This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016The mystery of the Zeiss look?
p.1 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
For years I would see photos take with Zeiss lenses that had a look to them that other lenses just didn't seam to produce. I did a lot of searching with out luck to find out what gave these lenses there look, and eventually gave in a bought a few.
Recently I came across this blog that got quite deep into optical design and why some lenses seam to lack micro contrast and depth.
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
His blog has a lot of interesting reads if the differences in rendering between lenses are of interest to you.
Recently I came across this blog that got quite deep into optical design and why some lenses seam to lack micro contrast and depth.
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
His blog has a lot of interesting reads if the differences in rendering between lenses are of interest to you.
Feb 29, 2016 at 11:20 PM
p.1 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Hmmmm. . . right off the bat, I disagree with this blog's first two points. I disagree that all modern lenses are sharp, with the implication that it is foolish to use sharpness as a criteria of preference. I also disagree that lenses shouldn't be expected to be well corrected wide open -- I know that it is difficult and expensive to make a well corrected fast lens, but that is a paradigm all strive for and few achieve.
Mar 01, 2016 at 12:06 AM
p.1 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
While I agree with the writer that sharpness is overrrated, and that some aberrations in older lenses can be worked around to give beautiful results, I strongly disagree with his theory that there is a inverse relationship between optical correction and realism. I have owned quite a few lenses, and his theory leads to a classification that absolutely doesn't match my experience. In some cases, my experience is exactly opposite to his ratings.
Mar 01, 2016 at 12:50 AM
p.1 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Most of those so-called flat images were taken indoor while those with "3D look" were taken outside with side lighting. I think this side lighting gives stronger shadow, hence gives stronger micro-contrast and "3D look".
Mar 01, 2016 at 01:24 AM
p.1 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I agree that the manufacturers of lenses correct them to the point where tests show a positive feedback. And this doesn't have to be a good effect always for the image quality.
But I disagree with the example pictures and the want-to-be professional diagram or the generally assumption of this.
I like the image effect of old lenses, but to say for example all Sigma lenses don't have microcontrast and so no 3D effect is a wrong conclusion.
A quick example
35mm/1.4 Art on A7
But I disagree with the example pictures and the want-to-be professional diagram or the generally assumption of this.
I like the image effect of old lenses, but to say for example all Sigma lenses don't have microcontrast and so no 3D effect is a wrong conclusion.
A quick example
35mm/1.4 Art on A7
Mar 01, 2016 at 02:04 AM
p.1 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Wow, I read the article and it's a good thing I'm not allergic to BS or I'd be sneezing like crazy right now.
He basically makes some nonsensical claims and then makes his own charts based on his own made-up criteria, supported by images that were taken under different circumstances so you can't do any real comparisons.
It's almost like a rant from someone who maybe can't afford all the modern optics they want, so instead turns to older glass and wants to justify it.
I'll stick with my modern optics, thank you very much.
He basically makes some nonsensical claims and then makes his own charts based on his own made-up criteria, supported by images that were taken under different circumstances so you can't do any real comparisons.
It's almost like a rant from someone who maybe can't afford all the modern optics they want, so instead turns to older glass and wants to justify it.
I'll stick with my modern optics, thank you very much.
Mar 01, 2016 at 08:21 AM
p.1 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
the millennial. they are what we were, only different.
Mar 01, 2016 at 08:33 AM
p.1 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.
Mar 01, 2016 at 08:38 AM
p.1 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
GoranPhoto wrote:
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" [...]
they meant, like, "leica glow," but different
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" [...]
they meant, like, "leica glow," but different
Mar 01, 2016 at 08:41 AM
p.1 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
With a Zeiss lens the soundstage extends far to the left and right, while for a Leica lens it is bigger front to back. Everyone knows that.
Mar 01, 2016 at 08:44 AM
p.1 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
GoranPhoto wrote:
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.
Yup, I went down the Zeiss road myself, never saw any magic that wasn't already there in the scene to begin with. In fact, I ended up selling my Zeiss and sticking with Nikon - I actually like the way Nikon renders better (not that there's really much of a difference).
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.
Yup, I went down the Zeiss road myself, never saw any magic that wasn't already there in the scene to begin with. In fact, I ended up selling my Zeiss and sticking with Nikon - I actually like the way Nikon renders better (not that there's really much of a difference).
Mar 01, 2016 at 08:58 AM
p.1 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
That article is mostly garbage IMHO. Very selective subject matter and also not one single side-by-side comparison hmm...
Now the article is getting posted everywhere and sparking debate because people try to correct the BS - he's using Ken Rockwell's strategy.
Now the article is getting posted everywhere and sparking debate because people try to correct the BS - he's using Ken Rockwell's strategy.
Mar 01, 2016 at 09:52 AM
p.1 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Steve Perry wrote:
Yup, I went down the Zeiss road myself, never saw any magic that wasn't already there in the scene to begin with. In fact, I ended up selling my Zeiss and sticking with Nikon - I actually like the way Nikon renders better (not that there's really much of a difference).
There are roads.....and then there are super highways http://leitax.com/leica-lens-for-nikon-cameras.html
GoranPhoto wrote
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.There are roads.....and then there are super highways http://leitax.com/leica-lens-for-nikon-cameras.html
Mar 01, 2016 at 09:58 AM
p.1 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
DWOfPaul wrote:
For years I would see photos take with Zeiss lenses that had a look to them that other lenses just didn't seam to produce. I did a lot of searching with out luck to find out what gave these lenses there look, and eventually gave in a bought a few.
Recently I came across this blog that got quite deep into optical design and why some lenses seam to lack micro contrast and depth.
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
His blog has a lot of interesting reads if the differences in rendering between lenses are of interest to you.
Totally useless IMHO
For years I would see photos take with Zeiss lenses that had a look to them that other lenses just didn't seam to produce. I did a lot of searching with out luck to find out what gave these lenses there look, and eventually gave in a bought a few.
Recently I came across this blog that got quite deep into optical design and why some lenses seam to lack micro contrast and depth.
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
His blog has a lot of interesting reads if the differences in rendering between lenses are of interest to you.
Totally useless IMHO
Mar 01, 2016 at 10:15 AM
p.1 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I find the write-up interesting, refreshing and above all an appeal to common sense to stop overrating corner sharpness in lenses used at wide open Aperture.
What to think of the graph and the example pictures? The graph helps visualize the writers point of view. The pictures contradict it a bit. The first image shows a nice and calm background which helps emphasize the portrait, which is still a bad portrait because of the obviously mentioned too shallow DoF (not to be mistaken for a lack of sharpness) The remaining portraits show very busy backgrounds, so despite the better choice of DoF the portraits overall do not have the same impact or at least show a very different photographic intention/style.
Personally I choose to use vintage lenses on my cameras. I choose to use these because of their small size, low weight, 52mm filter size and low cost. All these elements combined allow me to bring two cameras and 3-4 lenses in a small bag. When cherry picking your lenses these vintage lenses can be as sharp as (or sharper then) modern glass, but due to the low count of glass elements abberations are more obvious.
Most of todays "plastic fantastic" Nikon f1,8 AF-S G lenses do nothing for me. I can imagine they are a blessing for pros because they are light, well corrected, predictable and optically excellent. Some of todays lenses that do tickle my fancy are the Meyer Optik Goerlitz lenses recently released, some of the Cosina Voigtlander lenses and Nikons current 300mm f2,8 prime.
In the end however, regardless of who writes what, photography is about breaking standards and thinking outside of the box. Everyone will do that in his/her own way and will develop their own set of tools to work with. The multitude of lenses available today is a great gift to photographers whichever way you look at current developments. I hope lots of folks buy modern lenses so prices on the vintage glass I like remain as low as they are
What to think of the graph and the example pictures? The graph helps visualize the writers point of view. The pictures contradict it a bit. The first image shows a nice and calm background which helps emphasize the portrait, which is still a bad portrait because of the obviously mentioned too shallow DoF (not to be mistaken for a lack of sharpness) The remaining portraits show very busy backgrounds, so despite the better choice of DoF the portraits overall do not have the same impact or at least show a very different photographic intention/style.
Personally I choose to use vintage lenses on my cameras. I choose to use these because of their small size, low weight, 52mm filter size and low cost. All these elements combined allow me to bring two cameras and 3-4 lenses in a small bag. When cherry picking your lenses these vintage lenses can be as sharp as (or sharper then) modern glass, but due to the low count of glass elements abberations are more obvious.
Most of todays "plastic fantastic" Nikon f1,8 AF-S G lenses do nothing for me. I can imagine they are a blessing for pros because they are light, well corrected, predictable and optically excellent. Some of todays lenses that do tickle my fancy are the Meyer Optik Goerlitz lenses recently released, some of the Cosina Voigtlander lenses and Nikons current 300mm f2,8 prime.
In the end however, regardless of who writes what, photography is about breaking standards and thinking outside of the box. Everyone will do that in his/her own way and will develop their own set of tools to work with. The multitude of lenses available today is a great gift to photographers whichever way you look at current developments. I hope lots of folks buy modern lenses so prices on the vintage glass I like remain as low as they are
Mar 01, 2016 at 11:33 AM
p.1 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I sold all my Nikon lenses and bought Zeiss instead. I liked the look, though manual focus sometimes has its disadvantages. However, in film days I used to photograph Hasselblad, Rollei and Contax (g1) and Nikon was not my preferred brand then. Now it is for the camera.
Mar 01, 2016 at 02:00 PM
p.1 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I still don't know what to think of this guy. In some of the images he has shown, I don't see the difference he claims it is there (there are other small differences which he does not talk about though). Example: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/9/how-to-effectively-compare-micro-contrast-in-lenses
In this one - I see the difference and prefer the shot with old prime compared to modern zoom at f/8:
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/11/12/depth-vs-flat-lens-quick-comparison
I even see the difference in kind of 3d ness there, no need to look at pixels - it is visible in web-sized samples. But then I looked at the full images and I was appalled by images showing very noticeable difference in focus distance. The one that was not as visible in crops because part showing focus was cropped out.
In this one: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/12/extra-credits-applying-the-micro-contrast-test-onto-an-otus-lens
I kind of doubt the difference is caused by lenses. Side lighting has strong potential to uncover texture. And she has moved her body and head between shots - she is oriented more the left side with Nikkor. You can see also small but strong reflection in left side of eyes with Nikkor, indicating strong harsh light from that direction while Otus shot shows several less bright spots in eyes indicating not as strong and not as harsh light.
As part of world discovery it is necessary to accept there are some things that you don't know yet, rather then presume all knowledge is already in your head. So I'm kind of open minded to learn new things even if they would likely end up being waste of time. So I follow him a bit, but with skeptical mind.
I have some idea how lens design works. It is now driven by computer simulation and optimization. You have some preconception how lens should composed and use it as constraint. You have some idea what qualities you value and enter it as formula into optimization system. You have some engineering constraints of what can you build reliably and combine it into that formula as well. Then you run it and spend insane amounts of computer power at it to get best designs. Then you refine some criteria and do it again and again. This is has one problem though. Any kind of criteria that you did not enter or even just prioritize in the formula may end up being quite prominent in some bad way. Were you able to describe bokeh qualities well? If not, bokeh may be weak aspect of the lens despite superior sharpness and other qualities you put into formula. Are you able to describe aesthetic qualities well in the formula? If not, it is quite likely the optimization system will prefer bad aesthetic qualities over good for small difference in easy to describe qualities like sharpness. So there may be some qualities of older lenses that newer lenses do not display because current designers do not understand them enough to enter them as formulas whereas in old days simpler designs would just have them. Things like number of elements can be like that. So there are reasons for older lenses to be better in "something" that is hard to describe. But don't get me wrong, number of elements is probably most guarded criterion in lens design because it is directly associated with both cost and engineering limits (more elements increase likelihood that some of them may be positioned or made wrong).
Then the other aspect is: is it worth it? Digital image manipulation can overcome a lot of deficiencies in lenses. So why chase some aspects of contrast in uncommon lenses when you can just do the same with few clicks and then apply it to all images you need as preset.
I can both imagine this guy might be on something yet at the same time I can imagine he has just fell victim to confirmation bias and is seeking to see his flawed idea in pictures and presenting those that have it instead of trying disprove it (like in proper scientific method).
Edited on Mar 01, 2016 at 03:50 PM · View previous versions
In this one - I see the difference and prefer the shot with old prime compared to modern zoom at f/8:
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/11/12/depth-vs-flat-lens-quick-comparison
I even see the difference in kind of 3d ness there, no need to look at pixels - it is visible in web-sized samples. But then I looked at the full images and I was appalled by images showing very noticeable difference in focus distance. The one that was not as visible in crops because part showing focus was cropped out.
In this one: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/12/extra-credits-applying-the-micro-contrast-test-onto-an-otus-lens
I kind of doubt the difference is caused by lenses. Side lighting has strong potential to uncover texture. And she has moved her body and head between shots - she is oriented more the left side with Nikkor. You can see also small but strong reflection in left side of eyes with Nikkor, indicating strong harsh light from that direction while Otus shot shows several less bright spots in eyes indicating not as strong and not as harsh light.
As part of world discovery it is necessary to accept there are some things that you don't know yet, rather then presume all knowledge is already in your head. So I'm kind of open minded to learn new things even if they would likely end up being waste of time. So I follow him a bit, but with skeptical mind.
I have some idea how lens design works. It is now driven by computer simulation and optimization. You have some preconception how lens should composed and use it as constraint. You have some idea what qualities you value and enter it as formula into optimization system. You have some engineering constraints of what can you build reliably and combine it into that formula as well. Then you run it and spend insane amounts of computer power at it to get best designs. Then you refine some criteria and do it again and again. This is has one problem though. Any kind of criteria that you did not enter or even just prioritize in the formula may end up being quite prominent in some bad way. Were you able to describe bokeh qualities well? If not, bokeh may be weak aspect of the lens despite superior sharpness and other qualities you put into formula. Are you able to describe aesthetic qualities well in the formula? If not, it is quite likely the optimization system will prefer bad aesthetic qualities over good for small difference in easy to describe qualities like sharpness. So there may be some qualities of older lenses that newer lenses do not display because current designers do not understand them enough to enter them as formulas whereas in old days simpler designs would just have them. Things like number of elements can be like that. So there are reasons for older lenses to be better in "something" that is hard to describe. But don't get me wrong, number of elements is probably most guarded criterion in lens design because it is directly associated with both cost and engineering limits (more elements increase likelihood that some of them may be positioned or made wrong).
Then the other aspect is: is it worth it? Digital image manipulation can overcome a lot of deficiencies in lenses. So why chase some aspects of contrast in uncommon lenses when you can just do the same with few clicks and then apply it to all images you need as preset.
I can both imagine this guy might be on something yet at the same time I can imagine he has just fell victim to confirmation bias and is seeking to see his flawed idea in pictures and presenting those that have it instead of trying disprove it (like in proper scientific method).
Edited on Mar 01, 2016 at 03:50 PM · View previous versions
Mar 01, 2016 at 03:45 PM
p.1 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
That boy has crossed the Line of Realism and fallen into the Quagmire of Self-Reverence.
Mar 01, 2016 at 03:49 PM
!p.1 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jtra wrote:
As part of world discovery it is necessary to accept there are some things that you don't know yet, rather then presume all knowledge is already in your head. So I'm kind of open minded to learn new things even if they would likely end up being waste of time. So I follow him a bit, but with skeptical mind. . . .
I can both imagine this guy might be on something yet at the same time I can imagine he has just fell victim to confirmation bias and is seeking to see his flawed idea in pictures and...Show more →
I probably failed to read his theories with the proper amount of respect, and I'm sure that warped my own conclusions. But, jeez, whenever he invoked his "search for truth" I pictured Mulder and Scully sneaking in the back door of the Zeiss factory and discovering alien lens correction technology being applied to Otus elements.
As part of world discovery it is necessary to accept there are some things that you don't know yet, rather then presume all knowledge is already in your head. So I'm kind of open minded to learn new things even if they would likely end up being waste of time. So I follow him a bit, but with skeptical mind. . . .
I can both imagine this guy might be on something yet at the same time I can imagine he has just fell victim to confirmation bias and is seeking to see his flawed idea in pictures and...Show more →
I probably failed to read his theories with the proper amount of respect, and I'm sure that warped my own conclusions. But, jeez, whenever he invoked his "search for truth" I pictured Mulder and Scully sneaking in the back door of the Zeiss factory and discovering alien lens correction technology being applied to Otus elements.
Mar 01, 2016 at 04:34 PM