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.3 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
i actually seem to generally prefer older flawed lenses to modern perfect lenses but this blog post is mostly nonsense to me.
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).
That's a very interesting way to pin down, and maybe that is what people talk about. What I can say is my 50 cron, my 75 Lux and my Elmarit 28 v3 don't look much alike in real world shooting, at least to me.
Now, I would say the pre-asph Lux 50, the 135/2.8 and the 75 Lux and very possibly the f/1 50 do seem very similar.
He made v1-4 of the 35 crons, but the 8 element gives a pretty unique character in the group, no? And the "king of Bokeh" in there somewhere too, right? These are lenses so distinct you can often spot them. That's alot of difference for lenses with the same "look"
The most influential and iconic lens of all, the v4 50 cron, what other Mandler design does it remind me of? I can't think of even one.
Jack by unoh7, 50 cron WO on M9
Glow? Where? I see hair follicles and water droplets recorded quite faithfully, with little sign of aberrational enhancment
Lensrentals shows this lens resolving at 1200/1200/1200 at f/2 though there is astig on the edges. It's the reference 50 of the 20th century, or so Rockwell tells me
Edited on Mar 02, 2016 at 09:55 PM · View previous versions
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.That's a very interesting way to pin down, and maybe that is what people talk about. What I can say is my 50 cron, my 75 Lux and my Elmarit 28 v3 don't look much alike in real world shooting, at least to me.
Now, I would say the pre-asph Lux 50, the 135/2.8 and the 75 Lux and very possibly the f/1 50 do seem very similar.
He made v1-4 of the 35 crons, but the 8 element gives a pretty unique character in the group, no? And the "king of Bokeh" in there somewhere too, right? These are lenses so distinct you can often spot them. That's alot of difference for lenses with the same "look"
The most influential and iconic lens of all, the v4 50 cron, what other Mandler design does it remind me of? I can't think of even one.
Jack by unoh7, 50 cron WO on M9
Glow? Where? I see hair follicles and water droplets recorded quite faithfully, with little sign of aberrational enhancment
Lensrentals shows this lens resolving at 1200/1200/1200 at f/2 though there is astig on the edges. It's the reference 50 of the 20th century, or so Rockwell tells me
Edited on Mar 02, 2016 at 09:55 PM · View previous versions
Mar 02, 2016 at 09:27 PM
p.3 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jhinkey wrote:
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
Two words ... "drawing style"
If the author had put as much effort into presenting the tenets of lens drawing styles and the fact that the range of combinations is a perpetual series of design objectives, compromises and how those render a drawing style for given tradeoffs, then it might have had some value. Instead (imo), he basically sought to "Poo-Poo" things so he could render his position ... i.e. faulty logic (I forget which version it is called).
As to the Zeiss thing @ 3D, etc. ... they don't have the corner on the market, they just design their transition relative to spatial relationships. When your comps match up with that design, yeah it can render very "Zeiss-like". However, if your spatial relationships / usage don't line up with those transitional rates of change, then Zeiss can look rather like many others.
In the land of "alt", the operative word (imo) is different "drawing styles", not an empirical "better". I classicly refer to the diff between my Oly 28/3.5 vs. Nikon 28/2.8 @ Oly has more even sharpness across the entire frame in Zones A,B,C, while the Nikon has more central sharpness in Zone A. The attributes of lens design go far beyond the realm of what the article, but the modern lenses have made some conscious design changes (some of which are LARGER) that it really isn't a matter of age of the lens, but rather the design of the lens.
That said, there are plenty of modern lenses that are worse than some of the legacy lenses, and some that are better in varying attributes and some that are just different versions of tradeoffs to current trends. And, believe it or not ... there are some that are still using the same design from decades before. But, that doesn't allow for one to categorically present the way the article tried to do, to make such a "worthless" presentation.
Even within a given mfr's lineup, there will always be the paradox of trade-offs in lens design which create the drawing style for a given lens. You just simply cannot make the kind of broad categorical assertion that the article has tried to do ... well, you can, but that doesn't make it true.
BTW ... if you want the epic "What is 3D" thread (47 pages over 10 months in 2009):
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829238/0?keyword=3d#7701654
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.
Two words ... "drawing style"
If the author had put as much effort into presenting the tenets of lens drawing styles and the fact that the range of combinations is a perpetual series of design objectives, compromises and how those render a drawing style for given tradeoffs, then it might have had some value. Instead (imo), he basically sought to "Poo-Poo" things so he could render his position ... i.e. faulty logic (I forget which version it is called).
As to the Zeiss thing @ 3D, etc. ... they don't have the corner on the market, they just design their transition relative to spatial relationships. When your comps match up with that design, yeah it can render very "Zeiss-like". However, if your spatial relationships / usage don't line up with those transitional rates of change, then Zeiss can look rather like many others.
In the land of "alt", the operative word (imo) is different "drawing styles", not an empirical "better". I classicly refer to the diff between my Oly 28/3.5 vs. Nikon 28/2.8 @ Oly has more even sharpness across the entire frame in Zones A,B,C, while the Nikon has more central sharpness in Zone A. The attributes of lens design go far beyond the realm of what the article, but the modern lenses have made some conscious design changes (some of which are LARGER) that it really isn't a matter of age of the lens, but rather the design of the lens.
That said, there are plenty of modern lenses that are worse than some of the legacy lenses, and some that are better in varying attributes and some that are just different versions of tradeoffs to current trends. And, believe it or not ... there are some that are still using the same design from decades before. But, that doesn't allow for one to categorically present the way the article tried to do, to make such a "worthless" presentation.
Even within a given mfr's lineup, there will always be the paradox of trade-offs in lens design which create the drawing style for a given lens. You just simply cannot make the kind of broad categorical assertion that the article has tried to do ... well, you can, but that doesn't make it true.
BTW ... if you want the epic "What is 3D" thread (47 pages over 10 months in 2009):
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829238/0?keyword=3d#7701654
Mar 02, 2016 at 09:48 PM
p.3 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
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).That's a very interesting way to pin down, and maybe that is what people talk about. What I can say is my 50 cron, my 75 Lux and my Elmarit 28 v3 don't look much alike in real world shooting, at least to me.
Now, I would say the pre-asph Lux 50, the 135/2.8 and the 75 Lux and very possibly the f/1 50 do seem very similar.
He made v1-4 of the 35 crons, but the 8 element gives a pretty unique character in the group, no? And the "king of Bokeh" in there somewhere too, right? These are...Show more →
the 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 75/1.4, 90/2 and 50/1 all look very similar to me (and i've shot with all of them except the 75). i'd put these in the fast mandler lens group and i use the same processing for all of them. they all have a ton of SA of similar character that requires stopping down f/2.8 or f/4 to get rid of yet still manage high acutance at full aperture.
the first four 35 crons share a very similar look with minor differences (strong overcorrection of SA among other things), which is amazing considering the time span (though to be fair the lux pre-ash was manufactured for pretty much for that entire time span with no change). the 50 crons are also pretty similar and the draw of each 35/2 is a close match to it's contemporary 50/2 with the 50 always being a bit better behaved since it's an easier focal length to design. in particular, the 8 element 35/2 is very similar in draw to the 50 cron rigid and the 35 cron IV "bokeh king" is very similar in draw to the 50 cron IV-V (of course neither actually have good bokeh).
i don't really have anything to say about the longer m lenses because i've never payed much attention to them.
sebboh wrote
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.Now, I would say the pre-asph Lux 50, the 135/2.8 and the 75 Lux and very possibly the f/1 50 do seem very similar.
He made v1-4 of the 35 crons, but the 8 element gives a pretty unique character in the group, no? And the "king of Bokeh" in there somewhere too, right? These are...Show more →
the 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 75/1.4, 90/2 and 50/1 all look very similar to me (and i've shot with all of them except the 75). i'd put these in the fast mandler lens group and i use the same processing for all of them. they all have a ton of SA of similar character that requires stopping down f/2.8 or f/4 to get rid of yet still manage high acutance at full aperture.
the first four 35 crons share a very similar look with minor differences (strong overcorrection of SA among other things), which is amazing considering the time span (though to be fair the lux pre-ash was manufactured for pretty much for that entire time span with no change). the 50 crons are also pretty similar and the draw of each 35/2 is a close match to it's contemporary 50/2 with the 50 always being a bit better behaved since it's an easier focal length to design. in particular, the 8 element 35/2 is very similar in draw to the 50 cron rigid and the 35 cron IV "bokeh king" is very similar in draw to the 50 cron IV-V (of course neither actually have good bokeh).
i don't really have anything to say about the longer m lenses because i've never payed much attention to them.
Mar 02, 2016 at 10:03 PM
p.3 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
In most cases the brand "look" business is more in the eye of the brand owner than in the viewer of the photograph. True, in some cases certain lenses had what we would today regard as defects that produced rather characteristic effects, but I doubt if that is what you want.
Mar 02, 2016 at 10:15 PM
p.3 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7538/16059041051_9ab217748a_b.jpg
Jack by unoh7, 50 cron WO on M9
Glow? Where? I see hair follicles and water droplets recorded quite faithfully, with little sign of aberrational enhancment
Lensrentals shows this lens resolving at 1200/1200/1200 at f/2 though there is astig on the edges. It's the reference 50 of the 20th century, or so Rockwell tells me
shoot it wide open with bright direct sunlight on the subject and you'll see the glow.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7538/16059041051_9ab217748a_b.jpg
Jack by unoh7, 50 cron WO on M9
Glow? Where? I see hair follicles and water droplets recorded quite faithfully, with little sign of aberrational enhancment
Lensrentals shows this lens resolving at 1200/1200/1200 at f/2 though there is astig on the edges. It's the reference 50 of the 20th century, or so Rockwell tells me
shoot it wide open with bright direct sunlight on the subject and you'll see the glow.
Mar 02, 2016 at 10:19 PM
p.3 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
In most cases the brand "look" business is more in the eye of the brand owner than in the viewer of the photograph. True, in some cases certain lenses had what we would today regard as defects that produced rather characteristic effects, but I doubt if that is what you want.
the meyer trioplan 100/2.8 commands ridiculous prices these days for it's specific defects, and lensbabies are bought specifically for their optical defects.
it all depends on what your are looking for.
the leica glow is quite out of fashion these days though, modern leica owners seem to be trying to make it mean something new now...
In most cases the brand "look" business is more in the eye of the brand owner than in the viewer of the photograph. True, in some cases certain lenses had what we would today regard as defects that produced rather characteristic effects, but I doubt if that is what you want.
the meyer trioplan 100/2.8 commands ridiculous prices these days for it's specific defects, and lensbabies are bought specifically for their optical defects.
it all depends on what your are looking for.
the leica glow is quite out of fashion these days though, modern leica owners seem to be trying to make it mean something new now...
Mar 02, 2016 at 10:24 PM
p.3 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
the leica glow is quite out of fashion these days though, modern leica owners seem to be trying to make it mean something new now...
The glow of their smoldering AmEx?
the leica glow is quite out of fashion these days though, modern leica owners seem to be trying to make it mean something new now...
The glow of their smoldering AmEx?
Mar 02, 2016 at 11:43 PM
p.3 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
In most cases the brand "look" business is more in the eye of the brand owner than in the viewer of the photograph.
A generality like that isn't fair. Yes, some of the differences are subtle but if the eye is accustomed and trained, the differences do come through. Like that of a Pomerol vs a Pauillac. Good stuff, both of them, but different if you pay close attention.
freaklikeme wrote:
The glow of their smoldering AmEx?
Whatevs.
In most cases the brand "look" business is more in the eye of the brand owner than in the viewer of the photograph.
A generality like that isn't fair. Yes, some of the differences are subtle but if the eye is accustomed and trained, the differences do come through. Like that of a Pomerol vs a Pauillac. Good stuff, both of them, but different if you pay close attention.
freaklikeme wrote:
The glow of their smoldering AmEx?
Whatevs.
Mar 02, 2016 at 11:48 PM
p.3 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
Jack by unoh7, 50 cron WO on M9
Glow? Where? I see hair follicles and water droplets recorded quite faithfully, with little sign of aberrational enhancmentshoot it wide open with bright direct sunlight on the subject and you'll see the glow.
mandler lenses typically need to be stopped down further to get rid of the glow...
Not that you really need to get rid of the glow in the first place; it comes with Mandler's glass to use it when you need to, as Derek often does so well.
Many Mandler's lenses have dual personality: soft and ...’glowy’ wide open, but still containing all details, but then super sharp when stopped down a bit. The gentle veil covering details is what many are after and what adds character to many Leica glass from Elcan era.
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC9479C_640.jpg
uhoh7 wrote
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7538/16059041051_9ab217748a_b.jpgJack by unoh7, 50 cron WO on M9
Glow? Where? I see hair follicles and water droplets recorded quite faithfully, with little sign of aberrational enhancment
mandler lenses typically need to be stopped down further to get rid of the glow...
Not that you really need to get rid of the glow in the first place; it comes with Mandler's glass to use it when you need to, as Derek often does so well.
Many Mandler's lenses have dual personality: soft and ...’glowy’ wide open, but still containing all details, but then super sharp when stopped down a bit. The gentle veil covering details is what many are after and what adds character to many Leica glass from Elcan era.
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC9479C_640.jpg
Mar 03, 2016 at 12:39 AM
p.3 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983034/0
back in 2011
back in 2011
Mar 03, 2016 at 01:19 AM
p.3 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
As far as I understand, the article discusses the advantages of fewer lens elements in older glass, not only Zeiss but Nikon as well. The 3D look in his opinion comes from less corrections of SA. I kind of agree with him, as I have previously noticed that lenses that suffered from FC and SA produced very pronounced 3D, especially when talking about Contax glass. I didn't however realize that it might be related to the number of elements, and probably it isn't, but an interesting theory nevertheless.
Mar 03, 2016 at 02:05 AM
p.3 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
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.
Id is like a finger pointing to da moon...
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.
Id is like a finger pointing to da moon...
Mar 03, 2016 at 02:51 AM
p.3 #13The 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.
It's called "lens elitism" (a.k.a snobbery) that since you bought something that is hand crafted and expensive, it must be better and therefor you must prove it to justify your expensive purchase.
The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
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.
It's called "lens elitism" (a.k.a snobbery) that since you bought something that is hand crafted and expensive, it must be better and therefor you must prove it to justify your expensive purchase.
The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
Mar 03, 2016 at 06:55 AM
p.3 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
It's called "lens elitism" (a.k.a snobbery) that since you bought something that is hand crafted and expensive, it must be better and therefor you must prove it to justify your expensive purchase.
The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
Not necessarily elitism. The affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses were often talked about in viewing slides (transparencies) well before digital. Leica lenses somethng that I know much more about than Zeiss were often said to have a different look in slides. In fact when asked to ID images taken with Leica rather than Canon, Nikon, or another brand in blind tests, many photographers in the "know" could pick out the Leica images at an exceptionally high perentage rate. I expect the same for Zeiss lenses on slide film.
To the best of knowledge however, the affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses on digital media is not as easy to recognize due to the way that images are processed after they were taken.
Rich
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.The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
Not necessarily elitism. The affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses were often talked about in viewing slides (transparencies) well before digital. Leica lenses somethng that I know much more about than Zeiss were often said to have a different look in slides. In fact when asked to ID images taken with Leica rather than Canon, Nikon, or another brand in blind tests, many photographers in the "know" could pick out the Leica images at an exceptionally high perentage rate. I expect the same for Zeiss lenses on slide film.
To the best of knowledge however, the affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses on digital media is not as easy to recognize due to the way that images are processed after they were taken.
Rich
Mar 03, 2016 at 07:08 AM
p.3 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Buying a Zeiss is probably the same as lusting after a certain brand of car or motorcycle your whole life, since you were a 15 year old gearhead. Then one day you finally can afford it so you buy one. And after you drive or ride it home you think "That's it?" with a puzzled, somewhat disappointed feeling in your brain.
Line ten photographers up along a cliff in Canyonlands and tell them all to take a picture with their gear. The best picture isn't going to be due to a Zeiss lens.
I've never owned one yet, but someday I will, mainly out of curiosity.
Line ten photographers up along a cliff in Canyonlands and tell them all to take a picture with their gear. The best picture isn't going to be due to a Zeiss lens.
I've never owned one yet, but someday I will, mainly out of curiosity.
Mar 03, 2016 at 07:42 AM
p.3 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
It's called "lens elitism" (a.k.a snobbery) that since you bought something that is hand crafted and expensive, it must be better and therefor you must prove it to justify your expensive purchase.
The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
Yep...and there are people that cannot tell the difference between wines or cuts of meat or fine cigars...does not mean there is no difference, just means certain people lack the finesse to see the difference.
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.The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
Yep...and there are people that cannot tell the difference between wines or cuts of meat or fine cigars...does not mean there is no difference, just means certain people lack the finesse to see the difference.
Mar 03, 2016 at 07:44 AM
p.3 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Damn! I hate to have to agree with Chez on this!
I've been both directions, almost always buying nice used Zeiss and Leica glass when I have. Mostly, I use OEM (or quality aftermarket, like the new Sigma or a few others).
From my experience, there is definitely a certain look and handling to Zeiss and Leica lenses -- but that's not always a good thing. In fact, it put me off Zeiss for a while, selling my 21/2.8 and 35/2 ZE lenses for Canon. Very good lenses, but I preferred/prefer the more clinical look of the 24 TSE II and 35/2 IS lenses there.
But as I expanded more into Nikon in he last year or so, I've picked up a ZF 25/2.8 and ZF.2 35/2 and find them to be top notch on the D800e. They have become two of my "go-to" lenses of the best quality imaging.
They still have the "defects" I don't like, like heavy vignetting and a fair amount of other aberrations, but stopped down a bit, they are dynamic and reliable with consistent color.
I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid though -- I prefer AF lenses, even if used in manual. And I find IS/VR absolutely necessary for hand held work. And a few other reasons make the Zeiss (or Leica) not my first choice for each time I pull a lens for use.
Plus, the prices for new is just out of my league. But used, that's where I can afford to indulge, and have been doing so.
I've been both directions, almost always buying nice used Zeiss and Leica glass when I have. Mostly, I use OEM (or quality aftermarket, like the new Sigma or a few others).
From my experience, there is definitely a certain look and handling to Zeiss and Leica lenses -- but that's not always a good thing. In fact, it put me off Zeiss for a while, selling my 21/2.8 and 35/2 ZE lenses for Canon. Very good lenses, but I preferred/prefer the more clinical look of the 24 TSE II and 35/2 IS lenses there.
But as I expanded more into Nikon in he last year or so, I've picked up a ZF 25/2.8 and ZF.2 35/2 and find them to be top notch on the D800e. They have become two of my "go-to" lenses of the best quality imaging.
They still have the "defects" I don't like, like heavy vignetting and a fair amount of other aberrations, but stopped down a bit, they are dynamic and reliable with consistent color.
I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid though -- I prefer AF lenses, even if used in manual. And I find IS/VR absolutely necessary for hand held work. And a few other reasons make the Zeiss (or Leica) not my first choice for each time I pull a lens for use.
Plus, the prices for new is just out of my league. But used, that's where I can afford to indulge, and have been doing so.
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:14 AM
p.3 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
yep, style tends to overshadow content most of the time today. but then there is that very rare occasion........
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 08:27 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 08:27 AM · View previous versions
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:16 AM
p.3 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
JaKo wrote:
Not that you really need to get rid of the glow in the first place; it comes with Mandler's glass to use it when you need to, as Derek often does so well.
Many Mandler's lenses have dual personality: soft and ...’glowy’ wide open, but still containing all details, but then super sharp when stopped down a bit. The gentle veil covering details is what many are after and what adds character to many Leica glass from Elcan era.
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC9479C_640.jpg
This also sounds like a perfect description of how my Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF Planar performs.
Nikon d810 w/ 50/1.4 ZF @ f1.4
Nikon d810 w/ 50/1.4 ZF @ f4
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 08:43 AM · View previous versions
Not that you really need to get rid of the glow in the first place; it comes with Mandler's glass to use it when you need to, as Derek often does so well.
Many Mandler's lenses have dual personality: soft and ...’glowy’ wide open, but still containing all details, but then super sharp when stopped down a bit. The gentle veil covering details is what many are after and what adds character to many Leica glass from Elcan era.
http://www.kozera.ca/photos/images/_DSC9479C_640.jpg
This also sounds like a perfect description of how my Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF Planar performs.
Nikon d810 w/ 50/1.4 ZF @ f1.4
Nikon d810 w/ 50/1.4 ZF @ f4
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 08:43 AM · View previous versions
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:22 AM
p.3 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
ckcarr wrote:
Line ten photographers up along a cliff in Canyonlands and tell them all to take a picture with their gear. The best picture isn't going to be due to a Zeiss lens.
^^^^THIS!!
Line ten photographers up along a cliff in Canyonlands and tell them all to take a picture with their gear. The best picture isn't going to be due to a Zeiss lens.
^^^^THIS!!
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:40 AM