and also a few long leica APO R lens and I bet BATIS 85 will also have this problem (though I haven't seen enough samples.)
Maybe old under corrected lens have other aberration overwhelm the SLCA, not sure.
Sep 15, 2015 at 11:24 AM
p.13 #17Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
Lee Saxon wrote:
Well, my blog's objectivity might be compromised too if I was flown to Oberkochen. Some of these claims are very questionable. Ming Thein apparently now believes that every Otus that comes off the production line gets checked on a K8 before it goes out. Yes, I'm sure that's why its consistency scores are no better than any old Canon according to Roger and Brandon's actual tests -.-
Yes, each Otus is indeed tested when it comes off the production line. And maybe you should ask Zeiss why results can appear inconsistent when tested by third parties, and consistent when tested by Zeiss. Their answer is very interesting, and it is often a good idea to hear both sides of the argument.
BTW, I was not invited to Oberkochen, but I do own a Otus 55...
Well, my blog's objectivity might be compromised too if I was flown to Oberkochen. Some of these claims are very questionable. Ming Thein apparently now believes that every Otus that comes off the production line gets checked on a K8 before it goes out. Yes, I'm sure that's why its consistency scores are no better than any old Canon according to Roger and Brandon's actual tests -.-
Yes, each Otus is indeed tested when it comes off the production line. And maybe you should ask Zeiss why results can appear inconsistent when tested by third parties, and consistent when tested by Zeiss. Their answer is very interesting, and it is often a good idea to hear both sides of the argument.
BTW, I was not invited to Oberkochen, but I do own a Otus 55...
Sep 15, 2015 at 11:28 AM
p.13 #18Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
zhangyue wrote:
Unless I miss understand SLCA, I found green/purple outline in Bokeh high contrast area usually looks more offensive with lens better corrected and seldom a problem with old fast, character lens.
I have seen it happen with 90APO, 100MP, FE55, ZM35 and also a few long leica APO R lens and I bet BATIS 85 will also have this problem (though I haven't seen enough samples.)
Maybe old under corrected lens have other aberration overwhelm the SLCA, not sure.
Essentially that's what Lloyd is saying. Old lenses have less color correction so various aberrations mask that apparent green/purple outline (notably SA). To me, the most offensive one is still the in-focus LoCA (i.e. purple fringing). Some of the old lenses produce tons of these that even converting the picture into B&W, the edge would still be fuzzy.
alundeb wrote
Lenses are by default not corrected for secondary LoCA (bokeh color fringing) and examples of lenses without specific APO correction and with low SLoCA are very rare. People seem to want to get rid of SLoCA, but lenses without it are either too clinical for them or have too harsh boke. TI have seen it happen with 90APO, 100MP, FE55, ZM35 and also a few long leica APO R lens and I bet BATIS 85 will also have this problem (though I haven't seen enough samples.)
Maybe old under corrected lens have other aberration overwhelm the SLCA, not sure.
Essentially that's what Lloyd is saying. Old lenses have less color correction so various aberrations mask that apparent green/purple outline (notably SA). To me, the most offensive one is still the in-focus LoCA (i.e. purple fringing). Some of the old lenses produce tons of these that even converting the picture into B&W, the edge would still be fuzzy.
Sep 15, 2015 at 11:45 AM
p.13 #19Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
philber wrote:
Yes, each Otus is indeed tested when it comes off the production line. And maybe you should ask Zeiss why results can appear inconsistent when tested by third parties, and consistent when tested by Zeiss. Their answer is very interesting, and it is often a good idea to hear both sides of the argument.
BTW, I was not invited to Oberkochen, but I do own a Otus 55...
Do you have any insight that you can share to this seemingly less consistency? From what I understand, complexity is one of the factors; I think if lensrentals (LR) test those Leica lenses, their consistency number would be surprisingly low. Then the assembly process, if it's more automated, as seen with the recent Canon lenses, the tolerance is tighter. Lastly, it's also part of the optical design, how much deviation it would allow from the perfect point while still maintain a reasonable performance (don't know enough to say). Leica is the worst in this aspect since they restrict the size and the number of elements while Zeiss is more relaxed in this respect.
Lee Saxon wrote
Well, my blog's objectivity might be compromised too if I was flown to Oberkochen. Some of these claims are very questionable. Ming Thein apparently now believes that every Otus that comes off the production line gets checked on a K8 before it goes out. Yes, I'm sure that's why its consistency scores are no better than any old Canon according to Roger and Brandon's actual tests -.-BTW, I was not invited to Oberkochen, but I do own a Otus 55...
Do you have any insight that you can share to this seemingly less consistency? From what I understand, complexity is one of the factors; I think if lensrentals (LR) test those Leica lenses, their consistency number would be surprisingly low. Then the assembly process, if it's more automated, as seen with the recent Canon lenses, the tolerance is tighter. Lastly, it's also part of the optical design, how much deviation it would allow from the perfect point while still maintain a reasonable performance (don't know enough to say). Leica is the worst in this aspect since they restrict the size and the number of elements while Zeiss is more relaxed in this respect.
Sep 15, 2015 at 11:53 AM
p.13 #20Zeiss Milvus are out: new range of DSLR lenses!
zhangyue wrote:
Why you say that, looks like it is sharper both WO and stop down than new 50 from their MTF. Both lenses seems priced not bad consider their better build quality for manual focus and a plus for video use.
Again, I want point out the old Planar 85 is fine WO if you don't mind focus shift. (I think video people must don't like it for changing aperture on fly) It weight around 600g with gorgeous bokeh.
I don't want draw any conclusion yet and will just wait for pictures. but I doubt I will buy these unless they...Show more →
Michael you are absolutely right. The 85 Milvus does look sharper than the 50 Milvus from the MTFs wide open. I was making judgements from the sample photos that I have seen and I think I was getting it wrong. So much can vary in the sample photos including processing and magnification that it can make it hard to judge. I do like the bokeh from the 85 better as well and that I feel is a lot easier to judge (but there are still possible pitfalls) from samples.
Steve Spencer wrote
The 85 is a bit different. It looks to have excellent bokeh as well as a flat field at least stopped down. It may not be as sharp wide open as the 50, but it should still be nicely sharp.Again, I want point out the old Planar 85 is fine WO if you don't mind focus shift. (I think video people must don't like it for changing aperture on fly) It weight around 600g with gorgeous bokeh.
I don't want draw any conclusion yet and will just wait for pictures. but I doubt I will buy these unless they...Show more →
Michael you are absolutely right. The 85 Milvus does look sharper than the 50 Milvus from the MTFs wide open. I was making judgements from the sample photos that I have seen and I think I was getting it wrong. So much can vary in the sample photos including processing and magnification that it can make it hard to judge. I do like the bokeh from the 85 better as well and that I feel is a lot easier to judge (but there are still possible pitfalls) from samples.
Sep 15, 2015 at 12:27 PM