p.1 #1 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
Just curious; having acquired some Zuikos recently as well as having shot a 50 for quite a while, I notice the infamous '3d' look (which has spawned two threads here and on the Canon subforum). Let's NOT discuss that here. What I am wondering is whether there are any similarities between the Zuiko optical design and the Zeiss one. Or if there's anything else very similar to the Zuikos.
Googled it a bit but couldn't find much that helped.
p.1 #2 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
Just judging by the size and shape of the lenses, the Zuikos are pretty unique designs. Besides the 50/1.4 (which is very similar in basic design across all manufacturers), the Zuiko lenses are often half the length and weight of their Zeiss/Leica/Canon/Nikon counterparts. No other manufacturer comes particularly close to their compactness.
p.1 #3 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
The current Leica 50/1.4 ASPH is nothing like any other manufacturer's normal lens in design.
Zeiss developed a lot of the modern lens designs we use: Planar (double gauss - 6 elements in 6 groups) is what most 50's are, a symmetrical design. Tessar (4 elements, 3 groups) is another popular design used by the voigtlander heliars and the original Leica 50/3.5 elmar. Sonnars are a high contrast, low flare but lower sharpness alternative to the Planar design, originally utilising 6 elements in 3 groups and were one of the first large aperture lens designs. Distagon and Biogon are less original and revolutionary, but still useful designs. Distagon is a retrofocal wide angle, useful for ultra wides on both SLR's and rangefinders. Biogon is a symmetrical wide/ultra-wide lens design mostly suited to rangefinders because the lens on an SLR gets in the way with this design.
As far as I'm aware most Zuiko Tele's are modified Sonnar designs. The 18mm is similar to a distagon. The 50's as has been said are mostly Planar designs, the 50/2 macro is slightly more elaborate. The 21/2.0 shares a lot in common with the Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon in terms of design with the use of unique exotic glasses, and very high correction through field flattener elements, floating elements etc.
It's kind of hard to create a lens design without it being similar to a Zeiss design, they were all formulated before the advent of 35mm, the Planar and Tessar are more than 100 years old!
p.1 #4 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
Generally speaking the OM lenses are, as stated, basically the same design idea as Zeiss lenses, only with simplified optics, which with their smallest lenses increase light falloff quite a bit.
p.1 #7 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
This site has a very comprehensive listing of Zuiko lenses, complete with construction diagrams. Carl Zeiss also has a good collection of data sheets (under 'Service and Support' > 'Download Center') with their lens designs, so you can directly compare the similarities/differences. Many of the lenses are indeed "basically" the same on the simplest level, but often differ in how many elements are used and in what groupings (and, of course, differences in coating technologies also contribute to optical differences).
p.1 #8 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
Reading old patents can offer a lot of insight into lens designs. Frankly I'd say Zeiss/contax and Zuiko are pretty much running different playbooks and have differing philosophies overall. Any similiarities are more due to the laws of physics than anything else. (there's only so many ways to design a particular focal length/speed/backspacing, etc. )
p.1 #10 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Reading old patents can offer a lot of insight into lens designs. Frankly I'd say Zeiss/contax and Zuiko are pretty much running different playbooks and have differing philosophies overall. Any similiarities are more due to the laws of physics than anything else. (there's only so many ways to design a particular focal length/speed/backspacing, etc. )
There is an infinite number of ways to design a particular focal length/etc due to the infinite number of sequential lens curvature available. Additionally factor in differences in the optical glasses available at any specific time. Apparently the best guess when you start a design procedure is to use one of the basic designs. The most obvious is the Planar. Compare Canons, Nikons, Zuikos, Leicas to the Planar 1.4/50. Very few differences in the general design, yet pretty large differences in image characteristics.
The "different playbooks" are also real, as there is hard OEM-specific science behind the subtleties behind the tweeking of the lenses, where every designer have their own goals, trade offs, budget, and experience to work within.
p.1 #11 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
This is nitpicking, but from what I understand:
- The Heliar is not a derivative of the Tessar, even though they look similar. The Heliar design typically has an extra element and was derived from the triplet.
- I also think the Biogon was quite revolutionary as things go.
p.1 #12 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
It's a disservice and an oversimplification to compare most lenses from the standpoint of their implementation's pedigree, but from a design standpoint the early OM system was intended to serve as a poor-man's Leica. High micro contrast and a willingness to suffer low wide open macro contrast, very small size (for SLR lenses) and a willingness to suffer optical vignetting, and a very high capability to price ratio, were typical. The final OM lenses were no-compromise designs, and very much their own animals. Probably the advent of sophisticated lens design software allowed them to depart more widely from established forms, so they don't follow any consistent pattern.
p.1 #13 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
camera gear only seems sexy until you have a girlfriend who really is...
IDURITA wrote:
I like the "sexy" black finish of Zuiko lenses, there diamond patterned rubber grips,
there cute and comfortable small sizes. What else ... ?
p.1 #14 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
kidtexas wrote:
This is nitpicking, but from what I understand:
- The Heliar is not a derivative of the Tessar, even though they look similar. The Heliar design typically has an extra element and was derived from the triplet.
- I also think the Biogon was quite revolutionary as things go.
Heliar is a venerable design. Has a reputation of "prestige and mystique" with high resolution and low microcontrast. Rumor has said the Japanese emperor Hirohito would insist that any photograph be taken with a Heliar.
p.1 #15 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
kidtexas the extra cemented element is to compensate for aberrations inherent in the tessar design I believe. But I am not here to nit-pick, I just wanted to submit a little information and you may very well be accurate.
p.1 #17 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
thrice wrote:
I can only think of size vs light falloff. Can you elaborate how else they would have differed? I assume you're only comparing OM and Contax?
Zuiko SLR and Contax RTS leses were developed and ultimately brought to market in 1972 and 1973 respectively. I would imagine; as competitors, that their development was a closely guarded secret at the time.
Both companies produced rangefinder type cameras prior to their SLR introductions. Early Zuikos were initially modeled on early Tessar designs, but the Zuiko line was developed - in house.
The primary development goals of the Zuikos were to reduce size and weight, while retaining high optical performance. Their initial target audience was for public use.
The initial Contax designs were to be targeted at a professional level, and the design objectives were set accordingly. Just look at the bodies and the design objectives are clearly evident. The Contax lenses used different glass, coatings and design objectives from the Zuikos.
As we have seen in this forum, each of the two manufacturer's achieved very high quality lens production at the time. Each line had its own strengths and weaknesses. When comparing the lenses from both manufacturers, the only thing that they have in common is focal length and manual focus. Other than that, in my experience, they are significantly different in look, bokeh, CA and weight.
p.1 #19 · Are Zuiko designs close to Zeiss, or something else?
Michael Gordon - nice page on the Heliar. Thanks for the link.
thrice wrote:
kidtexas the extra cemented element is to compensate for aberrations inherent in the tessar design I believe. But I am not here to nit-pick, I just wanted to submit a little information and you may very well be accurate.
The Tessar was developed independently of the Heliar. The short version is in the 2nd paragraph at the wikipedia entry: Tessar on wiki. Whereas the Heliar was derived from the Cooke triplet.
What is said about the lineage of both of these designs mirrors what I've just recently read in Kingslake's 'A History of the Photographic Lens'. It's an interesting read for those who like this kind of stuff. Get it from the library though - I don't think it's probably worth $75
Something to keep in mind (as stated by Kingslake and I'm sure others) is that modern designed lenses don't necessarily follow from these lineages of lenses as closely as lenses from the past did (say from the 60's). Computer aided design allows for larger deviations from these standards.
Also, as in the case here, the designations get blurry as lenses get more complicated. The Tessar has three groups, but was derived from a doublet. From a historical perspective, it's different than the Heliar, but in retrospect, they probably look very similar.
What I am wondering is whether there are any similarities between the Zuiko optical design and the Zeiss one. Or if there's anything else very similar to the Zuikos.
