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.26 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
DanWhat a clever pun, you must be so pleased with yourself... ;-)
I don't understand, and no pun was intended. It was apparently so "clever" that I was unaware I made it — and remain unaware of how it is a pun.
Can you explain? :-(
I really do like the look and feel of classic equipment. My sons both became intrigued with classic film equipment a few years back, and they made a point of searching out deals. One got into rangefinder gear and eventually acquired old Leica film bodies and lenses, and the other picked up a classic Oly body. it brought back some pleasant memories of the gear I used "back in the day." I especially like the tactile quality of old lenses.
(I eventually gave an old Rollei of mine – that I got from my own father — to my Leica-collecting son. When I finally gave away my old Pentax bodies that I used for backpacking, one son got the ME and the other got the MX. One got a 50mm prime and the other got the 100mm.)
Dan
gdanmitchell wrote
...I do love the look and feel of it. ;-)Dan
I don't understand, and no pun was intended. It was apparently so "clever" that I was unaware I made it — and remain unaware of how it is a pun.
Can you explain? :-(
I really do like the look and feel of classic equipment. My sons both became intrigued with classic film equipment a few years back, and they made a point of searching out deals. One got into rangefinder gear and eventually acquired old Leica film bodies and lenses, and the other picked up a classic Oly body. it brought back some pleasant memories of the gear I used "back in the day." I especially like the tactile quality of old lenses.
(I eventually gave an old Rollei of mine – that I got from my own father — to my Leica-collecting son. When I finally gave away my old Pentax bodies that I used for backpacking, one son got the ME and the other got the MX. One got a 50mm prime and the other got the 100mm.)
Dan
Mar 10, 2016 at 04:11 PM
p.26 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
DanWhat a clever pun, you must be so pleased with yourself... ;-)I don't understand, and no pun was intended. It was apparently so "clever" that I was unaware I made it — and remain unaware of how it is a pun.
Can you explain? :-(
Dan
I guess I misinterpreted the wink ;-)... my apologies...
SKumar25 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
...I do love the look and feel of it. ;-)Dan
Can you explain? :-(
Dan
I guess I misinterpreted the wink ;-)... my apologies...
Mar 10, 2016 at 04:23 PM
p.26 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
DanWhat a clever pun, you must be so pleased with yourself... ;-)I don't understand, and no pun was intended. It was apparently so "clever" that I was unaware I made it — and remain unaware of how it is a pun.
Can you explain? :-(
I really do like the look and feel of classic equipment. My sons both became intrigued with classic film equipment a few years back, and they made a point of searching out deals. One got into rangefinder gear and eventually acquired old Leica film bodies and lenses, and the other picked up a classic Oly body. it brought back some pleasant memories of the gear I used "back...Show more →
Your sons are lucky !! Also great to have kids whom you can share your enthusiasm with.
Luka
SKumar25 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
...I do love the look and feel of it. ;-)Dan
Can you explain? :-(
I really do like the look and feel of classic equipment. My sons both became intrigued with classic film equipment a few years back, and they made a point of searching out deals. One got into rangefinder gear and eventually acquired old Leica film bodies and lenses, and the other picked up a classic Oly body. it brought back some pleasant memories of the gear I used "back...Show more →
Your sons are lucky !! Also great to have kids whom you can share your enthusiasm with.
Luka
Mar 10, 2016 at 04:31 PM
p.26 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
...(I eventually gave an old Rollei of mine – that I got from my own father — to my Leica-collecting son. When I finally gave away my old Pentax bodies that I used for backpacking, one son got the ME and the other got the MX. One got a 50mm prime and the other got the 100mm.)
Dan
akul wrote:
Your sons are lucky !! Also great to have kids whom you can share your enthusiasm with.
Luka
I agree. My daughter is a pretty keen photographer. She started with an old 5D and some lenses that I didn't use very much, and now she has her own gear and a part-time job as photographer at the school where she's doing her PhD. We generally take some time to go out taking photos, whenever we have a chance. Sometimes I even use Zeiss glass, mostly because it's so mysterious...
...(I eventually gave an old Rollei of mine – that I got from my own father — to my Leica-collecting son. When I finally gave away my old Pentax bodies that I used for backpacking, one son got the ME and the other got the MX. One got a 50mm prime and the other got the 100mm.)
Dan
akul wrote:
Your sons are lucky !! Also great to have kids whom you can share your enthusiasm with.
Luka
I agree. My daughter is a pretty keen photographer. She started with an old 5D and some lenses that I didn't use very much, and now she has her own gear and a part-time job as photographer at the school where she's doing her PhD. We generally take some time to go out taking photos, whenever we have a chance. Sometimes I even use Zeiss glass, mostly because it's so mysterious...
Mar 10, 2016 at 04:36 PM
p.26 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jcolwell wrote:
Dan
LukaI agree. My daughter is a pretty keen photographer. She started with an old 5D and some lenses that I didn't use very much, and now she has her own gear and a part-time job as photographer at the school where she's doing her PhD. We generally take some time to go out taking photos, whenever we have a chance. Sometimes I even use Zeiss glass, mostly because it's so mysterious...
I've been passing older equipment down to my kids (two sons and a daughter) for years. My dad did the same thing with us, and my first good cameras were inherited from him. (He never did hand off his Speed Graphic to me though.) My wife decided that she isn't liking her Fujifilm XE1 after three years of use, and she replaced it with a Canon SL1, so we'll pass that Fujifilm gear on to our daughter. (My wife uses the SL1 as her second, smaller travel cameras — her primary is a 5DII that she uses for macro.) I'm going to replace my XE1 before long, and that one goes to one of our sons. And I still have a 5DII sitting on my shelf that is likely to find a home within the family before long.
I long treasured a Rollei 35 that my dad passed on to me. I also used that as a backpacking camera for a few years, but in the post-film era it sat on a shelf in my studio for years until I realized that my oldest son had been eying it. Mainly because he told me! This is the son with the Leica stuff... who tends to use my old 5D for professional work for certain kinds of clients.
Dan,
who has been stalling too long on the 'net today, and now really needs to make a couple of large prints for clients so that he can ship them tomorrow...
Edited on Mar 10, 2016 at 09:56 PM · View previous versions
gdanmitchell wrote
...(I eventually gave an old Rollei of mine – that I got from my own father — to my Leica-collecting son. When I finally gave away my old Pentax bodies that I used for backpacking, one son got the ME and the other got the MX. One got a 50mm prime and the other got the 100mm.)Dan
akul wrote
Your sons are lucky !! Also great to have kids whom you can share your enthusiasm with.Luka
I've been passing older equipment down to my kids (two sons and a daughter) for years. My dad did the same thing with us, and my first good cameras were inherited from him. (He never did hand off his Speed Graphic to me though.) My wife decided that she isn't liking her Fujifilm XE1 after three years of use, and she replaced it with a Canon SL1, so we'll pass that Fujifilm gear on to our daughter. (My wife uses the SL1 as her second, smaller travel cameras — her primary is a 5DII that she uses for macro.) I'm going to replace my XE1 before long, and that one goes to one of our sons. And I still have a 5DII sitting on my shelf that is likely to find a home within the family before long.
I long treasured a Rollei 35 that my dad passed on to me. I also used that as a backpacking camera for a few years, but in the post-film era it sat on a shelf in my studio for years until I realized that my oldest son had been eying it. Mainly because he told me! This is the son with the Leica stuff... who tends to use my old 5D for professional work for certain kinds of clients.
Dan,
who has been stalling too long on the 'net today, and now really needs to make a couple of large prints for clients so that he can ship them tomorrow...
Edited on Mar 10, 2016 at 09:56 PM · View previous versions
Mar 10, 2016 at 04:42 PM
p.26 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
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
Boy, Dan you have to watch your step around here
Photography means everything from an iPhone to the large hadron collider, which has quite a camera attached. But Photography is still a baby compared to optics, which as you know, is one of the pillars of the scientific revolution, and to this day is at the heart of a lot of cutting edge science.
Zeiss is much more serious about microscopes than camera lenses, and they make some great ones.
I was musing to myself about Nikon lenses. I don't have any auto focus Nikkor lenses but I have a number of hand picked MF focus nikkors, and three are my absolute front line lenses in their respective FLs.
The first is the 180/2.8 AIS ED, which has saved me from spending more on any of the more expensive options, like the Leica. My copy came from mexico and shows wear, but it's a real razor. It's only drawback is what many a Nikkor and many a Zeiss have in common: edgy bokeh. Like, for example the incredible 55 micros which are frankly superb and dirt cheap, except: nasty Zeiss like bokeh.... OK some modern Zeiss have great bokeh, but consider one of the sharpest: that contax 45/2. YIKES!!!
However not all newer Nikkors suffer, I have to say, and my new favorite 300 can match any Mandler lens for bokeh:
today:
Coaches Meeting by unoh7, Nikkor 300/2.8 AIS EDIF
This lens is widely considered to have saved Nikon with the real pros of the day. It was a staple workhorse of press photographers, but too expensive for anyone else......untill now
DSC04011 by unoh7, on Flickr
Bo Peep by unoh7, on Flickr
Take my hand by unoh7, on Flickr
These are handheld with the Kolari A7. The lens cost 650USD. I've gone through 6 300s and nothing has come close to it for my taste.
OK where is Zeiss at 300/2.8?
Well, they have one. Have a look
I'd have to bet it's fantastic. But I like mine:
300/2.8 ais by unoh7, on Flickr
One last from today:
Hart by unoh7, on Flickr
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
Boy, Dan you have to watch your step around here
Photography means everything from an iPhone to the large hadron collider, which has quite a camera attached. But Photography is still a baby compared to optics, which as you know, is one of the pillars of the scientific revolution, and to this day is at the heart of a lot of cutting edge science.
Zeiss is much more serious about microscopes than camera lenses, and they make some great ones.
I was musing to myself about Nikon lenses. I don't have any auto focus Nikkor lenses but I have a number of hand picked MF focus nikkors, and three are my absolute front line lenses in their respective FLs.
The first is the 180/2.8 AIS ED, which has saved me from spending more on any of the more expensive options, like the Leica. My copy came from mexico and shows wear, but it's a real razor. It's only drawback is what many a Nikkor and many a Zeiss have in common: edgy bokeh. Like, for example the incredible 55 micros which are frankly superb and dirt cheap, except: nasty Zeiss like bokeh....
OK some modern Zeiss have great bokeh, but consider one of the sharpest: that contax 45/2. YIKES!!!However not all newer Nikkors suffer, I have to say, and my new favorite 300 can match any Mandler lens for bokeh:
today:
Coaches Meeting by unoh7, Nikkor 300/2.8 AIS EDIF
This lens is widely considered to have saved Nikon with the real pros of the day. It was a staple workhorse of press photographers, but too expensive for anyone else......untill now
DSC04011 by unoh7, on Flickr
Bo Peep by unoh7, on Flickr
Take my hand by unoh7, on Flickr
These are handheld with the Kolari A7. The lens cost 650USD. I've gone through 6 300s and nothing has come close to it for my taste.
OK where is Zeiss at 300/2.8?
Well, they have one. Have a look
I'd have to bet it's fantastic. But I like mine
:300/2.8 ais by unoh7, on Flickr
One last from today:
Hart by unoh7, on Flickr
Mar 10, 2016 at 07:28 PM
p.26 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
DanBoy, Dan you have to watch your step around here .
Yeah, just use the wrong emoticon and folks assume the worst about you...
gdanmitchell wrote
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
.Yeah, just use the wrong emoticon and folks assume the worst about you...
Mar 10, 2016 at 09:57 PM
p.26 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
OK some modern Zeiss have great bokeh, but consider one of the sharpest: that contax 45/2. YIKES!!!
I use G45, because it gives one of the best boke; very low contrast in boke compared to focus plane and very little amount of quality issues like doublelining. I think it's mostly the idiots using Lightroom's clarity slider making boke of this lens look bad
I would get bored to death with 100% smooth boke, I prefer to have some character in boke. But if boring ultrasmooth boke is requirement then better stay away from older Zeiss lenses and sharp older Nikkors.
The 300/2.8 does seem to have large quantity of boke blur, but when the quantity is not so big (=subject and fore-/background close to each another) I find it's boke normal, not good; for example in the first sample "Coaches Meeting" the closer guy's hat doesn't look exactly "Mandler level" boke. Generally any lens looks good in boke if there is enough quantity of blur in boke. It's always so funny when people post flower pictures (=subject VERY close background very far ==> nothing to be seen about boke quality) to boke discussions, like it would have any relevancy.
Some G45 boke - extreme corner boke suffer due to Sony A7 thick sensor cover glass, but that is not an issue of the lens, it's photographer using wrong equipment The thick sensor cover glass causes outward field curvature and astigmatism. This is visible on vertical images upper corners.
Samuli
Edited on Mar 10, 2016 at 11:25 PM · View previous versions
OK some modern Zeiss have great bokeh, but consider one of the sharpest: that contax 45/2. YIKES!!!
I use G45, because it gives one of the best boke; very low contrast in boke compared to focus plane and very little amount of quality issues like doublelining. I think it's mostly the idiots using Lightroom's clarity slider making boke of this lens look bad
I would get bored to death with 100% smooth boke, I prefer to have some character in boke. But if boring ultrasmooth boke is requirement then better stay away from older Zeiss lenses and sharp older Nikkors.The 300/2.8 does seem to have large quantity of boke blur, but when the quantity is not so big (=subject and fore-/background close to each another) I find it's boke normal, not good; for example in the first sample "Coaches Meeting" the closer guy's hat doesn't look exactly "Mandler level" boke. Generally any lens looks good in boke if there is enough quantity of blur in boke. It's always so funny when people post flower pictures (=subject VERY close background very far ==> nothing to be seen about boke quality) to boke discussions, like it would have any relevancy.
Some G45 boke - extreme corner boke suffer due to Sony A7 thick sensor cover glass, but that is not an issue of the lens, it's photographer using wrong equipment
The thick sensor cover glass causes outward field curvature and astigmatism. This is visible on vertical images upper corners.Samuli
Edited on Mar 10, 2016 at 11:25 PM · View previous versions
Mar 10, 2016 at 11:16 PM
p.26 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
DanBoy, Dan you have to watch your step around here .Yeah, just use the wrong emoticon and folks assume the worst about you...
Wrong emoticon and your fondness for puns...
uhoh7 wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
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
.Wrong emoticon and your fondness for puns...
Mar 10, 2016 at 11:19 PM
p.26 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
The G45's bokeh isn't great greatest, but I really like the look in combination of its focus transition. The only weakness in bokeh for me is when focus is farther out and blur discs are small wide open.
Love the lower contrast bokeh for the G45 and Zeiss C/Y 50/1.7.
Definitely wouldn't mind if it had 7, 9, or more aperture blades, too.
Love the lower contrast bokeh for the G45 and Zeiss C/Y 50/1.7.
Definitely wouldn't mind if it had 7, 9, or more aperture blades, too.
Mar 10, 2016 at 11:23 PM
p.26 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I use G45, because it gives one of the best boke; very low contrast in boke compared to focus plane. I think it's mostly the idiots using Lightroom and clarity slider making boke of this lens look bad I would get bored to death with 100% smooth boke, I prefer to have some character in boke. But if boring ultrasmooth boke is requirement then better stay away from older Zeiss lenses and sharp older Nikkors.
Some G45 boke - extreme corner boke suffer due to Sony A7 thick sensor cover glass, but that is not an issue of the...Show more →
the g45 has pretty good bokeh stopped down a bit (especially at long distance) if you ignore the hexagons (which i can't), but it has horrendous bokeh where most people these days care about it: near wide open at short to mid distance. if you like to take portraits with your normal in available light this is not a good lens unless you can carefully choose your background. the g45 is also pretty much the worst lens ever to shoot flowers with imo (of the 30 or so normals i've used), i realize this is the exact opposite thing you care about.
there is a reason i have very few pictures of my kids with the g45:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1588/24251740279_44e2a0588d_b.jpg
but lots of photos like these:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8659/15771417304_fefd8769d8_b.jpg
uhoh7 wrote
OK some modern Zeiss have great bokeh, but consider one of the sharpest: that contax 45/2. YIKES!!! I would get bored to death with 100% smooth boke, I prefer to have some character in boke. But if boring ultrasmooth boke is requirement then better stay away from older Zeiss lenses and sharp older Nikkors.Some G45 boke - extreme corner boke suffer due to Sony A7 thick sensor cover glass, but that is not an issue of the...Show more →
the g45 has pretty good bokeh stopped down a bit (especially at long distance) if you ignore the hexagons (which i can't), but it has horrendous bokeh where most people these days care about it: near wide open at short to mid distance. if you like to take portraits with your normal in available light this is not a good lens unless you can carefully choose your background. the g45 is also pretty much the worst lens ever to shoot flowers with imo (of the 30 or so normals i've used), i realize this is the exact opposite thing you care about.
there is a reason i have very few pictures of my kids with the g45:
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1588/24251740279_44e2a0588d_b.jpg
but lots of photos like these:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8659/15771417304_fefd8769d8_b.jpg
Mar 10, 2016 at 11:37 PM
p.26 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
the g45 has pretty good bokeh stopped down a bit (especially at long distance) if you ignore the hexagons (which i can't), but it has horrendous bokeh where most people these days care about it: near wide open at short to mid distance. if you like to take portraits with your normal in available light this is not a good lens unless you can carefully choose your background. the g45 is also pretty much the worst lens ever to shoot flowers with imo (of the 30 or so normals i've used), i realize this is the exact opposite thing you...Show more →
Yes, we have discussed this earlier as well - for me the maximum aperture is manufacturers theoretical maximum number how much lens can project light to sensor/film, nothing else - I generally don't assume it can be used for good quality photography. At least 99% of lenses are not good wide open, even the best ones like Zeiss Otus lenses; if you look carefully enough you notice that they have larger DOF in corners due to mechanical vignetting, to me this is total failure and makes aperture not very well usable, unless shooting flowers or similar subjects, where DOF - boke transitions are not visible. Then the less good lenses always have focus plane issues wide open, if nothing else contrast is not as great as stopping down 1 stop.
So for me the maximum aperture is usually stop down 1 or 2 stops from the number manufacturer claims the lens to be. I don't see my time worth wasting to shoot lenses wide open (except Sonnar 3.5/100). If I want to shoot portraits f/2 then I pick some of the f/1.2 lenses to do it, for example Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 or Minolta MD 58mm f/1.2 are both pretty good @ f/2, contrast on focus plane is high and boke issues are very small.
Samuli
the g45 has pretty good bokeh stopped down a bit (especially at long distance) if you ignore the hexagons (which i can't), but it has horrendous bokeh where most people these days care about it: near wide open at short to mid distance. if you like to take portraits with your normal in available light this is not a good lens unless you can carefully choose your background. the g45 is also pretty much the worst lens ever to shoot flowers with imo (of the 30 or so normals i've used), i realize this is the exact opposite thing you...Show more →
Yes, we have discussed this earlier as well - for me the maximum aperture is manufacturers theoretical maximum number how much lens can project light to sensor/film, nothing else - I generally don't assume it can be used for good quality photography. At least 99% of lenses are not good wide open, even the best ones like Zeiss Otus lenses; if you look carefully enough you notice that they have larger DOF in corners due to mechanical vignetting, to me this is total failure and makes aperture not very well usable, unless shooting flowers or similar subjects, where DOF - boke transitions are not visible. Then the less good lenses always have focus plane issues wide open, if nothing else contrast is not as great as stopping down 1 stop.
So for me the maximum aperture is usually stop down 1 or 2 stops from the number manufacturer claims the lens to be. I don't see my time worth wasting to shoot lenses wide open (except Sonnar 3.5/100). If I want to shoot portraits f/2 then I pick some of the f/1.2 lenses to do it, for example Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 or Minolta MD 58mm f/1.2 are both pretty good @ f/2, contrast on focus plane is high and boke issues are very small.
Samuli
Mar 11, 2016 at 12:14 AM
p.26 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
'I would get bored to death with 100% smooth boke, I prefer to have some character in boke.'
Indeed, so true. The juxtaposition of, and the relationships between all image elements is what makes the photograph. The rendering of these OOF elements is a fundamental part of the Zeiss look - that well organised layering of OOF works with the color/contrast character Mike Johnston alludes to.
sebboh, I always liked your G45 images I saw, I guess they were kind of self-selected from how you see the bokeh.
One from the CY 100/3.5.
Indeed, so true. The juxtaposition of, and the relationships between all image elements is what makes the photograph. The rendering of these OOF elements is a fundamental part of the Zeiss look - that well organised layering of OOF works with the color/contrast character Mike Johnston alludes to.
sebboh, I always liked your G45 images I saw, I guess they were kind of self-selected from how you see the bokeh.
One from the CY 100/3.5.
Mar 11, 2016 at 12:31 AM
p.26 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
philip_pj wrote:
'I would get bored to death with 100% smooth boke, I prefer to have some character in boke.'
That's the way I feel about the RX1
As everyone realizes, bokeh is situational. So there are times when the 45/2 looks fine. Other times it is so bad it creates artifacts in the background.
But since some are bored with "smooth bokeh" let's have another look at a Nikon copy of Zeiss, the first 50/1.4 lens in the world:
L1007324 by unoh7, on Flickr
Hemingway by unoh7, on Flickr
Is this the same lens?
L1022660 by unoh7, on Flickr
Back on the Nex-5:
DSC01294-1 by unoh7, on Flickr
But to my eye this is nothing like the Contax 45/2 or the Pen-F 42/1.2, equally prone to ugliness. That's not to say they aren't great lenses. The Contax looks great in landscapes, and when the background cooperates, by luck or skill, it's fine fast as well
Busy or smooth, to me, is not really the primary scale:
DSC01703-1-2 by unoh7, Nikkor S 50/1.4
DSC01604-1-2 by unoh7, Pen 42/1.2
They are both plenty busy. I love the first and hate the second
Here is the lens:
DSC01569-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
and I can't believe nobody has figured out, or already knew the Nikkor with the longest production run of the same basic formula.....
Edited on Mar 11, 2016 at 01:12 AM · View previous versions
'I would get bored to death with 100% smooth boke, I prefer to have some character in boke.'
That's the way I feel about the RX1
As everyone realizes, bokeh is situational. So there are times when the 45/2 looks fine. Other times it is so bad it creates artifacts in the background.
But since some are bored with "smooth bokeh" let's have another look at a Nikon copy of Zeiss, the first 50/1.4 lens in the world:
L1007324 by unoh7, on Flickr
Hemingway by unoh7, on Flickr
Is this the same lens?
L1022660 by unoh7, on Flickr
Back on the Nex-5:
DSC01294-1 by unoh7, on Flickr
But to my eye this is nothing like the Contax 45/2 or the Pen-F 42/1.2, equally prone to ugliness. That's not to say they aren't great lenses. The Contax looks great in landscapes, and when the background cooperates, by luck or skill, it's fine fast as well
Busy or smooth, to me, is not really the primary scale:
DSC01703-1-2 by unoh7, Nikkor S 50/1.4
DSC01604-1-2 by unoh7, Pen 42/1.2
They are both plenty busy. I love the first and hate the second
Here is the lens:
DSC01569-2 by unoh7, on Flickr
and I can't believe nobody has figured out, or already knew the Nikkor with the longest production run of the same basic formula.....
Edited on Mar 11, 2016 at 01:12 AM · View previous versions
Mar 11, 2016 at 01:02 AM
p.26 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
But since some are bored with "smooth bokeh" let's have another look at a Nikon copy of Zeiss, the first 50/1.4 lens in the world:
Thanks, I can survive this day through without getting bored with these maybe tomorrow as well... Lens added to "if see one sold cheap, get it"-list as I have hobby of collecting normal lenses with weird rendering styles. Many tens of years younger lenses tend to do the same if shoot wide open, e.g. C/Y mount Planar 1.4/50.
uhoh7 wrote:
and I can't believe nobody has figured out, or already knew the Nikkor with the longest production run of the same basic formula.....
50/1.2, at least after some time, it's still sold as new as far as I have understood. If they keep producing it maybe it gets this title one day
Samuli
But since some are bored with "smooth bokeh" let's have another look at a Nikon copy of Zeiss, the first 50/1.4 lens in the world:
Thanks, I can survive this day through without getting bored with these
maybe tomorrow as well... Lens added to "if see one sold cheap, get it"-list as I have hobby of collecting normal lenses with weird rendering styles. Many tens of years younger lenses tend to do the same if shoot wide open, e.g. C/Y mount Planar 1.4/50.uhoh7 wrote:
and I can't believe nobody has figured out, or already knew the Nikkor with the longest production run of the same basic formula.....
50/1.2, at least after some time, it's still sold as new as far as I have understood. If they keep producing it maybe it gets this title one day
Samuli
Mar 11, 2016 at 01:09 AM
p.26 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
the g45 has pretty good bokeh stopped down a bit (especially at long distance) if you ignore the hexagons (which i can't), but it has horrendous bokeh where most people these days care about it: near wide open at short to mid distance. if you like to take portraits with your normal in available light this is not a good lens unless you can carefully choose your background. the g45 is also pretty much the worst lens ever to shoot flowers with imo (of the 30 or so normals i've used), i realize this is the exact opposite thing you...Show more →
Would you be willing to explain what you don't like about what's going on that you don't like in the photo of your son?
This is the kind of look I personally really like, which is why the G45 is the lens that spends the most time on my camera. Really goes to show how big of a role personal taste plays in the lenses we like.
My main beef with wide open G45 bokeh is when focus is further out, 2+ meters or so (?), and you get green/magenta bokeh. Haven't been able to find a good example of this - if I notice it, I usually end up stopping down to get rid of it or modify the composition to make it less of an issue.
the g45 has pretty good bokeh stopped down a bit (especially at long distance) if you ignore the hexagons (which i can't), but it has horrendous bokeh where most people these days care about it: near wide open at short to mid distance. if you like to take portraits with your normal in available light this is not a good lens unless you can carefully choose your background. the g45 is also pretty much the worst lens ever to shoot flowers with imo (of the 30 or so normals i've used), i realize this is the exact opposite thing you...Show more →
Would you be willing to explain what you don't like about what's going on that you don't like in the photo of your son?
This is the kind of look I personally really like, which is why the G45 is the lens that spends the most time on my camera. Really goes to show how big of a role personal taste plays in the lenses we like.
My main beef with wide open G45 bokeh is when focus is further out, 2+ meters or so (?), and you get green/magenta bokeh. Haven't been able to find a good example of this - if I notice it, I usually end up stopping down to get rid of it or modify the composition to make it less of an issue.
Mar 11, 2016 at 11:12 AM
p.26 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
OK I relent and credit Brian for noting the facts in another Nikon Forum:
Nikkor S 13.5cm by unoh7, on Flickr
Nikkors by unoh7, on Flickr
Forumla intact from 1950 to 1983. Last production Sonnar by Nikon. S Mount, Contax Mount, Leica Mount, Exakta Mount, and F-Mount (made it all the way to AIS)
Some of the most iconic images of the 20th century were made by the lens which was used extensively by staff photographers of LIFE in the 1950s. Why in this Zeiss thread? It's a improvement on the Zeiss 135/4 of the day and this copy is made to mount a Zeiss camera:
Nikkor by unoh7, "C" is for Contax
Edited on Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05 PM · View previous versions
Nikkor S 13.5cm by unoh7, on Flickr
Nikkors by unoh7, on Flickr
Forumla intact from 1950 to 1983. Last production Sonnar by Nikon. S Mount, Contax Mount, Leica Mount, Exakta Mount, and F-Mount (made it all the way to AIS)
Some of the most iconic images of the 20th century were made by the lens which was used extensively by staff photographers of LIFE in the 1950s. Why in this Zeiss thread? It's a improvement on the Zeiss 135/4 of the day and this copy is made to mount a Zeiss camera:
Nikkor by unoh7, "C" is for Contax
Edited on Mar 11, 2016 at 01:05 PM · View previous versions
Mar 11, 2016 at 01:02 PM
p.26 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
and I can't believe nobody has figured out, or already knew the Nikkor with the longest production run of the same basic formula.....
Wait, I thought the quiz was it is the longest, basic formula and aslo sold in multiple mounts, right ?? So something that started in S or Leica mount and survived the F mount ? Or did I misunderstand the question ?
and I can't believe nobody has figured out, or already knew the Nikkor with the longest production run of the same basic formula.....
Wait, I thought the quiz was it is the longest, basic formula and aslo sold in multiple mounts, right ?? So something that started in S or Leica mount and survived the F mount ? Or did I misunderstand the question ?
Mar 11, 2016 at 01:04 PM
p.26 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
akul wrote:
Wait, I thought the quiz was it is the longest, basic formula and aslo sold in multiple mounts, right ?? So something that started in S or Leica mount and survived the F mount ? Or did I misunderstand the question ?
see above Very possible I botched the questions,
Longest production forumla, last Sonnar and 5 mounts. (maybe not the only one in 5 mounts--but I don't think any others made it to the AIS)
The 135/3.5 was truly a "zeiss killer". It was better than the contemporary zeiss lens, made to higher quality standards, and facilitated (with DDDs help) the entry of Nikon to the American market, setting the stage for the F revolution, which made Zeiss basically irrelevant as a camera maker, though of course their lenses did continue to have an impact.
Anyone, feel free to check and school me on any of this
uhoh7 wrote
and I can't believe nobody has figured out, or already knew the Nikkor with the longest production run of the same basic formula.....see above
Very possible I botched the questions, Longest production forumla, last Sonnar and 5 mounts. (maybe not the only one in 5 mounts--but I don't think any others made it to the AIS)
The 135/3.5 was truly a "zeiss killer". It was better than the contemporary zeiss lens, made to higher quality standards, and facilitated (with DDDs help) the entry of Nikon to the American market, setting the stage for the F revolution, which made Zeiss basically irrelevant as a camera maker, though of course their lenses did continue to have an impact.
Anyone, feel free to check and school me on any of this
Mar 11, 2016 at 01:08 PM