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.6 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
DWOfPaul wrote:
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...Show more →
the term is user "perception".
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...Show more →
the term is user "perception".
Mar 03, 2016 at 02:22 PM
p.6 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Not sure if it's confirmation bias (or just memory) but when I look through my galleries I can always tell which images I took with Zeiss glass. I should set up an A->B test for myself to see what it's about.
Mar 03, 2016 at 02:24 PM
p.6 #3The 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
to be fair though, there isn't much difference in price between AIS lenses and zeiss lenses of the same vintage (canon FD, olympus OM, or rokkor lenses on the other hand...) or new zeiss lenses vs similarly specced canikon lenses.
with regards to people seeing a difference, here is a single blind test done in the alt forum a while ago between canon and zeiss: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404
most people could see a difference even at small size.
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
to be fair though, there isn't much difference in price between AIS lenses and zeiss lenses of the same vintage (canon FD, olympus OM, or rokkor lenses on the other hand...) or new zeiss lenses vs similarly specced canikon lenses.
with regards to people seeing a difference, here is a single blind test done in the alt forum a while ago between canon and zeiss: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404
most people could see a difference even at small size.
Mar 03, 2016 at 02:31 PM
p.6 #4The 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
WOW! I can finally see it! The 2nd one is obviously the Zeiss ... thank you so much for explaining it to me.
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
WOW! I can finally see it! The 2nd one is obviously the Zeiss ... thank you so much for explaining it to me.
Mar 03, 2016 at 05:33 PM
p.6 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
A perennial discussion point and as with smoke there is fire here. Not one that arises much in the Alt forum, as most longer term visitors have a clear-eyed view on the merits and reasons behind the Zeiss optical phenomenon. Without further personal input, readers might enjoy Mike Johnston's lucid and revealing commentary:
'And since the evolving theme of this post seems to be love, I have another lurid confession to make along those lines: I love Carl Zeiss lenses. I truly do. I always have. And still do. Yes, of course Zeiss makes (and labels) a wide variety of lenses, and not all of them are to the manor born. And yes, there is less difference between lenses now than there used to be. And lenses make somewhat less difference with digital pictures, which are more malleable. We're not so stuck with what the lenses give us as we were when the lens image got burned on to the transparency.
But—and I don't have any demonstrations of this yet, give me a day or three—Zeiss lenses just do it for me. They might not be the "sharpest" lenses in the world in terms of absolute ultimate resolution (although they ain't chopped liver in that department either), but the "Zeiss Look" has an overall integrity I really appreciate.
The best Zeisses all share a common house characteristic that I can best describe with the words "microcolor" and "microcontrast." They discriminate very well between very close shades of color on a minute level, and they have very good large-structure (5 lp/mm or 10 lp/mm) contrast. They tend to even their sharpness out across the image height (i.e. the whole frame) and tend to be balanced for consistency up and down the aperture range. Add very good flare and veiling glare resistance and a warm bias, and you get an image morphology that goes far beyond simpleminded notions of sharpness.
It's very tempting to say something like "Zeiss looks at every image quality, not just sharpness." But that's over the top and kind of absurd, because of course other lensmakers look at other qualities too. But I get a bit sick of all the sharpness talk. Sharpness is like crack to photo enthusiasts. They just want more more more without limit and never mind that there are sixty other considerations that go into the integrity of a lens image. And once they're on that crack, in true addict fashion, they let everything else in their photographic lives fall by the wayside.
Naturally I'm not blind about it. I've used many great lenses from many makers, and not every lens Zeiss ever put Carl's name on is a standout. But you can see the buttons they push for me: history, youthful aspirations, etc. Naturally I've used and tested and written about a broad spectrum of the marque's offerings over the years.
If you want to get a visual idea of the "Zeiss look," go to this page:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/makro-planar100mm/pool/
..and poke around. It's not possible to really "see" a lens on the Web, but with that particular lens the look comes through pretty well even on the Web. Let the page load, then scroll down. Every now and then, when a picture grabs you, click on it, and look at it a little longer. Don't pixel peep; gaze upon it. Let it soak into your eyes.
As you look, try to relax all your anxious "governors"—the voices of your inner gear nerd—that are telling you what you ought to be looking for and how you ought to be feeling about it. Look at the pictures holistically. Just take in an overall impression of their optical nature. Look for "quality, not qualities."
Does the whole image have integrity? Coherence, cohesiveness, consistency? Does it have a good look or a bad look to you? What's your feeling about the whole picture you're seeing? Not just its isolated, compartmentalized "image qualities." You're always seeing more than you're aware that you're seeing.
(And please, not just "sharpness." Sharpness is actually well down on the list of things I look for in a lens. It's been a long time since I've used a lens that wasn't adequately sharp. And since you can modulate the impression of sharpness in software.... Get off that crack.)'
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/03/day-1-sony-and-zeiss-up-in-a-tree.html
'And since the evolving theme of this post seems to be love, I have another lurid confession to make along those lines: I love Carl Zeiss lenses. I truly do. I always have. And still do. Yes, of course Zeiss makes (and labels) a wide variety of lenses, and not all of them are to the manor born. And yes, there is less difference between lenses now than there used to be. And lenses make somewhat less difference with digital pictures, which are more malleable. We're not so stuck with what the lenses give us as we were when the lens image got burned on to the transparency.
But—and I don't have any demonstrations of this yet, give me a day or three—Zeiss lenses just do it for me. They might not be the "sharpest" lenses in the world in terms of absolute ultimate resolution (although they ain't chopped liver in that department either), but the "Zeiss Look" has an overall integrity I really appreciate.
The best Zeisses all share a common house characteristic that I can best describe with the words "microcolor" and "microcontrast." They discriminate very well between very close shades of color on a minute level, and they have very good large-structure (5 lp/mm or 10 lp/mm) contrast. They tend to even their sharpness out across the image height (i.e. the whole frame) and tend to be balanced for consistency up and down the aperture range. Add very good flare and veiling glare resistance and a warm bias, and you get an image morphology that goes far beyond simpleminded notions of sharpness.
It's very tempting to say something like "Zeiss looks at every image quality, not just sharpness." But that's over the top and kind of absurd, because of course other lensmakers look at other qualities too. But I get a bit sick of all the sharpness talk. Sharpness is like crack to photo enthusiasts. They just want more more more without limit and never mind that there are sixty other considerations that go into the integrity of a lens image. And once they're on that crack, in true addict fashion, they let everything else in their photographic lives fall by the wayside.
Naturally I'm not blind about it. I've used many great lenses from many makers, and not every lens Zeiss ever put Carl's name on is a standout. But you can see the buttons they push for me: history, youthful aspirations, etc. Naturally I've used and tested and written about a broad spectrum of the marque's offerings over the years.
If you want to get a visual idea of the "Zeiss look," go to this page:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/makro-planar100mm/pool/
..and poke around. It's not possible to really "see" a lens on the Web, but with that particular lens the look comes through pretty well even on the Web. Let the page load, then scroll down. Every now and then, when a picture grabs you, click on it, and look at it a little longer. Don't pixel peep; gaze upon it. Let it soak into your eyes.
As you look, try to relax all your anxious "governors"—the voices of your inner gear nerd—that are telling you what you ought to be looking for and how you ought to be feeling about it. Look at the pictures holistically. Just take in an overall impression of their optical nature. Look for "quality, not qualities."
Does the whole image have integrity? Coherence, cohesiveness, consistency? Does it have a good look or a bad look to you? What's your feeling about the whole picture you're seeing? Not just its isolated, compartmentalized "image qualities." You're always seeing more than you're aware that you're seeing.
(And please, not just "sharpness." Sharpness is actually well down on the list of things I look for in a lens. It's been a long time since I've used a lens that wasn't adequately sharp. And since you can modulate the impression of sharpness in software.... Get off that crack.)'
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/03/day-1-sony-and-zeiss-up-in-a-tree.html
Mar 03, 2016 at 05:49 PM
p.6 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
Here is the 28 I would put on my D810....if I had one
ick. i'd save a bundle of money and use the 28/1.8 G if i needed speed and c/y 28/2.8 or 28/2.8 AIS if i didn't.
Here is the 28 I would put on my D810....if I had one
ick. i'd save a bundle of money and use the 28/1.8 G if i needed speed and c/y 28/2.8 or 28/2.8 AIS if i didn't.
Mar 03, 2016 at 05:53 PM
p.6 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively.
Zeiss and leica are not gaining their name from nothing. Historically, they offer superior glass than Japanese manufacture for many years before digital blooming.(now there is still difference, but smaller and not as consistent anymore.) And they offer fewer dogs than Canikon or any Japanese manufacture over the years. Not because they have simply better engineering (they might) but because they have different priority and less price constrain. Their superiority comes from varies areas such as build quality, material (both glass and build house), rendering and craftsmanship. That could be the decision factor for people who appreciate those. For example, in field take landscape images, I am very much preferring using manual lens that I don't even need focusing it but pre-tune focusing ring for given scene. (of course I fully understand my lens characteristics such as DOF window and FC etc...)
Modern optics improve a lot so much so that difference can be minimal if we purely talking about sharpness. But take an example: both sigma art 50 and 35mm lenses are superb technical wise. Shooting the same scene at wide aperture, I can easily tell difference between them and OTUS which I prefer by a wide margin. Stop down? No much difference I can tell. Is that 'minor' difference important to you? That is only you can answer?
For portrait, I went through many lenses and settle down to a few Leica R lens.(35/50/90cron and 50/80Lux) because I can trace the minor rendering difference I appreciate. Can one or two Nikon lens achieve that similar look? Absolutely, I feel many case $200 Nikon 501.8G's rendering even softer than 50cron R. but as I said earlier, I prefer manual focus and prefer everything is under my control in field and 50cron R is better lens after f2.8 for landscape. The difference is easy to see on D810 and it is simply a better lens even it is 20 years old. (BTW, the 50cron beat the pant off new Nikon 58G after f2.8).
Canikon has lots of great optics now days. I am not sure there is consistent mystery look with certain brand but any people not bland should be able to tell difference between lens shooting wide open at which rendering talking happen. You don't see it or it is not important for your photography, that is fine, just move on. Other than taking picture or making art, are we allowing to have some fun during this process?
Zeiss and leica are not gaining their name from nothing. Historically, they offer superior glass than Japanese manufacture for many years before digital blooming.(now there is still difference, but smaller and not as consistent anymore.) And they offer fewer dogs than Canikon or any Japanese manufacture over the years. Not because they have simply better engineering (they might) but because they have different priority and less price constrain. Their superiority comes from varies areas such as build quality, material (both glass and build house), rendering and craftsmanship. That could be the decision factor for people who appreciate those. For example, in field take landscape images, I am very much preferring using manual lens that I don't even need focusing it but pre-tune focusing ring for given scene. (of course I fully understand my lens characteristics such as DOF window and FC etc...)
Modern optics improve a lot so much so that difference can be minimal if we purely talking about sharpness. But take an example: both sigma art 50 and 35mm lenses are superb technical wise. Shooting the same scene at wide aperture, I can easily tell difference between them and OTUS which I prefer by a wide margin. Stop down? No much difference I can tell. Is that 'minor' difference important to you? That is only you can answer?
For portrait, I went through many lenses and settle down to a few Leica R lens.(35/50/90cron and 50/80Lux) because I can trace the minor rendering difference I appreciate. Can one or two Nikon lens achieve that similar look? Absolutely, I feel many case $200 Nikon 501.8G's rendering even softer than 50cron R. but as I said earlier, I prefer manual focus and prefer everything is under my control in field and 50cron R is better lens after f2.8 for landscape. The difference is easy to see on D810 and it is simply a better lens even it is 20 years old. (BTW, the 50cron beat the pant off new Nikon 58G after f2.8).
Canikon has lots of great optics now days. I am not sure there is consistent mystery look with certain brand but any people not bland should be able to tell difference between lens shooting wide open at which rendering talking happen. You don't see it or it is not important for your photography, that is fine, just move on. Other than taking picture or making art, are we allowing to have some fun during this process?
Mar 03, 2016 at 06:35 PM
p.6 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
^ Nice! Key for me...is having that fun and some tactile pleasure
thrown in for good measure. Gotta love all the choices of late,
right tool for the job at hand.
thrown in for good measure. Gotta love all the choices of late,
right tool for the job at hand.
Mar 03, 2016 at 06:51 PM
p.6 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively...
You are, as is anyone, of course free to make any choice you want. On a personal level you can choose to use coke bottles for lenses if you want — and I'll bet someone has made interesting photographs with them! ;-)
However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
Dan
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively...
You are, as is anyone, of course free to make any choice you want. On a personal level you can choose to use coke bottles for lenses if you want — and I'll bet someone has made interesting photographs with them! ;-)
However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
Dan
Mar 03, 2016 at 07:03 PM
p.6 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
We might find more agreement if we decided to talk about politics or religion. Why, again, are we having this conversation on the Nikon thread? These conversations are invariably Rorschach tests in which we each see truth only as we see it. Sorry folks, there is no absolute truth here. Go take photos.
Mar 03, 2016 at 07:31 PM
p.6 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
just what i like to do. i love the challenge of mixed lighting
Mar 03, 2016 at 07:33 PM
p.6 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
You are, as is anyone, of course free to make any choice you want. On a personal level you can choose to use coke bottles for lenses if you want — and I'll bet someone has made interesting photographs with them! ;-)
However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact...Show more →
Just wish said viewpoints were from ACTUAL use of said equipment rather than third party "I've read it somewhere on the net so it must be true" type of experience. Now who's opinions would you take...someone who uses the equipment on a regular basis or someone who reads about it on the net. I know where I'd put my focus...and it's not on the net browser.
zhangyue wrote
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively...However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact...Show more →
Just wish said viewpoints were from ACTUAL use of said equipment rather than third party "I've read it somewhere on the net so it must be true" type of experience. Now who's opinions would you take...someone who uses the equipment on a regular basis or someone who reads about it on the net. I know where I'd put my focus...and it's not on the net browser.
Mar 03, 2016 at 07:44 PM
p.6 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
Why, again, are we having this conversation on the Nikon thread?
I think it might be cross-posted? Some of us are getting to it via the alt forum...
Why, again, are we having this conversation on the Nikon thread?
I think it might be cross-posted? Some of us are getting to it via the alt forum...
Mar 03, 2016 at 07:47 PM
p.6 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
MalbikEndar wrote:
With a Zeiss lens the soundstage extends far to the left and right, while for a Leica lens it is bigger front to back. Everyone knows that.
THANK YOU
This is perfect.
With a Zeiss lens the soundstage extends far to the left and right, while for a Leica lens it is bigger front to back. Everyone knows that.
THANK YOU
This is perfect.
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:15 PM
p.6 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
You are, as is anyone, of course free to make any choice you want. On a personal level you can choose to use coke bottles for lenses if you want — and I'll bet someone has made interesting photographs with them! ;-)
However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
DanJust wish said viewpoints were from ACTUAL use of said equipment rather than third party "I've read it somewhere on the net so it must be true" type of experience. Now who's opinions would you take...someone who uses the equipment on a regular basis or someone who reads about it on the net. I know where I'd put my focus...and it's not on the net browser.
****************************
Quite a few of the individuals speaking up have in fact owned and extensively used both. Steve Perry for instance. You should be happy.
Then of course there's actual data and blind tests that weigh in ... I like those being a science/data driven kind of guy ... but then those that believe in numinous qualities of objects tend to not like science so much.
gdanmitchell wrote
zhangyue wrote
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively...However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
Dan
****************************
Quite a few of the individuals speaking up have in fact owned and extensively used both. Steve Perry for instance. You should be happy.
Then of course there's actual data and blind tests that weigh in ... I like those being a science/data driven kind of guy ... but then those that believe in numinous qualities of objects tend to not like science so much.
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:42 PM
p.6 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
I suggested five and a half years ago when a fellow who was posting on the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread bought a Zeiss 100 f/2 that he do a comparison with his Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI-s. He did a "blind tasting", first with those two lenses, then adding the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. Somehow the Zeiss experts had difficulty actually telling which photo was taken with which lens.
That comes as little surprise to me. If you look at the physical attributes of entrance pupil size to exit pupil size in various lenses that have strong "3D" ish rendering qualities you start to notice a correlation. You can also notice in a study of the MTF's of those various lenses where they have stronger transitions / faster / slower rate of change.
The combination of these design characteristics of the lens, and spatial placement of subject to harness those transitions can render a more dramatically noticeable difference from that of a more linear rate of change.
As I mentioned before, Zeiss doesn't have the corner on the market, but they do tend to employ certain design aspects more than other mfr's do. That by no means is to suggest that all Zeiss lenses are designed this way. It's been several years now, but I had a collection of Zeiss MTF's and exit / entrance pupil parameters ... and once you studied them, you could see where the design diff's were responsible for such "effect". Those have since been lost and I don't recall the exact relationship of the parameters, but I assure you that there was a "science" behind the mystery. Unfortunately, many Zeiss fan-boys can't explain it, and folks that haven't learned how to harness it may have not experienced it ... but, I have the same Nikon 105/2.5 for the very reason noted above @ it can render those transitions and pupil parameters for the "3D-ish" ness.
Other Mfr's that applied those similar principles ... yup, they could get a similar effect too. The point here is that it is a design attribute how the lens draws ... not a brand attribute.
If a lens has a strong transition between zones A & B ... and your composition utilizes that transition to its advantage, it can reveal itself. If your composition (subject planes and frame placement) don't harness it, then nothing much "special" comes from it.
Diff mfr's tend to design to a philosophy ... but, even with that, they aren't 100% inclusive / exclusive to a given drawing style.
I suggested five and a half years ago when a fellow who was posting on the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread bought a Zeiss 100 f/2 that he do a comparison with his Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI-s. He did a "blind tasting", first with those two lenses, then adding the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. Somehow the Zeiss experts had difficulty actually telling which photo was taken with which lens.
That comes as little surprise to me. If you look at the physical attributes of entrance pupil size to exit pupil size in various lenses that have strong "3D" ish rendering qualities you start to notice a correlation. You can also notice in a study of the MTF's of those various lenses where they have stronger transitions / faster / slower rate of change.
The combination of these design characteristics of the lens, and spatial placement of subject to harness those transitions can render a more dramatically noticeable difference from that of a more linear rate of change.
As I mentioned before, Zeiss doesn't have the corner on the market, but they do tend to employ certain design aspects more than other mfr's do. That by no means is to suggest that all Zeiss lenses are designed this way. It's been several years now, but I had a collection of Zeiss MTF's and exit / entrance pupil parameters ... and once you studied them, you could see where the design diff's were responsible for such "effect". Those have since been lost and I don't recall the exact relationship of the parameters, but I assure you that there was a "science" behind the mystery. Unfortunately, many Zeiss fan-boys can't explain it, and folks that haven't learned how to harness it may have not experienced it ... but, I have the same Nikon 105/2.5 for the very reason noted above @ it can render those transitions and pupil parameters for the "3D-ish" ness.
Other Mfr's that applied those similar principles ... yup, they could get a similar effect too. The point here is that it is a design attribute how the lens draws ... not a brand attribute.
If a lens has a strong transition between zones A & B ... and your composition utilizes that transition to its advantage, it can reveal itself. If your composition (subject planes and frame placement) don't harness it, then nothing much "special" comes from it.
Diff mfr's tend to design to a philosophy ... but, even with that, they aren't 100% inclusive / exclusive to a given drawing style.
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:44 PM
p.6 #18The 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
Exactly which one of your 20 Nikkor lenses did you perform this test with?
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
Exactly which one of your 20 Nikkor lenses did you perform this test with?
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:46 PM
p.6 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
You are, as is anyone, of course free to make any choice you want. On a personal level you can choose to use coke bottles for lenses if you want — and I'll bet someone has made interesting photographs with them! ;-)
However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
DanJust wish said viewpoints were from ACTUAL use of said equipment rather than third party "I've read it somewhere on the net so it must be true" type of experience. Now who's opinions would you take...someone who uses the equipment on a regular basis or someone who reads about it on the net. I know where I'd put my focus...and it's not on the net browser.
This is also very typical of any heated discussion/debate involving Leica. Most have never touched a Leica but feel empowered to bash them with abandon based on something they read somewhere. In short, I'm quite used to this sort of thing....
gdanmitchell wrote
zhangyue wrote
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively...However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
Dan
This is also very typical of any heated discussion/debate involving Leica. Most have never touched a Leica but feel empowered to bash them with abandon based on something they read somewhere. In short, I'm quite used to this sort of thing....
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:52 PM
p.6 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
I think it is going to be related to the size of the entrance / exit pupil / FL relationships ... which happens to then have a greater challenge retaining everything in spectral alignment. Imo, the aberrations aren't a guarantee of the 3D-ish, but I think they are both derived from the relationships between entrance / exit pupil sizes (relative to FL).
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.
I think it is going to be related to the size of the entrance / exit pupil / FL relationships ... which happens to then have a greater challenge retaining everything in spectral alignment. Imo, the aberrations aren't a guarantee of the 3D-ish, but I think they are both derived from the relationships between entrance / exit pupil sizes (relative to FL).
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:53 PM