If you look at the UPC bar and the words and numbers, the Canon appears sharper, but Zeiss still shows significant more resolving power for finer details.
Looking at the bar code, the 85L clearly resolve better than the Zeiss (note those closely spaced bar codes). on the resolution chart on the right. the zeiss "seemed" to resolved more but look closer at the lines that the Zeiss "is resolving", they are spaced too far apart for the lp/mm (and also comparing with the bar code). It is likely due to spurious resolution (http://toothwalker.org/optics/spurious.html).
I don't know the details on the above test but this is my observation.
p.2 #3 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
This is a great question and it does deserve some good data to illustrate the point. There are several factors I would like to control for the comparisons: 1) alignment, 2) subject, 3) range of tonality, 4) color interpolation. My hope is to give you some of these data in the future when my set up are completed.
p.2 #4 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
I could likely be wrong.
I just looked at the MTF for both lenses.
For the 85L at f1.4, its sagittal mtf is lower than its tangential . At f8, all are good.
For the Zeiss CY, at f1.4 its sagittal mtf is slightly lower than its tangential. However, at f5.6 it's sagittal mtf is much higher than its tangential mtf.
From above mtf (and the posted result of the right edge), it possible for f2, the 85L has better tangential resolution than the Zeiss, while the Zeiss has better sagittal resolution than the 85L.
p.2 #6 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
I really don't care if the Zeiss 85 has better micro contrast compared to the 85L. To my eyes, both sets of images look better from the 85L .... and that's all that matters to me. If you routinely make 24 x 36" prints, maybe it matters to you, but I don't .... so I will take the 85L over the Zeiss version any day. Of course YMMV.
p.2 #7 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
I have no idea what makron and phuang are talking about, sadly, heh.
phuang, are you saying the Canon looks sharper because of in-camera sharpening applied to the image? Because if you ask me, the Canon does look sharpened. Though both of these shots might have been taken with the same body. Were they?
p.2 #8 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
DubiousDrewski,
I suspect that the in-body sharpening is in favor of Conatx 85/1.4 becasue of its flat tangential plane. It's just my speculation, I think an expert will have the answer.
The comparison image posted could be used to illustrate the difference between macro and micro contrast but it cannot be used to show that the zeiss has better micro contrast than the 85L.
p.2 #10 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
DubiousDrewski wrote:
I have no idea what makron and phuang are talking about, sadly, heh.
phuang, are you saying the Canon looks sharper because of in-camera sharpening applied to the image? Because if you ask me, the Canon does look sharpened. Though both of these shots might have been taken with the same body. Were they?
(I'm at work and can't see exif data)
They were both shot with a 5D, JPGs directly out of the camera in default setting. The shots are 1/6s exposure at f2 for both lens. Those are really old test shots, probably from three years ago. I no longer have the 85L, nor the 5D. Even the target has long gone.
makron wrote:
From above mtf (and the posted result of the right edge), it possible for f2, the 85L has better tangential resolution than the Zeiss, while the Zeiss has better sagittal resolution than the 85L.
I am afraid that the crops shows the opposite. The line pairs are actually arranged in tangential direction, while the UPC bars are spread radially.
The Canon does catch up when stopped down, but never up to the same point as the Zeiss. So I do not think it is all moire.
phuang3 wrote:
Cinstance,
Thanks for the effort. It looks like 85L has more image curvature at f/2.0. I am curious about the center performance of these two lenses. Optically, 85L "should be" a better design with aspherical element.
In the center part of the image, at f2 both lens are doing very well and exceed the censor resolution, so there is nothing interesting to show in the middle.
I looked back at the whole frame. The bars are tilted on the target actually, so it is not caused by distortion as I thought before. It is extremely hard to get identical frames between a lens with native mount and a lens with adapted mount, even one keeps the tripod and camera unmoved.
I do lover both lenses and have kept both of them for a long time. Both are wonderful but very different. I only recently sold my 85L II, for financial reason but nothing else.
p.2 #11 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
What about sensor pixel alignment with target? If target line is square onto a line of sensor pixels, image will show more micro-resolution than if target line straddles a line of sensor pixels and the space between.
p.2 #12 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
Man, you guys. I wonder if there were pixel pokers like this in the film days. We are going insane with detail here! (Though they wouldn't have been called pixel pokers....Halide crystal pokers maybe? Silver Speculators? I dunno)
p.2 #13 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
Cinstance wrote:
.....
I am afraid that the crops shows the opposite. The line pairs are actually arranged in tangential direction, while the UPC bars are spread radially.
The Canon does catch up when stopped down, but never up to the same point as the Zeiss. So I do not think it is all moire.
...
?? I'm sorry i dont understand. (On the right edge) The line pairs are arranged vertically, but they are horizontal lines. the bars codes lines are spread radially but they are vertical lines.
On the right edge, horizontal lines = sagittal, vertical lines = tangential.
On the top edge, horizontal lines = tangential, vertical lines = sagittal.
p.2 #14 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
makron wrote:
?? I'm sorry i dont understand. (On the right edge) The line pairs are arranged vertically, but they are horizontal lines. the bars codes lines are spread radially but they are vertical lines.
On the right edge, horizontal lines = sagittal, vertical lines = tangential.
On the top edge, horizontal lines = tangential, vertical lines = sagittal.
You are right. So when they say tangential, they really mean the tangential line pairs. What the tangential line pairs measure is the resolution in radial direction, that's where the confusion I had from.
p.2 #15 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
Just found a great example of macro/micro contrast. Look at this image. On the left side, look at the 2nd image down, and then the one directly to the right of it. The left image has better macro contrast but poor micro contrast. The one on the right is the opposite. In other terminology, the one of the right is not very contrasty, but is sharper. Even though it has awful flares around the highlights and the text on the spine of the book is very low contrast, you can make out finer details in the small text on the camera compared to the picture on the left.
When lenses are described in terms of sharpness and contrast, contrast is usually analogous to macro contrast and sharpness is analogous to micro contrast. At least thats how I interpret it. Older lenses at least in the RF world (Canon/Nikon LTM) tend to be described as low contrast but sharp and look very similar to the image on the right mentioned above. Actually, the Canon EF 50/1.4 kind of looks like that.
The rest of the page at Zeiss is very interesting if you want to do some reading.
p.2 #16 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
Another interesting thing about MTF charts and Canon is that the Canon charts are not measurements of an existing lens, they are theoretical maximums from computer simulations of the "perfect copy". And these figures are never ever ever achieved in real world measurements.
The amount of difference between real-world measurements and Canons own MTF-charts even suggest that the official charts are simulated in monochromatic mode (only one wavelength or "colour" present in the light), or at least spectum-weighed mode - which gives A LOT better figures than fullspectrum light. Canon has refused to answer to this question (monochromatic/fullspectrum) for some 20-odd years now... Ever since the EF system replaced the FD-mount
Monochromatic light totally excludes the lateral CA from the sharpness equation, and anyone that's ever used an 85L knows that LaCA can NEVER be excluded from the equation - it's omnipresent.
Zeiss MTF charts are measured at a real, existing lens (no doubt hand-picked of course) with white fullspectrum light.
p.2 #17 · micro vs macro contrast. Can you guys show me?
kidtexas wrote:
When lenses are described in terms of sharpness and contrast, contrast is usually analogous to macro contrast and sharpness is analogous to micro contrast.
