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.20 #1The 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.
TY, Sir
Akul, the 85/2 was made in three mounts, with identical optics: Nikon-S, Contax and LTM. The LTM mount lenses are worth about $150-200 more than the other two. I'd guess the most rare is the Contax mount. About 22,000 or so were made in all mounts
For sure, Duncan took his lenses in LTM. The mount of the 8.5cm which Jun Miki used is not clear
HERE is a wonderful post where the old hands in Japan consider the issue
Another thing I like about Duncan: he loved the 135! Leica shooters today are often street centered and many shoot only at 35mm FL, where of course there are many great choices. Many claim it's nearly impossible to accurately focus a 135 on the RF, and anyway it's hard
The lens DDD obtained and made so many great photos with was made in very limited numbers, and though it appears identical to the Zeiss 135/4 I own:
It is not so cheap and an LTM version would bring another grand at least. UPDATE:according to José Manuel Serrano Esparza, he has the 135/3.5 here:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1CUOu-Z1clU/U9pbLaNYcQI/AAAAAAAASLk/93aSlro8RzM/s1600/DAVID+DOUGLAS+DUNCAN+WITH+NIKKOR+Q.C+13,5+CM+F3.5+IN+1950+AT+THE+BEGINNING+OF+KOREAN+WAR.jpg
He just turned 100 in January! I hope you Nikon guys had a birthday thread for him. Within the company, he is revered like a God, for good reason
Here is my 1937 Carl Zeiss Jena 135/4 on the Leica M9 Rangefinder:
WO:
Argosy by unoh7, on Flickr
5.6
Silverfox by unoh7, on Flickr
Little Wheels by unoh7, on Flickr
F/8:
Telegram by unoh7, on Flickr
F/11:
Bike Path by unoh7, on Flickr
This last one is at infinity. I do have the Nikon RF 135/3.5, which I will have to pull out and test. My frontline 135s are the Leica 135/3.4 APO Telyt (2nd sharpest Leica lens), and the 135/2.8 Elmarit, which has very sweet draw and makes fine features.
This Zeiss uses Amedeo Contax to M adapter, and as you can see, focus is really no problem, if you pay attention. I did not take multiple shots. This lens looks fairly strong mid-range, but edges fail in the long infinity shot. The nikkor 85/2 is far stronger.
Here is DDD interviewed on his 100th birthday, where he says it's 135/3.5
What could the Nikkor lenses do that you weren’t getting with your existing lenses [Leica LTM]?
"They were sharper and brighter. During the Korean War I carried two Leica IIIC camera bodies loaded with Eastman Super-XX film—one with a Nikkor 50mm f1.5, then later the f1.4; the other with a telephoto, a Nikkor 135mm, F3.5. I was shooting the stuff in Korea and the guys in New York were asking, “What’s going on?” “Oh, he’s got these funny little lenses on his Leica.” Nobody had ever heard of Nikon. Some guy from The New York Times wrote a story about it, and that put Nikon on the map."
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.
TY, Sir
Akul, the 85/2 was made in three mounts, with identical optics: Nikon-S, Contax and LTM. The LTM mount lenses are worth about $150-200 more than the other two. I'd guess the most rare is the Contax mount. About 22,000 or so were made in all mounts
For sure, Duncan took his lenses in LTM. The mount of the 8.5cm which Jun Miki used is not clear
HERE is a wonderful post where the old hands in Japan consider the issue
Another thing I like about Duncan: he loved the 135! Leica shooters today are often street centered and many shoot only at 35mm FL, where of course there are many great choices. Many claim it's nearly impossible to accurately focus a 135 on the RF, and anyway it's hard
The lens DDD obtained and made so many great photos with was made in very limited numbers, and though it appears identical to the Zeiss 135/4 I own:
It is not so cheap
and an LTM version would bring another grand at least. UPDATE:according to José Manuel Serrano Esparza, he has the 135/3.5 here:http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1CUOu-Z1clU/U9pbLaNYcQI/AAAAAAAASLk/93aSlro8RzM/s1600/DAVID+DOUGLAS+DUNCAN+WITH+NIKKOR+Q.C+13,5+CM+F3.5+IN+1950+AT+THE+BEGINNING+OF+KOREAN+WAR.jpg
He just turned 100 in January! I hope you Nikon guys had a birthday thread for him. Within the company, he is revered like a God, for good reason
Here is my 1937 Carl Zeiss Jena 135/4 on the Leica M9 Rangefinder:
WO:
Argosy by unoh7, on Flickr
5.6
Silverfox by unoh7, on Flickr
Little Wheels by unoh7, on Flickr
F/8:
Telegram by unoh7, on Flickr
F/11:
Bike Path by unoh7, on Flickr
This last one is at infinity. I do have the Nikon RF 135/3.5, which I will have to pull out and test. My frontline 135s are the Leica 135/3.4 APO Telyt (2nd sharpest Leica lens), and the 135/2.8 Elmarit, which has very sweet draw and makes fine features.
This Zeiss uses Amedeo Contax to M adapter, and as you can see, focus is really no problem, if you pay attention. I did not take multiple shots. This lens looks fairly strong mid-range, but edges fail in the long infinity shot. The nikkor 85/2 is far stronger.
Here is DDD interviewed on his 100th birthday, where he says it's 135/3.5
What could the Nikkor lenses do that you weren’t getting with your existing lenses [Leica LTM]?
"They were sharper and brighter. During the Korean War I carried two Leica IIIC camera bodies loaded with Eastman Super-XX film—one with a Nikkor 50mm f1.5, then later the f1.4; the other with a telephoto, a Nikkor 135mm, F3.5. I was shooting the stuff in Korea and the guys in New York were asking, “What’s going on?” “Oh, he’s got these funny little lenses on his Leica.” Nobody had ever heard of Nikon. Some guy from The New York Times wrote a story about it, and that put Nikon on the map."
Mar 08, 2016 at 12:54 AM
p.20 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
And here it is, the 1950 NYT article that opened the door to the American market for Japanese cameras:
Japan Camera by unoh7, on Flickr
A little bigger if that's hard to read
My favorite is the last paragraph
and "....by comparison with German lenses more uniform in quality" OMG It's like ground hog day with the new Zeiss FE lenses: perhaps they are a little too traditional?
Japan Camera by unoh7, on Flickr
A little bigger if that's hard to read
My favorite is the last paragraph
and "....by comparison with German lenses more uniform in quality" OMG It's like ground hog day with the new Zeiss FE lenses: perhaps they are a little too traditional?
Mar 08, 2016 at 03:03 AM
p.20 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mushroomgod/24535792449/in/pool-makro-planar100mm/
It's hard to argue any of these are flat.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2662280@N23/pool/
These don't seem quite the same (sort of flat)
It's hard to argue any of these are flat.
https://www.flickr.com/groups/2662280@N23/pool/
These don't seem quite the same (sort of flat)
Mar 08, 2016 at 06:35 AM
p.20 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
akul wrote:
... It is like calling Zeica or Leiss, or Panalympus.
I like a Zeica, and Leiss is nice.
... It is like calling Zeica or Leiss, or Panalympus.
I like a Zeica, and Leiss is nice.
Mar 08, 2016 at 07:00 AM
p.20 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
I guess some lenses just better enhance this lighting than others...still resulting in more chance of achieving this look with certain lenses. Isn't this what we ars discussing here...without light we don't have an image. It's what lenses do with that light that counts.
Yes I agree. Difference of lens characteristics, and appreciate the differences. However I do prefer the discussion to broader the 3D discussion. It is a bit too narrow focus and lose common ground as the concept is too elusive. I can honestly say I see dimensionally in many photos with good light regardless of gear. However, whether I like a certain photograph or not is not based on '3D' .
Luka
akul wrote
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.Yes I agree. Difference of lens characteristics, and appreciate the differences. However I do prefer the discussion to broader the 3D discussion. It is a bit too narrow focus and lose common ground as the concept is too elusive. I can honestly say I see dimensionally in many photos with good light regardless of gear. However, whether I like a certain photograph or not is not based on '3D' .
Luka
Mar 08, 2016 at 07:03 AM
p.20 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
so, the Zeiss look is still a mystery.
Mar 08, 2016 at 08:14 AM
p.20 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
so, the Zeiss look is still a mystery.
Well, if you own a passel of them it's the bestest in the world!
so, the Zeiss look is still a mystery.
Well, if you own a passel of them it's the bestest in the world!
Mar 08, 2016 at 08:15 AM
p.20 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
+1 @ Luka ... I like 3D-ish, but that doesn't mean that is requisite for me to like or not like an image.
Imo, the simplicity of it is that different glass designs draw differently. Choose the ones that draw to the style you like ... whatever brand that may be.
Edited on Mar 08, 2016 at 08:21 AM · View previous versions
Imo, the simplicity of it is that different glass designs draw differently. Choose the ones that draw to the style you like ... whatever brand that may be.
Edited on Mar 08, 2016 at 08:21 AM · View previous versions
Mar 08, 2016 at 08:18 AM
p.20 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
well isn't that how most enthusiasts feel? everyone has their own particular flavor of Kool-Aid. mine is simply the image.
Edited on Mar 08, 2016 at 10:25 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Mar 08, 2016 at 10:25 AM · View previous versions
Mar 08, 2016 at 08:18 AM
p.20 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
well isn't that how most enthusiasts feel. everyone has their own particular flavor of Kool-Aid. mine is simply the image.
So you purchase gear with no regards to what effects the gear has on your images? Surely how the camera and lenses render your images must have had some influence on your purchases.
well isn't that how most enthusiasts feel. everyone has their own particular flavor of Kool-Aid. mine is simply the image.
So you purchase gear with no regards to what effects the gear has on your images? Surely how the camera and lenses render your images must have had some influence on your purchases.
Mar 08, 2016 at 08:35 AM
p.20 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
so, the Zeiss look is still a mystery.
No more than the Nikon look, Leica look, or Canon look (to name only a few!).
Every lens is a collection of optical compromises incorporating certain aberrations and solutions within specific glass and coatings. How those choices and materials are implemented result in the "look".
End of mystery.
so, the Zeiss look is still a mystery.
No more than the Nikon look, Leica look, or Canon look (to name only a few!).
Every lens is a collection of optical compromises incorporating certain aberrations and solutions within specific glass and coatings. How those choices and materials are implemented result in the "look".
End of mystery.
Mar 08, 2016 at 09:06 AM
p.20 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Chez,
in 40 years of shooting and being compensated for it i have demonstrated that i can shoot with most reasonably good cameras (yes i do have my minimums) and deliver good quality images overall. that is from P/S cameras up to Hassy. no, unfortunately i never got into sheet film work. now that's work. Zeiss has been kind enough to offer me use of their product whenever i feel a need as does Sigma and Nikon and formally canon. i really haven't found a need to get emotionally attached to these things. i don't collect. i shoot with what i deem appropriate. yep, theres been more then a few times i have not impressed myself with work. so i work it out and move on. yes, i do know that gear affects the end product, but i don't turn it into dogma or a dream. i know that my images don't impress a fair grouping of individuals but i find it highly unlikely that its due to my gear. critics will be critics and they have their own agendas. my agenda is not testing and searching for the perfect gear, just the image that i am satisfied with. if someone else likes it i just smile a bit more that day.
i am a technician by trade. i try not to let that get in my way.
oh, i prefer the Steven look.
shot with a P/S:
Canon PowerShot G10
ISO 200
Focal Length 30.5mm
Aperture f/4.5
Edited on Mar 08, 2016 at 10:13 AM · View previous versions
in 40 years of shooting and being compensated for it i have demonstrated that i can shoot with most reasonably good cameras (yes i do have my minimums) and deliver good quality images overall. that is from P/S cameras up to Hassy. no, unfortunately i never got into sheet film work. now that's work. Zeiss has been kind enough to offer me use of their product whenever i feel a need as does Sigma and Nikon and formally canon. i really haven't found a need to get emotionally attached to these things. i don't collect. i shoot with what i deem appropriate. yep, theres been more then a few times i have not impressed myself with work. so i work it out and move on. yes, i do know that gear affects the end product, but i don't turn it into dogma or a dream. i know that my images don't impress a fair grouping of individuals but i find it highly unlikely that its due to my gear. critics will be critics and they have their own agendas. my agenda is not testing and searching for the perfect gear, just the image that i am satisfied with. if someone else likes it i just smile a bit more that day.
i am a technician by trade. i try not to let that get in my way.
oh, i prefer the Steven look.
shot with a P/S:
Canon PowerShot G10
ISO 200
Focal Length 30.5mm
Aperture f/4.5
Edited on Mar 08, 2016 at 10:13 AM · View previous versions
Mar 08, 2016 at 09:07 AM
p.20 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Gunzorro wrote:
No more than the Nikon look, Leica look, or Canon look (to name only a few!).
Every lens is a collection of optical compromises incorporating certain aberrations and solutions within specific glass and coatings. How those choices and materials are implemented result in the "look".
End of mystery.
like i said, i prefer the Steven look. it trumps all others in the end product.
sjms wrote
so, the Zeiss look is still a mystery.Every lens is a collection of optical compromises incorporating certain aberrations and solutions within specific glass and coatings. How those choices and materials are implemented result in the "look".
End of mystery.
like i said, i prefer the Steven look. it trumps all others in the end product.
Mar 08, 2016 at 09:17 AM
p.20 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
well isn't that how most enthusiasts feel. everyone has their own particular flavor of Kool-Aid. mine is simply the image.
With regard to my flavor of Kool-Aid:
For Canon, I'm pretty catholic. Almost all my lenses are Canon, with a few here and there by Samyang and a few others.
For Nikon, I'm much more eclectic, being on a budget constraint with a shorter timeline. For my D800e I have five Mamiya 645 lenses, four Nikon lenses, two Zeiss lenses, one Leica, and one Samyang. All work quite well in the IQ department despite obvious differences in design and "look".
My Kool-Aid flavor is whatever gets the job done best. (Usually, Cherry)
well isn't that how most enthusiasts feel. everyone has their own particular flavor of Kool-Aid. mine is simply the image.
With regard to my flavor of Kool-Aid:
For Canon, I'm pretty catholic. Almost all my lenses are Canon, with a few here and there by Samyang and a few others.
For Nikon, I'm much more eclectic, being on a budget constraint with a shorter timeline. For my D800e I have five Mamiya 645 lenses, four Nikon lenses, two Zeiss lenses, one Leica, and one Samyang. All work quite well in the IQ department despite obvious differences in design and "look".
My Kool-Aid flavor is whatever gets the job done best. (Usually, Cherry)
Mar 08, 2016 at 09:22 AM
p.20 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I don't know - I really don't see the "Steven" look in any of the samples I have seen so far. I think it's a sham...
Mar 08, 2016 at 09:22 AM
p.20 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Gary Clennan wrote:
I don't know - I really don't see the "Steven" look in any of the samples I have seen so far. I think it's a sham...
i know that my images don't impress a fair grouping of individuals but i find it highly unlikely that its due to my gear. critics will be critics and they have their own agendas.
I don't know - I really don't see the "Steven" look in any of the samples I have seen so far. I think it's a sham...
i know that my images don't impress a fair grouping of individuals but i find it highly unlikely that its due to my gear. critics will be critics and they have their own agendas.
Mar 08, 2016 at 09:26 AM
p.20 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Gunzorro wrote:
With regard to my flavor of Kool-Aid:
For Canon, I'm pretty catholic. Almost all my lenses are Canon, with a few here and there by Samyang and a few others.
For Nikon, I'm much more eclectic, being on a budget constraint with a shorter timeline. For my D800e I have five Mamiya 645 lenses, four Nikon lenses, two Zeiss lenses, one Leica, and one Samyang. All work quite well in the IQ department despite obvious differences in design and "look".
My Kool-Aid flavor is whatever gets the job done best. (Usually, Cherry)
much prefer fruit punch myself
sjms wrote
well isn't that how most enthusiasts feel. everyone has their own particular flavor of Kool-Aid. mine is simply the image.For Canon, I'm pretty catholic. Almost all my lenses are Canon, with a few here and there by Samyang and a few others.
For Nikon, I'm much more eclectic, being on a budget constraint with a shorter timeline. For my D800e I have five Mamiya 645 lenses, four Nikon lenses, two Zeiss lenses, one Leica, and one Samyang. All work quite well in the IQ department despite obvious differences in design and "look".
My Kool-Aid flavor is whatever gets the job done best. (Usually, Cherry)
much prefer fruit punch myself
Mar 08, 2016 at 09:39 AM
p.20 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Personally, I don't care for lenses that have a strong "nervous bokeh" to them. Like most of us ... I can shoot with pretty much whatever is in my hand.
So,while the choice to not choose a "nervous bokeh" drawing style could be readily realized ... the choice to choose any other drawing style of choice ... well, it's a choice.
The drawing style of lenses matter to some ... not so much to others ... and not at all to even others.
If it matters / doesn't matter to a given individual ... so be it.
Short answer: If you like it, shoot it. If you don't, don't.
Your pic, your call.
So,while the choice to not choose a "nervous bokeh" drawing style could be readily realized ... the choice to choose any other drawing style of choice ... well, it's a choice.
The drawing style of lenses matter to some ... not so much to others ... and not at all to even others.
If it matters / doesn't matter to a given individual ... so be it.
Short answer: If you like it, shoot it. If you don't, don't.
Your pic, your call.
Mar 08, 2016 at 09:48 AM
p.20 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jcolwell wrote:
I like a Zeica, and Leiss is nice.
That's Neiss.
- - - -
On another topic, imagine the following conversation:
Person A: "That new car, the SuperHeterodyne5000X Double-Hemi Rally Sport, has the most accurate speedometer that has ever been incorporated into a car. It measures your speed to an accuracy of .001 mph and reads out instantly! This is simply an astonishing triumph of technology. Settle for nothing less!"
Person B: "Well, OK, I've heard that is an excellent car. But my OldSchoolMobile200XL CrossTransSuper has an analog speedometer dial that tells me how fast I'm going to the nearest mph, and it drives great!"
Person A: "But you are getting an inaccurate speed readout that could be off by nearly 1mph! That's not very accurate at all. Can't you sense the difference in speed? I'm sure I can!"
Person B: "Of all the things that are important to driving, having that degree of measurable accuracy in speedometer readout doesn't seem to make any real difference. We'll both get where we're going at the same time."
Person A: "You must not care at all about the quality of cars..."
:-(
Edited on Mar 08, 2016 at 11:00 AM · View previous versions
akul wrote
... It is like calling Zeica or Leiss, or Panalympus.That's Neiss.
- - - -
On another topic, imagine the following conversation:
Person A: "That new car, the SuperHeterodyne5000X Double-Hemi Rally Sport, has the most accurate speedometer that has ever been incorporated into a car. It measures your speed to an accuracy of .001 mph and reads out instantly! This is simply an astonishing triumph of technology. Settle for nothing less!"
Person B: "Well, OK, I've heard that is an excellent car. But my OldSchoolMobile200XL CrossTransSuper has an analog speedometer dial that tells me how fast I'm going to the nearest mph, and it drives great!"
Person A: "But you are getting an inaccurate speed readout that could be off by nearly 1mph! That's not very accurate at all. Can't you sense the difference in speed? I'm sure I can!"
Person B: "Of all the things that are important to driving, having that degree of measurable accuracy in speedometer readout doesn't seem to make any real difference. We'll both get where we're going at the same time."
Person A: "You must not care at all about the quality of cars..."
:-(
Edited on Mar 08, 2016 at 11:00 AM · View previous versions
Mar 08, 2016 at 09:58 AM
p.20 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
RustyBug wrote:
Personally, I don't care for lenses that have a strong "nervous bokeh" to them. Like most of us ... I can shoot with pretty much whatever is in my hand.
So,while the choice to not choose a "nervous bokeh" drawing style could be readily realized ... the choice to choose any other drawing style of choice ... well, it's a choice.
The drawing style of lenses matter to some ... not so much to others ... and not at all to even others.
If it matters / doesn't matter to a given individual ... so be it.
Your pic, your call.
Agreed. I used to carry a D5000 + 35G f/1.8 DX every day on my hikes around Tahoe. I loved the ergonomics and small size/weight. I loved the images too...until I saw how much better other lenses render OOF areas. This is what leads one to start exploring other lenses, many of which are more expensive but which have significantly better rendering. And then eventually to Zeiss lenses, which are even better still. There's a point on the price/weight/reward continuum for everyone.
Here are some particularly nasty bokeh examples from my 35G:
https://horshack.smugmug.com/Nature/Lake-Tahoe/i-bnDKqNk/0/XL/tree_319-XL.jpg
https://horshack.smugmug.com/Nature/Lake-Tahoe/i-BrqT5Jg/0/XL/tahoe_423-XL.jpg
https://horshack.smugmug.com/Nature/Lake-Tahoe/i-DMWhtHd/0/XL/flower_293-XL.jpg
Personally, I don't care for lenses that have a strong "nervous bokeh" to them. Like most of us ... I can shoot with pretty much whatever is in my hand.
So,while the choice to not choose a "nervous bokeh" drawing style could be readily realized ... the choice to choose any other drawing style of choice ... well, it's a choice.
The drawing style of lenses matter to some ... not so much to others ... and not at all to even others.
If it matters / doesn't matter to a given individual ... so be it.
Your pic, your call.
Agreed. I used to carry a D5000 + 35G f/1.8 DX every day on my hikes around Tahoe. I loved the ergonomics and small size/weight. I loved the images too...until I saw how much better other lenses render OOF areas. This is what leads one to start exploring other lenses, many of which are more expensive but which have significantly better rendering. And then eventually to Zeiss lenses, which are even better still. There's a point on the price/weight/reward continuum for everyone.
Here are some particularly nasty bokeh examples from my 35G:
https://horshack.smugmug.com/Nature/Lake-Tahoe/i-bnDKqNk/0/XL/tree_319-XL.jpg
https://horshack.smugmug.com/Nature/Lake-Tahoe/i-BrqT5Jg/0/XL/tahoe_423-XL.jpg
https://horshack.smugmug.com/Nature/Lake-Tahoe/i-DMWhtHd/0/XL/flower_293-XL.jpg
Mar 08, 2016 at 10:29 AM