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.5 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Think about it... an Indian spiritual teacher who ran a shop selling bidis (cigarettes) said... "the mind creates the abyss... that the heart crosses."
http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Nisargadatta_Maharaj.html
So much certainty about what words mean. Getting frustrated because other folks don't accept your judgment about things? Take a deep breath... this is like analyzing the water quality of a mirage...
There is no there there, only people claiming they know something and trying to convince us they're right. Go take some photos and enjoy the day... This is what one teacher called "cookies for the mind."
http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/Nisargadatta_Maharaj.html
So much certainty about what words mean. Getting frustrated because other folks don't accept your judgment about things? Take a deep breath... this is like analyzing the water quality of a mirage...
There is no there there, only people claiming they know something and trying to convince us they're right. Go take some photos and enjoy the day... This is what one teacher called "cookies for the mind."
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:49 AM
p.5 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I find that site to be hilarious. The article does not go "quite deep" into optical design, but starts from a position of ignorance and continues building absurdity upon absurdity. The idea that having more elements causes lenses to lose micro-contrast is almost as silly as "proving" the point by comparing a nifty-fifty to a mid-grade zoom. http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/11/12/depth-vs-flat-lens-quick-comparison My counterpoint is with Nikon's industrial optics, which is well illustrated (figures 5 and 6) at: http://www.lithoguru.com/scientist/litho_history/Lithographic_lens_history_and_evolution_Matsuyama_2006.pdf For examples of completely baseless claims, a single lens without a splitter cannot create a binocular image (by definition), and the reason why complex lenses have large front elements is not because more glass slows down light to the point of reducing exposure (rather, look at reflection and vignetting). http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop
This thread also illustrates to me why the alt forum was probably created in the first place: not disagreement about anything in particular, just a different emphasis in interest. I'm an alt guy. I geek out about the minutiae in lens rendering. Still, if anyone buys Zeiss (or a Ferrari, a boutique hamburger, or any other high end product) because of their "mysterious" qualities, then I'd expect them to walk away disappointed. If you can't point at something and say, "that's why this is worth the premium to me," and the cost is more than trivial, then you probably shouldn't buy it. Zeiss lenses do often have different characteristics, but those are not the least bit a mystery; if a lens impacts an image, you can see that in images from that lens. There's not much more to it than that. The alt forum attracted me because I was looking for lenses that handled certain aberrations better than what I was shooting with, even if nobody but myself was ever bothered by those aberrations (even after me pointing them out), and this was the perfect place for that kind of research ... an interest that most folks in the branded forums pragmatically see as pointless. But that sort of approach should not be confused with thinking that a superior lens (to any given set of standards) would make for superior photographic craft. Ultimately, I find it ironic that some seem to conflate an appreciation of Zeiss lenses with an attitude of ignorant arrogance, and I see why these communities may have self-selected as they have.
Regardless of differences in priorities, philosophies, or attitudes, I love how much great imagery we have across all of FM and wish everyone the best.
Cheers,
Jon
This thread also illustrates to me why the alt forum was probably created in the first place: not disagreement about anything in particular, just a different emphasis in interest. I'm an alt guy. I geek out about the minutiae in lens rendering. Still, if anyone buys Zeiss (or a Ferrari, a boutique hamburger, or any other high end product) because of their "mysterious" qualities, then I'd expect them to walk away disappointed. If you can't point at something and say, "that's why this is worth the premium to me," and the cost is more than trivial, then you probably shouldn't buy it. Zeiss lenses do often have different characteristics, but those are not the least bit a mystery; if a lens impacts an image, you can see that in images from that lens. There's not much more to it than that. The alt forum attracted me because I was looking for lenses that handled certain aberrations better than what I was shooting with, even if nobody but myself was ever bothered by those aberrations (even after me pointing them out), and this was the perfect place for that kind of research ... an interest that most folks in the branded forums pragmatically see as pointless. But that sort of approach should not be confused with thinking that a superior lens (to any given set of standards) would make for superior photographic craft. Ultimately, I find it ironic that some seem to conflate an appreciation of Zeiss lenses with an attitude of ignorant arrogance, and I see why these communities may have self-selected as they have.
Regardless of differences in priorities, philosophies, or attitudes, I love how much great imagery we have across all of FM and wish everyone the best.
Cheers,
Jon
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:52 AM
p.5 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
JonPB wrote:
...I find that site to be hilarious
...I find it ironic that some seem to conflate an appreciation of Zeiss lenses with an attitude of ignorant arrogance...
...I love how much great imagery we have across all of FM and wish everyone the best.
...I find that site to be hilarious
...I find it ironic that some seem to conflate an appreciation of Zeiss lenses with an attitude of ignorant arrogance...
...I love how much great imagery we have across all of FM and wish everyone the best.
Mar 03, 2016 at 11:08 AM
p.5 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs.
I frequently marvel that if the same energy and intensity that is sometimes focused on gear minutiae were to be applied to the making of photographs... that the results would be stupendous. :-)
I frequently marvel that if the same energy and intensity that is sometimes focused on gear minutiae were to be applied to the making of photographs... that the results would be stupendous. :-)
Mar 03, 2016 at 11:09 AM
p.5 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs.
I frequently marvel that if the same energy and intensity that is sometimes focused on gear minutiae were to be applied to the making of photographs... that the results would be stupendous. :-)
I agree 100%. One thing that focusing on minutiae has taught me is just how difficult it is to test lenses because of all the variables that go into making an image what it is -- which has led me to better appreciate practical aspects of lighting, perspective, and actual image creation. I just wish I were better able to rationalize the creation of images so that I could refocus that intellectual, operationalizing part of my mind to support my emotional, intuitive artistic process. Until then, I see gear-head and photographer as being two distinct but related hobbies. I'm entirely open to suggestions on that front.
Cheers,
Jon
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs.
I frequently marvel that if the same energy and intensity that is sometimes focused on gear minutiae were to be applied to the making of photographs... that the results would be stupendous. :-)
I agree 100%. One thing that focusing on minutiae has taught me is just how difficult it is to test lenses because of all the variables that go into making an image what it is -- which has led me to better appreciate practical aspects of lighting, perspective, and actual image creation. I just wish I were better able to rationalize the creation of images so that I could refocus that intellectual, operationalizing part of my mind to support my emotional, intuitive artistic process. Until then, I see gear-head and photographer as being two distinct but related hobbies. I'm entirely open to suggestions on that front.
Cheers,
Jon
Mar 03, 2016 at 11:28 AM
p.5 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Interesting thread. Makes me think of what I've got and possibly could get if I wanted it. That said, I'll admit I own a couple of Zeiss lenses (21 & 100), but do have a hankering for a Tamron 15-30 or perhaps a Sigma 1.4 20, simply because I've become interested in them after reading about them here and elsewhere. You might say I'm curious and leave it at that.
I imagine in the end it all really boils down to what one is happy with. If you do feel you might want different, you do with what you've got until you make that difference reality. Doesn't mean you'll necessarily be happy with the difference though.
I imagine in the end it all really boils down to what one is happy with. If you do feel you might want different, you do with what you've got until you make that difference reality. Doesn't mean you'll necessarily be happy with the difference though.
Mar 03, 2016 at 11:41 AM
p.5 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs...
It almost sounds as if you don't believe in magic. How sad that would be. As I recall, the Emperor was perfectly happy with his New Clothes until some precocious junior scientist came along and spoiled everything. (That's why I try to avoid reading reviews once I've made the purchase.)
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs...
It almost sounds as if you don't believe in magic. How sad that would be. As I recall, the Emperor was perfectly happy with his New Clothes until some precocious junior scientist came along and spoiled everything. (That's why I try to avoid reading reviews once I've made the purchase.)
Mar 03, 2016 at 11:48 AM
p.5 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs.
I frequently marvel that if the same energy and intensity that is sometimes focused on gear minutiae were to be applied to the making of photographs... that the results would be stupendous. :-)
Well put. Confirmational bias is something we humans are extremely susceptible to, myself included (I think I'm human . . .).
One of these days I'll do a side-by-side of my 135/2 APO Zeiss and far less expensive, but still extremely capable 135/2 AIS Nikkor.
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs.
I frequently marvel that if the same energy and intensity that is sometimes focused on gear minutiae were to be applied to the making of photographs... that the results would be stupendous. :-)
Well put. Confirmational bias is something we humans are extremely susceptible to, myself included (I think I'm human . . .).
One of these days I'll do a side-by-side of my 135/2 APO Zeiss and far less expensive, but still extremely capable 135/2 AIS Nikkor.
Mar 03, 2016 at 11:50 AM
p.5 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs.
yup, 3D seems to be a magical property that is particularly egregious in this respect. i've seen numerous threads talking about the magical 3D properties of canon L glass versus regular ol' canon glass, certain high end nikon lenses versus lower grad ones, FF vs aps-c, but the most ridiculous was certainly a long thread at dpr about the magical 3D property imbued by the 4/3 pro cameras compared to the 4/3 consumer cameras with the same sensors....
gdanmitchell wrote:
I frequently marvel that if the same energy and intensity that is sometimes focused on gear minutiae were to be applied to the making of photographs... that the results would be stupendous. :-)
^ this is a separate issue from confirmation bias, and draws people who want to have something very specific rather than people who just want to be superior, though there are certainly people who do this that just want to prove their's is bigger – oops, i mean better. how much and which minutia matters to someone ultimately depends on what they're trying do. some people just want to make sure they're getting their moneys worth, other people are just interested in usability aspects so that when they actually get a chance to take pictures they get the shots they want, some people actually have a specific artistic vision they're trying to achieve to the best of their ability, and some just want to find the sharpest possible lens at f/1.4 because they've forgot why they wanted to take pictures... or are really into night star shooting.
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs.
yup, 3D seems to be a magical property that is particularly egregious in this respect. i've seen numerous threads talking about the magical 3D properties of canon L glass versus regular ol' canon glass, certain high end nikon lenses versus lower grad ones, FF vs aps-c, but the most ridiculous was certainly a long thread at dpr about the magical 3D property imbued by the 4/3 pro cameras compared to the 4/3 consumer cameras with the same sensors....
gdanmitchell wrote:
I frequently marvel that if the same energy and intensity that is sometimes focused on gear minutiae were to be applied to the making of photographs... that the results would be stupendous. :-)
^ this is a separate issue from confirmation bias, and draws people who want to have something very specific rather than people who just want to be superior, though there are certainly people who do this that just want to prove their's is bigger – oops, i mean better. how much and which minutia matters to someone ultimately depends on what they're trying do. some people just want to make sure they're getting their moneys worth, other people are just interested in usability aspects so that when they actually get a chance to take pictures they get the shots they want, some people actually have a specific artistic vision they're trying to achieve to the best of their ability, and some just want to find the sharpest possible lens at f/1.4 because they've forgot why they wanted to take pictures... or are really into night star shooting.
Mar 03, 2016 at 11:51 AM
p.5 #11The 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 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.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.That's a pretty reasonable roundup, although I think your 35 Lux v1 does not so much remind me of the 75 Lux, but I may need to see more shots from it. I don't know the 90 crons really well, and only now I begin to realize what great draw they show with such nice bokeh. I was even looking at prices on the APO. One thing I learned about it is that it does not really explode into perfection untill 6 meters or so. Apparently all the 90 crons loose some punch close in--check me here. But maybe that's...Show more →
i always thought mandler's most famous lens was the noctilux, which definitely has his signature look. the 50 cron is just his best selling and it still bears his signature pretty clearly imo, just toned down for a lens designed to be compact, sharp, versatile, and "economical" rather than designed for speed at a reasonable size.
sebboh wrote
uhoh7 wrote
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 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.
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.
i always thought mandler's most famous lens was the noctilux, which definitely has his signature look. the 50 cron is just his best selling and it still bears his signature pretty clearly imo, just toned down for a lens designed to be compact, sharp, versatile, and "economical" rather than designed for speed at a reasonable size.
Mar 03, 2016 at 12:00 PM
p.5 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I know why I paid (relatively) more money to purchase a Nikon 200mm f2 VR. I can see that it draws differently and I am highly attracted to it.
If someone buys a Zeiss for similar reasons, I do not see an issue with it - even if I don't see it. I do own a Zeiss 21 and 100 MP and love them and wish they had AF so I could use them more often.
Whatever makes you happy
If someone buys a Zeiss for similar reasons, I do not see an issue with it - even if I don't see it. I do own a Zeiss 21 and 100 MP and love them and wish they had AF so I could use them more often.
Whatever makes you happy
Mar 03, 2016 at 12:02 PM
p.5 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Next to my Chub, the Zeiss 135 ZF.2 is the best lens I've ever used...
Mar 03, 2016 at 12:16 PM
p.5 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs.
I frequently marvel that if the same energy and intensity that is sometimes focused on gear minutiae were to be applied to the making of photographs... that the results would be stupendous. :-)
Thank you Dan for your insulting insights. After all we are just a bunch of bumbling fools that need to be set straight by your wisdom.
Harry
Who shoots landscapes with Zeiss glass and loves the colours, entire frame sharpness and micro contrast I obtain. YMMV.
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs.
I frequently marvel that if the same energy and intensity that is sometimes focused on gear minutiae were to be applied to the making of photographs... that the results would be stupendous. :-)
Thank you Dan for your insulting insights. After all we are just a bunch of bumbling fools that need to be set straight by your wisdom.
Harry
Who shoots landscapes with Zeiss glass and loves the colours, entire frame sharpness and micro contrast I obtain. YMMV.
Mar 03, 2016 at 12:26 PM
p.5 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Blog seems like a garbage disposal of someone's frustratoin, but there is an interesting question asked.
With the aid of advanced computing, modern optics can achieve higher performance, which leads to more 'transparent' lens. Whereas, old ones struggled more with far more compromises as calculation was done by abacus and calculators . Which one is 'better' ? Quite subjective. More transparent optics with far less optical shortcomings would lead to more 'neutral' rendition, I suppose. Sometimes, I have reaction to that. However, thinking about film makers, they always prefer neutral and add their flavor in PP for the final, modern camera lens direction somehow reminds me of that. So, if one wants a unbiased data, modern lens may be better ?
I think I like them both, but biased a little more to 'biased' old ones.
With the aid of advanced computing, modern optics can achieve higher performance, which leads to more 'transparent' lens. Whereas, old ones struggled more with far more compromises as calculation was done by abacus and calculators . Which one is 'better' ? Quite subjective. More transparent optics with far less optical shortcomings would lead to more 'neutral' rendition, I suppose. Sometimes, I have reaction to that. However, thinking about film makers, they always prefer neutral and add their flavor in PP for the final, modern camera lens direction somehow reminds me of that. So, if one wants a unbiased data, modern lens may be better ?
I think I like them both, but biased a little more to 'biased' old ones.
Mar 03, 2016 at 12:54 PM
p.5 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh 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 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.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.That's a pretty reasonable roundup, although I think your 35 Lux v1 does not so much remind me of the 75 Lux, but I may need to see more shots from it. I don't know the 90 crons really well, and only now I begin to realize what great draw they show with such nice bokeh. I was even looking at prices on the APO. One thing I learned about it is that it does not really explode into perfection untill 6 meters or so. Apparently all the 90 crons loose some punch close in--check me here. But maybe that's not a bad thing for portraits.
Anyway I think we generally agree, and you have to admit it's interesting Mandler's most famous lens doe not have the "Mandler look"
I also like your points about the 50 rigid and the 8 element. But I can't yet picture the commonalities with the 35 crons and the 50 cron v4.i always thought mandler's most famous lens was the noctilux, which definitely has his signature look. the 50 cron is just his best selling and it still bears his signature pretty clearly imo, just toned down for a lens designed to be compact, sharp, versatile, and "economical" rather than designed for speed at a reasonable size.
This one with the 75 Lux wide open, the editing of which I'm not so proud, just went viral on my flickr
John by unoh7, on Flickr
They say that was his "favorite" lens
Supposedly closely related in design to the Noctilux f/1. But how's that for RF focus with in M9 in low light?
uhoh7 wrote
sebboh wrote
uhoh7 wrote
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 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.
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.
Anyway I think we generally agree, and you have to admit it's interesting Mandler's most famous lens doe not have the "Mandler look"
I also like your points about the 50 rigid and the 8 element. But I can't yet picture the commonalities with the 35 crons and the 50 cron v4.
This one with the 75 Lux wide open, the editing of which I'm not so proud, just went viral on my flickr
John by unoh7, on Flickr
They say that was his "favorite" lens
Supposedly closely related in design to the Noctilux f/1. But how's that for RF focus with in M9 in low light?
Mar 03, 2016 at 01:11 PM
p.5 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
There is a difference in rendering, which I agree some people will not notice / see / care about. But it's one of those things that if you can see you really wish there was a way to understand what makes the difference. Kind of like how audiophiles are really into there headphones, pre amps, lossless compression and most people are happy with there apple headphones and plugging them right into there iPhones, and streaming pandora.
If it wasn't for the rendering I have noticed in Zeiss lenses I proabbly wouldn't own any of them. The lack of AF alone means more times then not I won't be abel to use them. The 21mm for example also has some color casting issues. Usually if I am only going to take one wide angle lens with me it's the Nikon 14-24. With AF, and the lack of color cast it's much more predictable. I have taken photos of the same seen with both the Zeiss 21mm and the Nikon 14-24 and 21mm and see a difference in the look between the two.
I have yet to find a lens that is "perfect", every lens has it's pros and cons. I agree a most of the time it's about getting the image, and not the gear used to make the image. (you can try all you want to get a cool photo of that bird that just flew buy with a 14mm lens but I dob't it's going to be worth sharing, I have tried that unsuccessfully) I look at understanding how a lens responds / renders in different circumstances the same as learning how to use manual mode, when to use auto ISO and so on. It's all about trying to learn how to get the most out of your gear.
If it wasn't for the rendering I have noticed in Zeiss lenses I proabbly wouldn't own any of them. The lack of AF alone means more times then not I won't be abel to use them. The 21mm for example also has some color casting issues. Usually if I am only going to take one wide angle lens with me it's the Nikon 14-24. With AF, and the lack of color cast it's much more predictable. I have taken photos of the same seen with both the Zeiss 21mm and the Nikon 14-24 and 21mm and see a difference in the look between the two.
I have yet to find a lens that is "perfect", every lens has it's pros and cons. I agree a most of the time it's about getting the image, and not the gear used to make the image. (you can try all you want to get a cool photo of that bird that just flew buy with a 14mm lens but I dob't it's going to be worth sharing, I have tried that unsuccessfully) I look at understanding how a lens responds / renders in different circumstances the same as learning how to use manual mode, when to use auto ISO and so on. It's all about trying to learn how to get the most out of your gear.
Mar 03, 2016 at 01:45 PM
p.5 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chatcher wrote:
It almost sounds as if you don't believe in magic. How sad that would be. As I recall, the Emperor was perfectly happy with his New Clothes until some precocious junior scientist came along and spoiled everything. (That's why I try to avoid reading reviews once I've made the purchase.)
I do believe in "magic" — the "magic" of beautiful and sometimes quite magical photographs, produced by photographers with vision, skill, and persistence and using a remarkable range of types of equipment. I not only believe in that kind of magic, but I spend a whole lot of time trying to find it and occasionally create it myself — probably like a lot of folks at FM. Nothing sad here at all.
I do not believe in magical lenses.
sebboh wrote:
this is a separate issue from confirmation bias, and draws people who want to have something very specific rather than people who just want to be superior...
I don't think that people are always trying to be "superior." Most artists that I know simply want to be "excellent" or "as good as they can be." That's a lifelong challenge, and even the best photographers (and other artists) continue to work on it. It isn't automatic for anyone, but the effort is rewarded.
And, in the end, just about every person I know who does photography — likely including a whole bunch of people in this forum and in this very discussion — share that goal. We're all trying to figure out how to achieve whatever it is we are capable of achieving and of perhaps surpassing limitations that others might expect us to have. We want to create some good and perhaps beautiful.
That seems like a pretty optimistic and positive thing, right?
By the way, the figure in the story of the emperor's new clothes was not a "scientist," and that isn't remotely the point of the tale. The figure is usually a child, one who is open and honest and not deceived by the appearance of power or fear to speaking truthfully. Perhaps you remember it better now? (See below for an excerpt.)
Dan
- - -
The noblemen who were to carry [the emperor's invisible] train stooped low and reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle. Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn't dare admit they had nothing to hold.
So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.
"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."
"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.
The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 02:47 PM · View previous versions
gdanmitchell wrote
In all too many cases, there is a kind of confirmation bias, and Emperor's New Clothes effect if you will. Ironically, by getting past the focus on lenses with magical properties and focusing instead on looking and seeing photographically, anyone has the potential to produce "magical" photographs...I do believe in "magic" — the "magic" of beautiful and sometimes quite magical photographs, produced by photographers with vision, skill, and persistence and using a remarkable range of types of equipment. I not only believe in that kind of magic, but I spend a whole lot of time trying to find it and occasionally create it myself — probably like a lot of folks at FM. Nothing sad here at all.
I do not believe in magical lenses.
sebboh wrote:
this is a separate issue from confirmation bias, and draws people who want to have something very specific rather than people who just want to be superior...
I don't think that people are always trying to be "superior." Most artists that I know simply want to be "excellent" or "as good as they can be." That's a lifelong challenge, and even the best photographers (and other artists) continue to work on it. It isn't automatic for anyone, but the effort is rewarded.
And, in the end, just about every person I know who does photography — likely including a whole bunch of people in this forum and in this very discussion — share that goal. We're all trying to figure out how to achieve whatever it is we are capable of achieving and of perhaps surpassing limitations that others might expect us to have. We want to create some good and perhaps beautiful.
That seems like a pretty optimistic and positive thing, right?
By the way, the figure in the story of the emperor's new clothes was not a "scientist," and that isn't remotely the point of the tale. The figure is usually a child, one who is open and honest and not deceived by the appearance of power or fear to speaking truthfully. Perhaps you remember it better now? (See below for an excerpt.)
Dan
- - -
The noblemen who were to carry [the emperor's invisible] train stooped low and reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle. Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn't dare admit they had nothing to hold.
So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.
"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."
"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.
The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 02:47 PM · View previous versions
Mar 03, 2016 at 02:13 PM
p.5 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I think I now know exactly what the "Zeiss look" is all about. I decided to create a tightly controlled test scene to settle this once and for all. I shot one of these with a Nikkor AIS, the other with a Zeiss. Needless to say, I was shocked to see the difference in micro-contrast 
Mar 03, 2016 at 02:20 PM
p.5 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Joseph. wrote:
I think I now know exactly what the "Zeiss look" is all about. I decided to create a tightly controlled test scene to settle this once and for all. I shot one of these with a Nikkor AIS, the other with a Zeiss. Needless to say, I was shocked to see the difference in micro-contrast
Mystery solved! ;-)
I think I now know exactly what the "Zeiss look" is all about. I decided to create a tightly controlled test scene to settle this once and for all. I shot one of these with a Nikkor AIS, the other with a Zeiss. Needless to say, I was shocked to see the difference in micro-contrast
Mystery solved! ;-)
Mar 03, 2016 at 02:21 PM