Must say I'm impressed with the methodical manner in which you're basing your decision vs "..oh, but it's so much sharper than the XYZ ....,blah, blah, blah" ;>
I'll keep an eye on the thread as you move fwd. Good luck with the hunt.
Conner999 wrote:
Must say I'm impressed with the methodical manner in which you're basing your decision vs "..oh, but it's so much sharper than the XYZ ....,blah, blah, blah" ;>
I'll keep an eye on the thread as you move fwd. Good luck with the hunt.
Engineer by education, working with IT specifications on my daily life - can't help it... Thanks, luck is needed... during spring-summer 2009 I will make complete reviews of this year's new lenses (CZ 3.4/35-70, 1.7/50, 2.8/85, 3.5/100, 2.8/135 + the tele we are speaking about here) to vahonen.com to help others find information what I'm finding now. But I'm sure you here will see photos earlier in Alternative Image Thread # (#=currently 3, will see what it is at spring/summer).
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Toothwalker - I don't think there is one number which can say how good lens is.
I think that nobody disagrees with that.
For some of the qualities of Canon 200/2.8L are very ok (lack of CA, high contrast) however it lacks the look in images what I see in images taken with Zeiss lenses. Most of this look comes from 3 components, in which Canon doesn't perform well to my eye, below some comparison in my mind between CZ Makro-Planar 2/100 and Canon 200/2.8L:
1. transformation from focal plane to blur/bokeh (Zeiss = in middle of DOF there is small region which is really sharp, border between DOF and blur is pretty sharp - Canon = almost whole calculated DOF is having uniform sharpness, border between DOF and blur is very soft)
2. bokeh itself needs to have some edginess but not in unpleasant way (yeah, and really easy to explain this in my 2nd language - Zeiss = edgy bokeh but for example bokeh highlights are nice, Canon = soft bokeh, but bokeh highlights have annoying circles where the edge is slightly brighter than the center, overcorrection causes this sometimes) ...Show more →
I don't understand the difference between what you call 'edgy bokeh' and the bright
ring effect (nisen-bokeh due to overcorrected spherical aberration), as I would
personally describe the latter blur type as edgy. But hey, it's my second language
too
Although I admire your in-depth characterization, I usually stay away from bokeh
discussions. Bokeh being a highly subjective lens quality, its interpretation is just
too personal.
3. microcontrast (Zeiss = delivered, Canon = not there, not with any aperture)
Now this is something different. Contrast can be quantified, and I am sure that
the new Makro-Planar 2/100 is an excellent performer in this regard. The three dated
Y/C telephoto lenses will not give you such a contrast. The lateral color I mentioned
does not just give rise to color fringing, it also lowers the overall (micro)contrast and
resolution.
So I hope you understand that the reasons why I'm disappointed to 200/2.8L are not ones that one simple photodo measurement can tell.
Concerning bokeh, yes, but given the subjective ingredients involved I wonder whether
anybody can answer your questions in a satisfactory manner.
Lateral color (I assume you mean CA)
I mean later color as in transverse chromatic aberration (not to be confused with
longitudinal chromatic aberration). It is the leading cause of the separation between
the sagittal and tangential curves in the Zeiss MTF charts previously posted in this
thread.
can be corrected with software but like any aliasing (in princible it's just scaling of different color layers separately => scaling=aliasing) it will cause image to blur more, so it may mean that microcontrast is lost in process of correcting (depending amount of lateral color and correction).
It is hard to imagine how one would lose contrast in the correction process. Lens
aberrations lower the (micro)contrast in the original image, and any post-processing
process to compensate for aberrations should enhance the contrast and reduce the
blur. Otherwise, what is the point of such a correction in the first place? Of course,
given the finite dynamic range and limited spatial sampling frequency, such digital
post-processing corrections are not perfect and it is always a better strategy to
strive for a high-quality original.
This will in practice mean that these Zeiss lenses may not deliver what I want, but I guess I have to find out that by myself since DSLR samples of these lenses are rare.
Yup. If you really want to know, you have to try them. I used them on film and am
not tempted to try them again.
Samuli: the working computer (the one hooked up to the scanner) was busy yesterday but I have a few scanned shots though I have not uploaded them to my online album yet. Will get to it after work, though I think Toothwalker has some valid points as to the quality of the Zeiss telephoto lenses of that period.
In the whole arsenal of Zeiss lenses I was never 100% satisfied with the lenses above 135mm for look / sharpness etc.
Toothwalker wrote:
I don't understand the difference between what you call 'edgy bokeh' and the bright
ring effect (nisen-bokeh due to overcorrected spherical aberration), as I would
personally describe the latter blur type as edgy. But hey, it's my second language
too
Hmmm, I don't know how to describe this but by 'edgy bokeh' I'm not referring to the nisen-bokeh, but edginess on larger scale. Maybe it could be called large object contrast (e.g. in MTF we have for example 10,20 and 40 lines/mm - this is maybe contrast of 0.5 lines/mm contrast in bokeh), but I think it's better to leave the bokeh discussion for native English speakers (I think Richard has explained this Zeiss edgy bokeh in some thread better than my try...or at least I understood what he did mean).
Toothwalker wrote:
Although I admire your in-depth characterization, I usually stay away from bokeh
discussions. Bokeh being a highly subjective lens quality, its interpretation is just
too personal.
Maybe I stay away from the bokeh discussions as well in future... These discussions also easily will be pretty heated, some like Leica smoothness, some Zeiss bokeh and some like some special effect - very subjective thing.
Toothwalker wrote:
Now this is something different. Contrast can be quantified, and I am sure that
the new Makro-Planar 2/100 is an excellent performer in this regard. The three dated
Y/C telephoto lenses will not give you such a contrast. The lateral color I mentioned
does not just give rise to color fringing, it also lowers the overall (micro)contrast and
resolution.
I'm little bit stubborn but when many people say the same I start to believe it... I know the problems with old tele designs, I have shoot with Pentax to slides and even the 135mm I used had all kind of optical problems.
Toothwalker wrote:
Concerning bokeh, yes, but given the subjective ingredients involved I wonder whether
anybody can answer your questions in a satisfactory manner.
This is the exact reason why I didn't ask this. I felt that I needed to explain why I don't like Canon 200/2.8L on some applications. I did ask generally opinions about those 3 Zeiss lenses and what other alternatives there are for this focal length - and once again I got help from this forum.
Toothwalker wrote:
It is hard to imagine how one would lose contrast in the correction process. Lens
aberrations lower the (micro)contrast in the original image, and any post-processing
process to compensate for aberrations should enhance the contrast and reduce the
blur. Otherwise, what is the point of such a correction in the first place? Of course,
given the finite dynamic range and limited spatial sampling frequency, such digital
post-processing corrections are not perfect and it is always a better strategy to
strive for a high-quality original.
On black and white test target - yes those will be most probably corrected - however what I'm talking here is real life, say for example nature photo of forest with trees. In trees there are green leaves. In the green leaves there are these small lines (are they called "veins"? in English). In green leaf with different tone green "vein" in it will be recorded with good lens (this is the detail I miss with Canon lenses - and not talking macro photo of one leaf). If this kind of photo CA correction done in software may improve some edge detail etc. but it will kill this micro contrast in the leaves. This is because CA correction is typically done so that separate color channels are scaled, and this will cause aliasing. Same applies to barrell distortion correction and perspective correction as well
I did understand this lateral color incorrectly, I don't know can it even be corrected in software at all. Thanks for clarification.
Image is cropped some 25-30%. Come to think of it I frequently use the tele lenses wide open, so I haven't many stopped down infinity shots to post. Will try and find one for you.
Based on this discussion here, and my findings from other sites, I have decided to try first the Leica Vario-Elmar-R 80-200mm f/4. I'll keep searching for Voigthlander APO-Lanthar 180/4 as well, but that may take a while. Maybe Zeiss tele some day when they start producing new ZF/ZE/ZK models :-)
So next challenge is to learn to shoot with zoom lenses. If that doesn't work I have to tape the lens to 200mm or I can pretend that I change the lens but just to adjust the focal length and put new tape to lens :-) ....whatever which slows me down and makes me concentrate to framing and perspective instead shooting hundreds of point-and-shoot-photos.
Henrik, Thanks for the samples! Tele-Tessar 3.5/200 looks pretty tempting based on the scans, of course mentioned optical flaws won't show up in such small size/print. The bokeh looks on the 2nd photo to be quite close what I was hoping for. In first photo the bokeh is quite OK considering the difficult background. Maybe I have to get this lens just for the fun of trying it... This lens seems pretty cheap: £169/£245 in Fforbes (2 copies), KEH $179/245 (2 copies). Have to get it later, I'm bringing back home from US five lenses already, can't fit more to my hand luggage (have to carry the damn laptop etc. with me as well)...
Sonnar 2.8/135 shot looks nice as well (as a picture and as sample of lens characteristics) - this is one of the lenses waiting me in US I really wait to get back from US to get possibility to shoot photos with all "new" lenses.
The Sonnar 135 is a fine lens but I think it lacks the snap of the very best lenses.
The Planar 200/3.5 bokeh is ok compared to other Planars but is not as sharp as the shorter focal length Planars, in my opinion. Ffordes has a two week return policy, no questions asked. Steve is a gentleman.
I think the lenses you are going for might be the ticket I too am tempted by the Leica 80-200/4. I would actually use it a lot I think.
I like my Nikkor 200/4...it's the pre-AI 2nd version with 7' MFD, not the AI or AI-S version which is even more compact...the pre-AI 2nd version can be had very cheaply...
full frame...shot @ 5.6 on my XT I think... http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2831/mrgutjpm8.jpg
jay tieger wrote:
I like my Nikkor 200/4...it's the pre-AI 2nd version with 7' MFD, not the AI or AI-S version which is even more compact...the pre-AI 2nd version can be had very cheaply...
Wow, looks pretty sharp as well based on the 100% crop. Is it this lens? http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/preAI70/200mm.htm
kosmoskatten wrote:
Ok Samuli, olka hyvään. Or how you say it.
Double vocal in wrong place - Olkaa hyvä - Var så god in Swedish I still faintly remember from school.
kosmoskatten wrote:
The Sonnar 135 is a fine lens but I think it lacks the snap of the very best lenses.
Both Sonnar 3.5/100 and 2.8/135 I purchase based on what I have heard about their bokeh and Zeiss look, I don't assume 3.5/100 is sharper than Makro-Planar ;-) neither I think 2.8/135 is sharper than 135L - but let's see what I find out from them when I start to shoot with them.
kosmoskatten wrote:
The Planar 200/3.5 bokeh is ok compared to other Planars but is not as sharp as the shorter focal length Planars, in my opinion. Ffordes has a two week return policy, no questions asked. Steve is a gentleman.
200/3.5 is not planar design - it's Tele-Tessar, see: http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Tele-Tessar3.5_200mm_e/$File/Tele-Tessar3.5_200mm_e.pdf
Good to hear that Fforbes is OK, I have not yet ordered anything from there. Some items seem pretty cheap there, e.g. APO-Telyt 180/3.4 are below £350.
kosmoskatten wrote:
I think the lenses you are going for might be the ticket I too am tempted by the Leica 80-200/4. I would actually use it a lot I think.
I'll let you know how I like it when I have shoot a little with it.
Samuli - I know someone who MAY be selling a 180/4 in the near/intermediate future. I'll let them know you're interested and if they decide to pull the trigger they can decide if they want to hook up (as it were).
Henrik - given the gorgeous subject matter of your 135mm shot, if you've traded up (or hell even laterally) from your (as you put it) "ex,ex, ex..", you must be one VERY, VERY happy man.
Conner, a lateral trade it has been over the years.
I got a fair deal on the trade in so yes, I am quite happy.
They are all on display here, the first one was cuddly but had nasty claws.
The second one I try not to think about, she was a keen swimmer though.
The third one had most of what I wanted, I have a soft spot for freckles.
I am on the fourth one - it seems I have a keeper:
Samuli: you are correct! I don't know why I keep writing PLANAR instead of Tele-Tessar... Stupid me. ...I do however mean that it lacks the snap of the Planars. In between the Sonnar and Planar in performance.
...on a side note I wonder why you keep writing Fforbes instead of Ffordes.
rico wrote:
My C/Y lenses in this range are the Yashica 200/4 ML and the CZ AS200. The latter is a monster in weight, expensive, and oftern yields nasty BG bokeh. The Yashica is small. cheap and a nice performer. I consider them complementary. Sample images from 1Ds, with AS200 first: http://patternassociates.com/rico/contax/misc/rts3.jpg
Hey! My old work horse the RTS III, this one and the RX are the finest SLR cameras I have ever had. Super build, great ergonomics and a viewfinder that is a beacon of light and crispness in the dim world of EOS finders that I have ended up in.
kosmoskatten wrote:
...on a side note I wonder why you keep writing Fforbes instead of Ffordes.
I have very bad name memory and many people in work I remember so that I give first few letters and then wait that email's automatic function fetches her/his name for me (working in a very international environment on 4 continents at the moment). Similarly I just write "ff" to Firefox and it knows where I want to go ;-)
However got your point. BTW. Nice pictures, somehow my own paper pictures don't scan as well or then I lack skill doing that. But I rarely printed larger than 15x10 when shooting film, I was still studying and could not afford large prints.
Thank you Samuli, I must confess that I haven't done much with the scanning though when it comes to printing I print around 95% myself. I have worked at a few labs over the years and one benefit is cheap printing and being able to be very picky and take your time with your own stuff. The lab days are over though I do some printing at home, up to A3+ and the rest at my old lab (up to 60cm wide on Epson Inkjet + Frontier printing).
Only real problem is time, not enough of it.
Oh, yes, by snap I mean not just the sharpness but more the contrast and "pop" when it comes to rendering objects, a little of the three-dee magic. I am sure the 100/3.5 is nice, I had one for 30 min, it was advertised as excellent with perfect optics but when I opened the parcel there was a HUGE scratch on the front lens. So it went back directly.
or I can pretend that I change the lens but just to adjust the focal length and put new tape to lens :-) ....whatever which slows me down and makes me concentrate to framing and perspective instead shooting hundreds of point-and-shoot-photos.
I really wait to get back from US to get possibility to shoot photos with all "new" lenses.
