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.19 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
Take a picture of a red snooker ball on a dark background with 2 lenses. Then check for the range of colours recorded on both files in the red range. What's hard about this?
Check this.
Lens colour difference test https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1386031
In comparison, measuring lens (+ camera) resolution is easy peasy, piece of cake.
Take a picture of a red snooker ball on a dark background with 2 lenses. Then check for the range of colours recorded on both files in the red range. What's hard about this?
Check this.
Lens colour difference test https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1386031
In comparison, measuring lens (+ camera) resolution is easy peasy, piece of cake.
Mar 07, 2016 at 07:15 PM
p.19 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
Take a picture of a red snooker ball on a dark background with 2 lenses. Then check for the range of colours recorded on both files in the red range. What's hard about this?now that also comes down to the imager and how both react together. yet another layer of confusion. it is highly possible that both accept the equivalent spectrum and then its down to the "pleasing factor" which will be subjective.
Use the same imager so remove it out of the equation.
SKumar25 wrote
sjms wrote
that is perceptual which really is quite difficult to define as measurable/quantifiableUse the same imager so remove it out of the equation.
Mar 07, 2016 at 07:16 PM
p.19 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
Use the same imager so remove it out of the equation.
Sure, but the camera can meter exposure differently for different lenses. Also, if you're comparing colour, you should probably use equal light transmission T-stop values, as opposed to equal (yet nominal) F-stop values.
Just sayin.
Use the same imager so remove it out of the equation.
Sure, but the camera can meter exposure differently for different lenses. Also, if you're comparing colour, you should probably use equal light transmission T-stop values, as opposed to equal (yet nominal) F-stop values.
Just sayin.
Mar 07, 2016 at 08:03 PM
p.19 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
arduluth wrote:
Christ, do we have to go through this pedantry every time someone uses the term "3D?"
But of course.
Christ, do we have to go through this pedantry every time someone uses the term "3D?"
But of course.
Mar 07, 2016 at 08:07 PM
p.19 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
Miniscule? Red herring? - it comes down to measurable differences, and a person's abilities to sense these and the significance they choose to place on the difference.
**************************
I disagree for the reasons stated in Thom Hogan's article:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
... and thus we have come full circle so I will just agree to disagree with you.
Andre Labonte wrote
Parsing the miniscule contribution of the lens from more important factors is a red herring.**************************
I disagree for the reasons stated in Thom Hogan's article:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
... and thus we have come full circle so I will just agree to disagree with you.
Mar 07, 2016 at 08:07 PM
p.19 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
arduluth wrote:
You are correct ...with as single lens "3D" is a perception but not reality. To get true 3D you need two images of the same object from different angles projected into a single image using a stereoscope.To me, 3D in this context is the ability to sense depth or perceive something as real looking.
It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.That is what I meant by 3D. It is more than the illusion of depth but also the sense that solid objects are modeled and have space surrounding them.
RobSense, illusion, what the difference? It's still only a 2D image ... it may portray, give the sense, give the illusion of 3D, but it is a 2D image.
In order to have true 3D you need two or more perspectives ... single lens cameras do not collect that as such.Christ, do we have to go through this pedantry every time someone uses the term "3D?"
Literally no one is claiming that a Zeiss lens can instantiate a 3D object from a single 2D photographic image. Yay, you win?
*******************
Hey, if you are going to use technical terms, use them correctly or else nobody knows what you are really talking about.
Misconceptions and misinformation are all too often built upon the poor or incorrect use of terminology and definitions.
Andre Labonte wrote
robgo2 wrote
SKumar25 wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
akul wrote
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.
Rob
In order to have true 3D you need two or more perspectives ... single lens cameras do not collect that as such.
Literally no one is claiming that a Zeiss lens can instantiate a 3D object from a single 2D photographic image. Yay, you win?
*******************
Hey, if you are going to use technical terms, use them correctly or else nobody knows what you are really talking about.
Misconceptions and misinformation are all too often built upon the poor or incorrect use of terminology and definitions.
Mar 07, 2016 at 08:16 PM
p.19 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
**************************
I disagree for the reasons stated in Thom Hogan's article:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
... and thus we have come full circle so I will just agree to disagree with you.
"You might already notice that the mountains at the bottom—the Cuernos in Torres del Paine National Park in Chile—don’t seem to have a lot of contrast to them.
Indeed, I’d guess that almost any so-called expert on lens rendering would immediately say that there’s very little micro contrast. "
That is an embarrassing example.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/_Media/int_arg_patagonia_2010_nex5_med.jpeg
Also did you read this at the bottom of the article?:
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
I'm not here to convince anyone, and am happy to disagree.
**************************
I disagree for the reasons stated in Thom Hogan's article:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
... and thus we have come full circle so I will just agree to disagree with you.
"You might already notice that the mountains at the bottom—the Cuernos in Torres del Paine National Park in Chile—don’t seem to have a lot of contrast to them.
Indeed, I’d guess that almost any so-called expert on lens rendering would immediately say that there’s very little micro contrast. "
That is an embarrassing example.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/_Media/int_arg_patagonia_2010_nex5_med.jpeg
Also did you read this at the bottom of the article?:
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
I'm not here to convince anyone, and am happy to disagree.
Mar 07, 2016 at 08:20 PM
p.19 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jcolwell wrote:
Sure, but the camera can meter exposure differently for different lenses. Also, if you're comparing colour, you should probably use equal light transmission T-stop values, as opposed to equal (yet nominal) F-stop values.
Just sayin.
There are a ton of variables, and in many cases they are not better/worse variables, but simply things that are different. (One person loves an old alt lens than vignettes and is soft in the corners while another wants a lens that is uniform across the frame.)
This is part of the reason that I remain unconvinced, despite seeing tons of photographic prints produced over two centuries by a huge range of formats, cameras, and lenses that the differences between lenses that so small that they are unseen in final prints by many smart, observant people are dwarfed by all of the other quite large variables.
But, in the end, it is kind of like arguing about religion. One person says, "there is no proof and I don't see it," while the other says, "it is powerful and it has changed my life."
Note: None of this is to say that Zeiss does not make very fine lenses, as do a number of other manufacturers.
Dan
chez wrote
Use the same imager so remove it out of the equation.Just sayin.
There are a ton of variables, and in many cases they are not better/worse variables, but simply things that are different. (One person loves an old alt lens than vignettes and is soft in the corners while another wants a lens that is uniform across the frame.)
This is part of the reason that I remain unconvinced, despite seeing tons of photographic prints produced over two centuries by a huge range of formats, cameras, and lenses that the differences between lenses that so small that they are unseen in final prints by many smart, observant people are dwarfed by all of the other quite large variables.
But, in the end, it is kind of like arguing about religion. One person says, "there is no proof and I don't see it," while the other says, "it is powerful and it has changed my life."
Note: None of this is to say that Zeiss does not make very fine lenses, as do a number of other manufacturers.
Dan
Mar 07, 2016 at 08:46 PM
p.19 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Since this thread is also living, not without objection 
, in the Nikon forum, let’s turn for a second to the relationship between Nikon and Zeiss.
85/2 by unoh7, 1948 Nikkor S 85.cm over 1937 CZJ 135/4
Without Zeiss, there is no Nikon. Nikon entered the 35mm market by stealing everything they could from Zeiss Contax, just like Canon did from Leica. But the Contax mount defied reverse engineering and the Nikon S mount is slightly different, as can be seen by noting the “C” on the lens above, which means it was a special edition, made to focus properly on a Zeiss Contax body, not Nikon's own rangefinder. They missed the proper helical pitch of the Contax mount.
But I don’t put that lens up just to show the C No, it’s there because this lens launched Nikon into the mainstream with a single shot (that very few have ever seen):
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/history/images/duncan.jpg
Photo source and story behind it: Here
according to 1001:
"It was in 1950 when Mr. Jun Miki, also a photographer connected with LIFE magazine, was taking a snapshot of Mr. Duncan with the Nikkor 8.5cm he had borrowed from a friend, a photographer who happened to be visiting him. At that time, Mr. Duncan did not take any special interest in the lens, simply saying "Oh, Japanese Sonnar?" However, later his attitude changed quickly when he was shown the enlarged shot, and he started examining the photo with a magnifying glass. "It's great! Very sharp! Take me to the company at once!"
Article Here
DDD ended up with a Nikkor 135/4 with which he took some of the most iconic photos of the 20th century for LIFE, and a 50/1.5, making the Nikon brand world famous in the process.
Obviously the 8.5cm gamechanger is inspired by the famous pre-war Zeiss 8.5cm f/2, but it is not the same, as Sonnar Guru Brian notes:
"What surprises me - of all of the original Nikkor lenses, the 8.5cm f2 is a different optical layout than the Sonnar lens that it is based on. The pre-war Zeiss Sonnars have 7 elements in 3 groups, 1-3-3 arrangement. The Nikkor 8.5cm is 5 elements in 3 groups, 1-3-1. The rear triplet of the Zeiss Sonnar is replaced by a single element. The first lens appeared in a very small batch in 1948, and the larger batch was ordered in March 1949. The Post-War Zeiss Opton 85/2 Sonnar changed to the 5 element in 3 group design of the Nikkor. Hard to say if some designs had been shared between Zeiss and Nikon during the war, but- as far as I know, Nikon was first to market with this new formulation."
Thread is here
Let’s consider this strange Zeiss-Nikon, which I shot today on my Kolari A7:
DSC09621 by unoh7, on Flickr
so sharp, it melts bricks :
White Windows by unoh7, on Flickr
DSC09619 by unoh7, on Flickr
DSC09595 by unoh7, on Flickr
This is not even a clean copy
DSC09652 by unoh7, on Flickr
DSC09650-2 by unoh7,Those are two distinct shots, no crops
So, I think it's interesting there is Zeiss bashing or vice-versa between those who like either brand, as Nikon was inspired by and actually improved upon, in this case, an iconic Zeiss design, setting the stage for a lightning strike snapshot with the great 8.5cm Nikkor S, and subsequent catapult into the big time.
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 10:15 PM · View previous versions
, in the Nikon forum, let’s turn for a second to the relationship between Nikon and Zeiss.85/2 by unoh7, 1948 Nikkor S 85.cm over 1937 CZJ 135/4
Without Zeiss, there is no Nikon. Nikon entered the 35mm market by stealing everything they could from Zeiss Contax, just like Canon did from Leica. But the Contax mount defied reverse engineering and the Nikon S mount is slightly different, as can be seen by noting the “C” on the lens above, which means it was a special edition, made to focus properly on a Zeiss Contax body, not Nikon's own rangefinder. They missed the proper helical pitch of the Contax mount.
But I don’t put that lens up just to show the C
No, it’s there because this lens launched Nikon into the mainstream with a single shot (that very few have ever seen):http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/history/images/duncan.jpg
Photo source and story behind it: Here
according to 1001:
"It was in 1950 when Mr. Jun Miki, also a photographer connected with LIFE magazine, was taking a snapshot of Mr. Duncan with the Nikkor 8.5cm he had borrowed from a friend, a photographer who happened to be visiting him. At that time, Mr. Duncan did not take any special interest in the lens, simply saying "Oh, Japanese Sonnar?" However, later his attitude changed quickly when he was shown the enlarged shot, and he started examining the photo with a magnifying glass. "It's great! Very sharp! Take me to the company at once!"
Article Here
DDD ended up with a Nikkor 135/4 with which he took some of the most iconic photos of the 20th century for LIFE, and a 50/1.5, making the Nikon brand world famous in the process.
Obviously the 8.5cm gamechanger is inspired by the famous pre-war Zeiss 8.5cm f/2, but it is not the same, as Sonnar Guru Brian notes:
"What surprises me - of all of the original Nikkor lenses, the 8.5cm f2 is a different optical layout than the Sonnar lens that it is based on. The pre-war Zeiss Sonnars have 7 elements in 3 groups, 1-3-3 arrangement. The Nikkor 8.5cm is 5 elements in 3 groups, 1-3-1. The rear triplet of the Zeiss Sonnar is replaced by a single element. The first lens appeared in a very small batch in 1948, and the larger batch was ordered in March 1949. The Post-War Zeiss Opton 85/2 Sonnar changed to the 5 element in 3 group design of the Nikkor. Hard to say if some designs had been shared between Zeiss and Nikon during the war, but- as far as I know, Nikon was first to market with this new formulation."
Thread is here
Let’s consider this strange Zeiss-Nikon, which I shot today on my Kolari A7:
DSC09621 by unoh7, on Flickr
so sharp, it melts bricks
:White Windows by unoh7, on Flickr
DSC09619 by unoh7, on Flickr
DSC09595 by unoh7, on Flickr
This is not even a clean copy
DSC09652 by unoh7, on Flickr
DSC09650-2 by unoh7,Those are two distinct shots, no crops
So, I think it's interesting there is Zeiss bashing or vice-versa between those who like either brand, as Nikon was inspired by and actually improved upon, in this case, an iconic Zeiss design, setting the stage for a lightning strike snapshot with the great 8.5cm Nikkor S, and subsequent catapult into the big time.
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 10:15 PM · View previous versions
Mar 07, 2016 at 08:48 PM
p.19 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
I disagree for the reasons stated in Thom Hogan's article:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
... and thus we have come full circle so I will just agree to disagree with you."You might already notice that the mountains at the bottom—the Cuernos in Torres del Paine National Park in Chile—don’t seem to have a lot of contrast to them.
Indeed, I’d guess that almost any so-called expert on lens rendering would immediately say that there’s very little micro contrast. "
That is an embarrassing example.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/_Media/int_arg_patagonia_2010_nex5_med.jpg
Also did you read this at the bottom of the article?:
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
I'm...Show more →
***************************
You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...
Andre Labonte wrote
**************************I disagree for the reasons stated in Thom Hogan's article:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
... and thus we have come full circle so I will just agree to disagree with you.
Indeed, I’d guess that almost any so-called expert on lens rendering would immediately say that there’s very little micro contrast. "
That is an embarrassing example.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/_Media/int_arg_patagonia_2010_nex5_med.jpg
Also did you read this at the bottom of the article?:
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
I'm...Show more →
***************************
You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...
Mar 07, 2016 at 08:53 PM
p.19 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
***************************
You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...
Aren't you arguing against this position?:
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
How am I misquoting?
***************************
You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...
Aren't you arguing against this position?:
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
How am I misquoting?
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:02 PM
p.19 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
...But, in the end, it is kind of like arguing about religion. One person says, "there is no proof and I don't see it," while the other says, "it is powerful and it has changed my life."
Not so, when it comes to resolution. The procedures for resolution testing are well-established.
...But, in the end, it is kind of like arguing about religion. One person says, "there is no proof and I don't see it," while the other says, "it is powerful and it has changed my life."
Not so, when it comes to resolution. The procedures for resolution testing are well-established.
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:05 PM
p.19 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jcolwell wrote:
Sure, but the camera can meter exposure differently for different lenses. Also, if you're comparing colour, you should probably use equal light transmission T-stop values, as opposed to equal (yet nominal) F-stop values.
Just sayin.
I suggested a rough test. I think even with a simple test like that that you can pick up tonal differences between a lens with very poor micro contrast, and excellent micro contrast.
I'll leave the exact measuring to the manufacturers.
chez wrote
Use the same imager so remove it out of the equation.Just sayin.
I suggested a rough test. I think even with a simple test like that that you can pick up tonal differences between a lens with very poor micro contrast, and excellent micro contrast.
I'll leave the exact measuring to the manufacturers.
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:19 PM
p.19 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
If you may recall back in the 2009 "What is 3D" thread, there was the extensive discussion regarding the role of micro-contrast ... including the ability to induce it via PP from a "lesser" capture to an "near equitable" level.
Unfortunately, so many of those images are no longer available in the thread.
Again, from trompe' loeill to autocad, there has always been a yearning to present the conveyance of three dimensionality in a two dimensional medium. The tenets of perspective, modeling, spatial, scale & mass relationships, micro-contrast, color relationships, etc. all contribute to effectiveness of such presentation.
So, while we readily acknowledge and give credence to autocad and paintings so lifelike that it fools people, etc. ... the literalness of 2D vs. 3D (-ishness) as the medium, is a rather moot point for those who aspire to present the (sensation / illusion / perception / etc.) 3D-ishness in our beloved (admittedly 2D) medium.
As has been illustrated, the effect can be rendered to various degree, based upon various attributes, which includes lens design (Zeiss, Nikon, or otherwise) of certain characteristics, among the other aspects. For those who say "they can't see it" ... well, there's not much anyone can do to change what you can / can't see. The same "I see it" vs. "I don't see it" existed back in 2009.
To that point ... come back in 5, 10, 100 or 1,000 years and the ability to present a 3D-ish, lifelike image in a 2D medium will be as much of a goal as it is today, or it was 5, 10, 100 or 1,000 years ago. Whether it is a computer, a photograph, or a painting / drawing ... the ability to convey three dimensionality in a 2D medium remains a challenging endeavor to varying degree of effectiveness (and apparently to varying audiences). Choosing lenses (of certain design) that aid in this endeavor can be part of the equation.
At this juncture, I think that one merely has to look to the industry of autocad & video games to recognize the effort that continues to be made regarding the attempt to convey 3D-ishness in a 2D medium. If other 2D mediums can aspire to do so ... why not ours?
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 09:38 PM · View previous versions
Unfortunately, so many of those images are no longer available in the thread.
Again, from trompe' loeill to autocad, there has always been a yearning to present the conveyance of three dimensionality in a two dimensional medium. The tenets of perspective, modeling, spatial, scale & mass relationships, micro-contrast, color relationships, etc. all contribute to effectiveness of such presentation.
So, while we readily acknowledge and give credence to autocad and paintings so lifelike that it fools people, etc. ... the literalness of 2D vs. 3D (-ishness) as the medium, is a rather moot point for those who aspire to present the (sensation / illusion / perception / etc.) 3D-ishness in our beloved (admittedly 2D) medium.
As has been illustrated, the effect can be rendered to various degree, based upon various attributes, which includes lens design (Zeiss, Nikon, or otherwise) of certain characteristics, among the other aspects. For those who say "they can't see it" ... well, there's not much anyone can do to change what you can / can't see. The same "I see it" vs. "I don't see it" existed back in 2009.
To that point ... come back in 5, 10, 100 or 1,000 years and the ability to present a 3D-ish, lifelike image in a 2D medium will be as much of a goal as it is today, or it was 5, 10, 100 or 1,000 years ago. Whether it is a computer, a photograph, or a painting / drawing ... the ability to convey three dimensionality in a 2D medium remains a challenging endeavor to varying degree of effectiveness (and apparently to varying audiences). Choosing lenses (of certain design) that aid in this endeavor can be part of the equation.
At this juncture, I think that one merely has to look to the industry of autocad & video games to recognize the effort that continues to be made regarding the attempt to convey 3D-ishness in a 2D medium. If other 2D mediums can aspire to do so ... why not ours?
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 09:38 PM · View previous versions
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:31 PM
p.19 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
RustyBug wrote:
If you may recall back in the 2009 "What is 3D" thread, there was the extensive discussion regarding the role of micro-contrast ...
Unfortunately, so many of those images are no longer available in the thread...
Equally unfortunate is the fact that "micro-contrast" doesn't have a concise definition.
If you may recall back in the 2009 "What is 3D" thread, there was the extensive discussion regarding the role of micro-contrast ...
Unfortunately, so many of those images are no longer available in the thread...
Equally unfortunate is the fact that "micro-contrast" doesn't have a concise definition.
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:35 PM
p.19 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
this is pretty close though:
then of course there's image stacking or layering
soft Bokeh anyone?
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 11:26 PM · View previous versions
then of course there's image stacking or layering
soft Bokeh anyone?
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 11:26 PM · View previous versions
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:45 PM
p.19 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
arduluth wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
robgo2 wrote
SKumar25 wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
You are correct ...with as single lens "3D" is a perception but not reality. To get true 3D you need two images of the same object from different angles projected into a single image using a stereoscope.It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.
Rob
In order to have true 3D you need two or more perspectives ... single lens cameras do not collect that as such.
Literally no one is claiming that a Zeiss lens can instantiate a 3D object from a single 2D photographic image. Yay, you win?
Hey, if you are going to use technical terms, use them correctly or else nobody knows what you are really talking about.
Misconceptions and misinformation are all too often built upon the poor or incorrect use of terminology and definitions.
That's precisely the issue - you're the only one using it as a technical term. You're the one imposing a very different definition on a bit of photographic vernacular. If you aren't familiar, I'm sure there are a few threads on it.
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:49 PM
p.19 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Uhoh
Gorgeous lens and great shots !
I believe that 85/2 legend was Leica mount not Contax ? And, the legend was when Duncan visited Nikon, Nikon's CEO did a presentation to compare Nikon lens against some German lens that Duncan had, and demonstrated optical superiority of 85/2, so he bought 50 and 135, went to shoot Korean war.
Off topic ( addressed not to any specific individual )
I have negative reaction to that word, Canikon. I don't use canon. Canon and Nikon are two different companies, and that offends me. It is like calling Zeica or Leiss, or Panalympus.
Gorgeous lens and great shots !
I believe that 85/2 legend was Leica mount not Contax ? And, the legend was when Duncan visited Nikon, Nikon's CEO did a presentation to compare Nikon lens against some German lens that Duncan had, and demonstrated optical superiority of 85/2, so he bought 50 and 135, went to shoot Korean war.
Off topic ( addressed not to any specific individual )
I have negative reaction to that word, Canikon. I don't use canon. Canon and Nikon are two different companies, and that offends me. It is like calling Zeica or Leiss, or Panalympus.
Mar 07, 2016 at 10:32 PM
p.19 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
akul wrote:
Uhoh
Gorgeous lens and great shots !
I believe that 85/2 legend was Leica mount not Contax ? And, the legend was when Duncan visited Nikon, Nikon's CEO did a presentation to compare Nikon lens against some German lens that Duncan had, and demonstrated optical superiority of 85/2, so he bought 50 and 135, went to shoot Korean war.
Off topic ( addressed not to any specific individual )
I have negative reaction to that word, Canikon. I don't use canon. Canon and Nikon are two different companies, and that offends me. It is like calling Zeica or Leiss, or Panalympus.
I prefer PenFujiNiCanOlyOnyHallelIess.
Uhoh
Gorgeous lens and great shots !
I believe that 85/2 legend was Leica mount not Contax ? And, the legend was when Duncan visited Nikon, Nikon's CEO did a presentation to compare Nikon lens against some German lens that Duncan had, and demonstrated optical superiority of 85/2, so he bought 50 and 135, went to shoot Korean war.
Off topic ( addressed not to any specific individual )
I have negative reaction to that word, Canikon. I don't use canon. Canon and Nikon are two different companies, and that offends me. It is like calling Zeica or Leiss, or Panalympus.
I prefer PenFujiNiCanOlyOnyHallelIess.
Mar 08, 2016 at 12:05 AM
p.19 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Gorgeous lens and great shots !
I believe that 85/2 legend was Leica mount not Contax ? And, the legend was when Duncan visited Nikon, Nikon's CEO did a presentation to compare Nikon lens against some German lens that Duncan had, and demonstrated optical superiority of 85/2, so he bought 50 and 135, went to shoot Korean war.
Off topic ( addressed not to any specific individual )
I have negative reaction to that word, Canikon. I don't use canon. Canon and Nikon are two different companies, and that offends me. It is like calling Zeica or Leiss, or Panalympus.I prefer PenFujiNiCanOlyOnyHallelIess.
I had no idea you spoke Finn!
akul wrote
UhohGorgeous lens and great shots !
I believe that 85/2 legend was Leica mount not Contax ? And, the legend was when Duncan visited Nikon, Nikon's CEO did a presentation to compare Nikon lens against some German lens that Duncan had, and demonstrated optical superiority of 85/2, so he bought 50 and 135, went to shoot Korean war.
Off topic ( addressed not to any specific individual )
I have negative reaction to that word, Canikon. I don't use canon. Canon and Nikon are two different companies, and that offends me. It is like calling Zeica or Leiss, or Panalympus.
I had no idea you spoke Finn!
Mar 08, 2016 at 12:51 AM