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.25 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jancohen wrote:
Even then you'll find a discussion, as some apparently prefer the Gauss look over that of the Sonar.
I prefer radar over sonar. For lenses, I'll go with Sonnar.
Even then you'll find a discussion, as some apparently prefer the Gauss look over that of the Sonar.
I prefer radar over sonar. For lenses, I'll go with Sonnar.
Mar 09, 2016 at 10:26 PM
p.25 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
Here are a couple photos with Zeiss bokeh.
harry
Sigma bokeh
Here are a couple photos with Zeiss bokeh.
harry
Sigma bokeh
Mar 10, 2016 at 05:36 AM
p.25 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jcolwell wrote:
I prefer radar over sonar. For lenses, I'll go with Sonnar.
damn you for making my beer go through my nose
jancohen wrote
Even then you'll find a discussion, as some apparently prefer the Gauss look over that of the Sonar.damn you for making my beer go through my nose
Mar 10, 2016 at 05:45 AM
p.25 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
Thom mentioned this:
"These days, most lenses are very good at all types of contrast, and a few are excellent at it. But there’s generally not enough difference there that I’d get over obsessed with it."
I couldn't agree more. I've noticed however (over years in participating in such threads) that there are people who're over obsessed with claiming the differences don't exist or matter, and anyone suggesting otherwise is making a false claim or implying "magical properties".
We have now officially reached he Pee Wee Herman Stage of Debate: I know you are, but what am I?!
Thom mentioned this:
"These days, most lenses are very good at all types of contrast, and a few are excellent at it. But there’s generally not enough difference there that I’d get over obsessed with it."
I couldn't agree more. I've noticed however (over years in participating in such threads) that there are people who're over obsessed with claiming the differences don't exist or matter, and anyone suggesting otherwise is making a false claim or implying "magical properties".
We have now officially reached he Pee Wee Herman Stage of Debate: I know you are, but what am I?!
Mar 10, 2016 at 07:01 AM
p.25 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
105/2.5 sonnar 1949 -1971. Started with S mount version then changed to F., That's only 22 years. May be 135/3.5. Sonnar was generally replaced by double gauss with emergence of SLR to achieve back focus along with advancement in lens coating, so I suspect longer lens could stay with Sonnar as long as it was not large aperture lens. 135 was from 1950 -86 started with s mount. That's 36 years. I don't know optical formula changed drastically when transitioned to f mount. Of course it had to change back focus but ...
Anyway. I don't have any old Sonnar so I don't know the rendering difference to symmetrical gauss design. I,'d love to get wakimoto Sonnar 105 one day. I only have read the advantage of Sonnar was less lens surface to cause flare in comparison to gauss in the early days. Today's Sonnar has far more lenses so I think that advantage is gone over double gauss for shorter lens. I am hoping Uhoh can shed light on that.
Luka
Anyway. I don't have any old Sonnar so I don't know the rendering difference to symmetrical gauss design. I,'d love to get wakimoto Sonnar 105 one day. I only have read the advantage of Sonnar was less lens surface to cause flare in comparison to gauss in the early days. Today's Sonnar has far more lenses so I think that advantage is gone over double gauss for shorter lens. I am hoping Uhoh can shed light on that.
Luka
Mar 10, 2016 at 07:02 AM
p.25 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
On my trip to Rome in May I will be bringing my Nikon 28/2.8 AIs instead of the Zeiss 35/2 because it is smaller and IMO equal in IQ, and I find it easier to focus. I am tempted to bring my Nikon 105/2.5 to replace the bulkier Zeiss 100/2, but I like the Zeiss just a little bit better. The excellent Zeiss 21 goes up against the 14-24 and the Zeiss wins for being so Zeissy and sooo much more convenient to carry despite the Nikon's versatility and IQ. I really like my funky Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar, but this year my 50 will be a Sigma DPM2.
So, there you go. Lens choice doesn't have to be all or nothing. Many factors are involved. I like Zeiss lenses a lot, for all the real or imaginary reasons mentioned so far. I would encourage anyone who is genuinely interested in Zeiss lenses to pick up a used one and try it out.
So, there you go. Lens choice doesn't have to be all or nothing. Many factors are involved. I like Zeiss lenses a lot, for all the real or imaginary reasons mentioned so far. I would encourage anyone who is genuinely interested in Zeiss lenses to pick up a used one and try it out.
Mar 10, 2016 at 07:32 AM
p.25 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
"These days, most lenses are very good at all types of contrast, and a few are excellent at it. But there’s generally not enough difference there that I’d get over obsessed with it."
I couldn't agree more. I've noticed however (over years in participating in such threads) that there are people who're over obsessed with claiming the differences don't exist or matter, and anyone suggesting otherwise is making a false claim or implying "magical properties".We have now officially reached he Pee Wee Herman Stage of Debate: I know you are, but what am I?!
For sure ... which is why I didn't even bother to respond ... the conversation has truly run it course.
SKumar25 wrote
Thom mentioned this:"These days, most lenses are very good at all types of contrast, and a few are excellent at it. But there’s generally not enough difference there that I’d get over obsessed with it."
I couldn't agree more. I've noticed however (over years in participating in such threads) that there are people who're over obsessed with claiming the differences don't exist or matter, and anyone suggesting otherwise is making a false claim or implying "magical properties".
For sure ... which is why I didn't even bother to respond ... the conversation has truly run it course.
Mar 10, 2016 at 07:39 AM
p.25 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Me and my FE 55mm
is a very good but not perfect lens
it has the most wanted mystery of Zeiss look (sharp, 3d pop, contrast...),
minus onion rings ... and 50mm would be better.
but together with size, wight, AF
its perfect for me.
And the mystery of Zeiss is
no Canon, Nikon, Pentax .... has this quality 50 Lens.
strange.
r-)
is a very good but not perfect lens
it has the most wanted mystery of Zeiss look (sharp, 3d pop, contrast...),
minus onion rings ... and 50mm would be better.
but together with size, wight, AF
its perfect for me.
And the mystery of Zeiss is
no Canon, Nikon, Pentax .... has this quality 50 Lens.
strange.
r-)
Mar 10, 2016 at 07:53 AM
p.25 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jcolwell wrote:
I prefer radar over sonar. For lenses, I'll go with Sonnar.
Gaussian or Sonoran. Its all a blur to me. ;-)
jancohen wrote
Even then you'll find a discussion, as some apparently prefer the Gauss look over that of the Sonar.Gaussian or Sonoran. Its all a blur to me. ;-)
Mar 10, 2016 at 08:55 AM
p.25 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I prefer radar over sonar. For lenses, I'll go with Sonnar. Gaussian or Sonoran. Its all a blur to me. ;-)
Yeh, your photos reflect that.
jcolwell wrote
jancohen wrote
Even then you'll find a discussion, as some apparently prefer the Gauss look over that of the Sonar.Yeh, your photos reflect that.
Mar 10, 2016 at 09:06 AM
p.25 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
Chez
Don't worry, when chez does that he thinks he's being funny. When others do it, he thinks they are being insulting or derailing a discussion...cue typical diversion tactics...
Chez
Don't worry, when chez does that he thinks he's being funny. When others do it, he thinks they are being insulting or derailing a discussion...cue typical diversion tactics...
Mar 10, 2016 at 10:03 AM
p.25 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jctriguy wrote:
Don't worry...
I don't. ;-)
Edited on Mar 10, 2016 at 10:15 AM · View previous versions
Don't worry...
I don't. ;-)
Edited on Mar 10, 2016 at 10:15 AM · View previous versions
Mar 10, 2016 at 10:14 AM
p.25 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
oh, I know. but really there are places you don't go because we are all thinking we are legends in our own minds. we all need to be reminded of that every now and then. I got, I think, light heartedly zinged on this thread but then I restated my reality to him. we all make pretty pictures but they all don't work for everyone.
Mar 10, 2016 at 10:15 AM
p.25 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Interesting thread to read on many fronts :-)
I have owned a couple and liked them. I can say that about a lot of lenses I have owned. If I am honest with myself, if I look at pictures I took 5 years ago I have no clue what lens I used. Maybe that puts me in the beginners class but....if I have the right focal length and can get to the f stop I want for the shot I want to see then the exact qualities of the lens makes little difference to me. Now I have never shot "budget" lenses except for my current Nikon 200-500 and I actually like it very much.
Just another view of the world😄
Greg
I have owned a couple and liked them. I can say that about a lot of lenses I have owned. If I am honest with myself, if I look at pictures I took 5 years ago I have no clue what lens I used. Maybe that puts me in the beginners class but....if I have the right focal length and can get to the f stop I want for the shot I want to see then the exact qualities of the lens makes little difference to me. Now I have never shot "budget" lenses except for my current Nikon 200-500 and I actually like it very much.
Just another view of the world😄
Greg
Mar 10, 2016 at 10:31 AM
p.25 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
anscochrome wrote:
Which Nikon lens was in production without formula update for the longest time?
Which Nikon lens was offered in the most mounts?
Which was the last Nikon Sonnar in production?It has got to be the 105mm F 2.5 Nikkor.
105/2.5 by unoh7, on Flickr
a7r_nikkor_105mm_RF by unoh7, on Flickr
Good Guess........but nope
As you probably know the 105 was a Sonnar, but got a totally new formula in 1973, replaced by the great modern lens. Our hero actually made it all the way to AI-s. Yes the samples were taken with it
Edited on Mar 10, 2016 at 11:08 AM · View previous versions
uhoh7 wrote
Pop QuizWhich Nikon lens was in production without formula update for the longest time?
Which Nikon lens was offered in the most mounts?
Which was the last Nikon Sonnar in production?
105/2.5 by unoh7, on Flickr
a7r_nikkor_105mm_RF by unoh7, on Flickr
Good Guess........but nope
As you probably know the 105 was a Sonnar, but got a totally new formula in 1973, replaced by the great modern lens. Our hero actually made it all the way to AI-s. Yes the samples were taken with it
Edited on Mar 10, 2016 at 11:08 AM · View previous versions
Mar 10, 2016 at 11:02 AM
p.25 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
jctriguy wrote
Don't worry...Don't worry Dan...so don't I.
Mar 10, 2016 at 11:03 AM
p.25 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7266/13907456681_60154e7d76_c.jpg
I have to say, regardless of how I feel about using the old school gear for my own photography today, that I do love the look and feel of it. :-)
Dan
Edited on Mar 10, 2016 at 04:15 PM · View previous versions
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7266/13907456681_60154e7d76_c.jpg
I have to say, regardless of how I feel about using the old school gear for my own photography today, that I do love the look and feel of it. :-)
Dan
Edited on Mar 10, 2016 at 04:15 PM · View previous versions
Mar 10, 2016 at 11:07 AM
p.25 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
...I do love the look and feel of it. ;-)
Dan
What a clever pun, you must be so pleased with yourself... ;-)
...I do love the look and feel of it. ;-)
Dan
What a clever pun, you must be so pleased with yourself... ;-)
Mar 10, 2016 at 03:40 PM