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.2 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
It's been known for decades that funky bokeh can be pleasing for portraying the subject in away that some humans like to see, but saying that the Zeiss choices in aberrations make the images more "realistic" is just plain bull****.
EBH
EBH
Mar 01, 2016 at 06:23 PM
p.2 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
And I have NO idea what this thread is doing in the Nikon forum. It belongs in the Alternative Gear forum where all the experts in micro-contrast hang out... 
Mar 01, 2016 at 06:27 PM
p.2 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
And I have NO idea what this thread is doing in the Nikon forum. It belongs in the Alternative Gear forum where all the experts in micro-contrast hang out...
EBH
And I have NO idea what this thread is doing in the Nikon forum. It belongs in the Alternative Gear forum where all the experts in micro-contrast hang out...
EBH
Mar 01, 2016 at 06:57 PM
p.2 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I think you need to break Micro Contrast and Depth into two separate categories.
My understanding is the increases in corrective elements decreases the sense of depth. He has an article on it here: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop The Angry Photographer also has a few videos talking about the problem with increased lens elements.
At the end of the day it's all about using the right lens for the job, and I won't hesitate to use my Sigma art lenses. The ability to get high quality images wide open is awesome, especially in low light. The engineer in me does find this very interesting though. I can also see the usefulness in understanding why similar lenses draw differently.
My understanding is the increases in corrective elements decreases the sense of depth. He has an article on it here: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop The Angry Photographer also has a few videos talking about the problem with increased lens elements.
At the end of the day it's all about using the right lens for the job, and I won't hesitate to use my Sigma art lenses. The ability to get high quality images wide open is awesome, especially in low light. The engineer in me does find this very interesting though. I can also see the usefulness in understanding why similar lenses draw differently.
Mar 01, 2016 at 07:13 PM
p.2 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Go take a look at all the wonderful images in the manual focus thread. Older lens images look AMAZING, and do render quite different than modern glass. As far as the mysterious Micro contrast, you have to look at the fine detail, and not the bigger picture.
Mar 01, 2016 at 07:49 PM
p.2 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
while you are looking for the micro contrast you do miss the real image and what it might actually be saying. you know the old forest for the trees thing.
Mar 01, 2016 at 08:15 PM
p.2 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I didn't bother to read the blog post since it seemed like a bunch of mostly drivel, but I will say that I do feel like old lenses definitely have a different feel and characteristic to them, a certain warmth and charm that I sometimes prefer over modern cutting edge glass that to me, have a somewhat clinical feeling at times. It's an entirely subjective thing that can't be described on technical terms, only emotional ones.
That may be how this blogger feels about Zeiss glass, and that's alright with me. Then again I havn't read the article, so ehhh.
Anyway, this is why my kit consists of lenses from the early 90s all the way to modern glass of the past few years. Sometimes I just want a certain look that only older. "lesser" glass would give me without having to do a bunch of editing.
That may be how this blogger feels about Zeiss glass, and that's alright with me. Then again I havn't read the article, so ehhh.
Anyway, this is why my kit consists of lenses from the early 90s all the way to modern glass of the past few years. Sometimes I just want a certain look that only older. "lesser" glass would give me without having to do a bunch of editing.
Mar 02, 2016 at 11:54 AM
p.2 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I think the author caught some valid points. Main message is IMO to ask yourself if your really need all this newer/newest highly corrected glass. I can add from my own experience that newer is not always better - made this experience with the Leica 35/2 ASPH lens. Supposedly it is highly corrected by using the ASPH glass element for corner sharpness, but it has severe debits if used on a non-Leica based mirrorless camera. I returned this lens and got the predecessor version IV of this lens (pre-ASPH) - what a beauty! I am totally fine with its corner sharpness, and it works on different camera brands, too.
This whole 3D effect thing is something more subjective - likely the author relates to less corner sharpness bringing out focused (center) areas better. The nose examples can be also affected by the distance to the subject and the focus point.
This whole 3D effect thing is something more subjective - likely the author relates to less corner sharpness bringing out focused (center) areas better. The nose examples can be also affected by the distance to the subject and the focus point.
Mar 02, 2016 at 01:55 PM
p.2 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
retrofocus wrote:
This whole 3D effect thing is something more subjective - likely the author relates to less corner sharpness bringing out focused (center) areas better.
This whole 3D-look thing is so subjective, and has gotten a bit misused and misunderstood in my opinion. A lot of the "3D-look" can be attributed to (gasp) good composition partnered with deliberate depth of field play (focal length, aperture used, distance to subject, distance to OOF background, distance to OOF foreground etc); the lens itself technically I feel has much less to do with that "look."
This whole 3D effect thing is something more subjective - likely the author relates to less corner sharpness bringing out focused (center) areas better.
This whole 3D-look thing is so subjective, and has gotten a bit misused and misunderstood in my opinion. A lot of the "3D-look" can be attributed to (gasp) good composition partnered with deliberate depth of field play (focal length, aperture used, distance to subject, distance to OOF background, distance to OOF foreground etc); the lens itself technically I feel has much less to do with that "look."
Mar 02, 2016 at 03:07 PM
p.2 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I've got the Zeiss 135/2 APO and it looks better than most other 135's due to the really good contrast and correction wide open. Stopped down I don't see a huge difference.
My Leica glass also has a "look" to it, but not sure it's better or worse.
In general I've found that Zeiss and Leica high end glass (there are some duds . . .) looks better at or near wide open just due to the better correction of the optics. Stopped down it's not clear to me they are all that different.
If the author of the cited web site had carefully take the same images with the same subject with different lenses and logically compared them I would find some value in it, but as it is it's a mess and not useful.
My Leica glass also has a "look" to it, but not sure it's better or worse.
In general I've found that Zeiss and Leica high end glass (there are some duds . . .) looks better at or near wide open just due to the better correction of the optics. Stopped down it's not clear to me they are all that different.
If the author of the cited web site had carefully take the same images with the same subject with different lenses and logically compared them I would find some value in it, but as it is it's a mess and not useful.
Mar 02, 2016 at 03:31 PM
p.2 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Definitely will be spending a lot of time on his site when I'm chasing the ulimate in 3D noses and 3D foreheads!
Mar 02, 2016 at 03:35 PM
p.2 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
mystery or not, i don't know but thre is something about Zeiss lenses, i used 50mp and 21 2.8 and sold them because i can't use manual lenses effectively
check this thread to see some Zeiss look
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1412322?b=2
check this thread to see some Zeiss look
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1412322?b=2
Mar 02, 2016 at 03:48 PM
p.2 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I'm in the camp that can't really see 3D pop in images that are displayed in two dimensions 
Mar 02, 2016 at 03:54 PM
p.2 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I think it's a post from a guy without a technical knowledge of optics who's trying to express what he sees in new lenses vs older designs. And of course he's made a subjective decision that certain optics look better than others.
I have no idea what the real truth is, but I have to say that I've owned a handful of older, simpler designs that "suck" when put on the bench that under certain circumstances can create a look I can never seem to get from my modern "excellent" lenses. Whether that makes them better or worse is another story.
edit:
After poking around on this guy's site... it's not that I don't think he has a point about *some* lenses, but he doesn't seem particularly consistent in identifying lenses that display the attributes he thinks are there. In addition, there are very few photos of direct comparison, leading me to believe that the effect he's after is really more a result of a combination of things - light, subject/camera/bg distances, etc.
Then he goes completely off the rails in one article showing these exact same shots of a stuffed bunny next to a set of books, and I realized he's just wacking off and obsessing about the minutiae of lens performance in a different way than all the other people who are wacking off and obsessiong about the minutiae of lens performance.
Then I went and had a beer because this is dumb.
Edited on Mar 02, 2016 at 08:47 PM · View previous versions
I have no idea what the real truth is, but I have to say that I've owned a handful of older, simpler designs that "suck" when put on the bench that under certain circumstances can create a look I can never seem to get from my modern "excellent" lenses. Whether that makes them better or worse is another story.
edit:
After poking around on this guy's site... it's not that I don't think he has a point about *some* lenses, but he doesn't seem particularly consistent in identifying lenses that display the attributes he thinks are there. In addition, there are very few photos of direct comparison, leading me to believe that the effect he's after is really more a result of a combination of things - light, subject/camera/bg distances, etc.
Then he goes completely off the rails in one article showing these exact same shots of a stuffed bunny next to a set of books, and I realized he's just wacking off and obsessing about the minutiae of lens performance in a different way than all the other people who are wacking off and obsessiong about the minutiae of lens performance.
Then I went and had a beer because this is dumb.
Edited on Mar 02, 2016 at 08:47 PM · View previous versions
Mar 02, 2016 at 05:16 PM
p.2 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I love beautiful buttery smooth bokeh just as much as the next guy. But I'm nearsighted and when I take my glasses off "the bokeh" is not very smooth. So what is "realism"? :P
Mar 02, 2016 at 05:53 PM
p.2 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Zeiss definitely has a look, as does Leica, but this article does little to explain it or any problem with modern lenses. I actually think there are more makers producing competitively great glass now than a couple decades ago with Sigma Art, better Canon Ls, the recent Fuji lineups, and even 'cheap' lenses like Samyang are better than just being sharp. And yeah, not ALL modern lenses are sharp, and they 'should' be sharp wide open, just mostly aren't...
Random noses and foreheads of different people in different lighting situations does little to express anything mystical fwiw.
Random noses and foreheads of different people in different lighting situations does little to express anything mystical fwiw.
Mar 02, 2016 at 06:07 PM
p.2 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
those triangles and baseless graphs ain't fooling me...what a boatload of shenanigans.
Mar 02, 2016 at 06:48 PM
p.2 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
ahem.....well with M zeiss lenses of modern vintage at least there is a commonality of color, distinctly cooler than leica.
That's where the mystery ends.
ZM 50/1.5 and ZM 50/2, what do they have in common besides colors? Nothing.
The 3 ZM35s? They look different.
ZM18 vs ZM21/2.8? Different.
It's like "the Mandler Look" You have to really be grasping for commonalties, as humans often do, making stories out of unrelated things.
However, that guy in the silly link is not a bad photographer in the field.
That's where the mystery ends.
ZM 50/1.5 and ZM 50/2, what do they have in common besides colors? Nothing.
The 3 ZM35s? They look different.
ZM18 vs ZM21/2.8? Different.
It's like "the Mandler Look" You have to really be grasping for commonalties, as humans often do, making stories out of unrelated things.
However, that guy in the silly link is not a bad photographer in the field.
Mar 02, 2016 at 07:04 PM
p.2 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
i actually seem to generally prefer older flawed lenses to modern perfect lenses but this blog post is mostly nonsense to me.
uhoh7 wrote:
It's like "the Mandler Look" You have to really be grasping for commonalties, as humans often do, making stories out of unrelated things.
the mandler look also known as the "leica glow" is actually pretty well defined (unlike the "zeiss 3d look") – it's under corrected spherical aberration. it's a fairly obvious aberrations that shows up similarly in all of mandler's fast designs. mandler lenses typically need to be stopped down further to get rid of the glow than contemporary designs from other makers (usually around f/2.8 or smaller for the mandler summiluxes).
uhoh7 wrote:
It's like "the Mandler Look" You have to really be grasping for commonalties, as humans often do, making stories out of unrelated things.
the mandler look also known as the "leica glow" is actually pretty well defined (unlike the "zeiss 3d look") – it's under corrected spherical aberration. it's a fairly obvious aberrations that shows up similarly in all of mandler's fast designs. mandler lenses typically need to be stopped down further to get rid of the glow than contemporary designs from other makers (usually around f/2.8 or smaller for the mandler summiluxes).
Mar 02, 2016 at 07:51 PM
p.2 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
hauxon wrote:
I love beautiful buttery smooth bokeh just as much as the next guy. But I'm nearsighted and when I take my glasses off "the bokeh" is not very smooth. So what is "realism"? :P
And even glasses on, your eyes never defocus enough to generate the kind of OOF areas you are in photography.
Focusing on my finger a few inches away from my face, the other side of the room is blurry, but barely - similar to 24mm at f/8? Maybe even smaller, considering how close.
Ah, the slippery slope of so-called realism...
Mar 02, 2016 at 08:14 PM