Guys, this conversation is getting a bit tiring. This is what the lens measures and weights. If you think it's too big or too heavy for you, don't buy it.
This thread is about the MTF published at Lloyd Chambers, let's discuss these instead.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
You didn't say how much heavier/bigger than the 35/2 you expected it to be ?
i didn't have any particular expectations. i was really just hoping for a slightly updated reworking of the c/y version, and no, i don't demand that it is uber sharp across the frame at f/1.4. i'm more interested in it having an attractive oof rendering wide open similar to the c/y version. i'm not particularly interested in f/1.4 lenses for landscape. if they can do that too that's a wonderful bonus, but that's not what i'm going to buy them for.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Guys, this conversation is getting a bit tiring. This is what the lens measures and weights. If you think it's too big or too heavy for you, don't buy it.
i believe that is what i will do unless i'm absolutely floored by the results (images) i see from the lens.
edwardkaraa wrote:
This thread is about the MTF published at Lloyd Chambers, let's discuss these instead.
i did have the comment that i thought the mtf looked closer to the Z* 35/2 than the c/y 35/1.4. not sure how that will play out in actual pictures though. i'd love to hear from somebody with a better understanding of the real world effects of those mtf differences.
Jan 18, 2011 at 02:28 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
edwardkaraa wrote:
Guys, this conversation is getting a bit tiring. This is what the lens measures and weights. If you think it's too big or too heavy for you, don't buy it.
This thread is about the MTF published at Lloyd Chambers, let's discuss these instead.
Agree but it's rather funny. Ten people complain about the weight/size. That's ok. But if one person think the size/weight is ok, then suddenly we shouldn't talk about it more.
Also agree that if you think this lens is too heavy/big just buy another smaller one. more than 95% of the 35mm lenses are smaller so I can't see why people who think that is important must complain about this lens.
Lars, this is not the first 35/1.4 that Zeiss has made. The old Contax and Rollei are still quite popular (there's even a dedicated thread here in this forum) and naturally people are going to compare the new with the old. The old is a relatively small - slightly smaller than the 35/2 ZE anyway.
The advice to "go and buy a smaller lens" is not particularly useful. People are interested in this lens because it's a Zeiss 35/1.4 and not any other 35/1.4. This lens has been expected for years so of course the expectations are quite high and to succeed it must outperform its legendary predecessor.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Agree but it's rather funny. Ten people complain about the weight/size. That's ok. But if one person think the size/weight is ok, then suddenly we shouldn't talk about it more.
Also agree that if you think this lens is too heavy/big just buy another smaller one. more than 95% of the 35mm lenses are smaller so I can't see why people who think that is important must complain about this lens.
Absolutely true.
I said it's getting tiring because we all know it's large and heavy. It's not like it's gonna get any smaller if we keep on repeating it ad nauseam. Now if we can find out why it is so big and heavy then each can judge for himself if the extra IQ is worth the price, size and weight, or not.
I too find it a bit oversized, but that wouldn't have stopped from buying it, if Sony would allow Zeiss to make it in the ZA mount that is
theSuede or Specularist or anyone that can answer my mtf questions below?
TIA
wayne seltzer wrote:
Which characteristics of the mtf curves determine how much lateral and longitudinal CA the lens will have?
How can you tell if the lens transitions to OOF faster?
What does the divergence of the sag and tag lines in the corners indicate?
One more:
What indicates that the lens will have FC?
i would just suggest that, if you want to convince others to consider your side of an argument, calling them whiners or complainers is probably the wrong technique for accomplishing that.
Jan 18, 2011 at 04:19 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
abam wrote:
i would just suggest that, if you want to convince others to consider your side of an argument, calling them whiners or complainers is probably the wrong technique for accomplishing that.
It's not that easy to convince you and the others that have these great arguments,
larger than a 135L? great googly moogly
I dislike huge lenses
Wow, that does kind of suck. That size is ridiculous.
D*mn, I didn't know it was THAT large.
But yes - that's a #%"&¤$£ big lens. Not for me.
sebboh wrote:
i did have the comment that i thought the mtf looked closer to the Z* 35/2 than the c/y 35/1.4. not sure how that will play out in actual pictures though. i'd love to hear from somebody with a better understanding of the real world effects of those mtf differences.
With my humble understanding of MTF, I can already see that Zeiss achieved a great feat with this lens. Already from WO, the extreme corners are as sharp as the center, with very little to no veiling haze, and a slight drop in contrast in the corners. Of course some center sharpness was sacrificed to achieve that but the result is even sharpness across the frame. This a trend in the most recent Zeiss glass (especially the ZA line), probably caused by our obsession of examining extreme corners at 100% magnification :P
Usually f/1.4 lenses have high center sharpness but a dramatic drop as you move away from the center.
This also shows in the comparison with the f/2. The MTF being so close (with a 1 stop advantage) is extraordinary. One would expect an f/2 lens to outperform an f/1.4 at similar apertures but clearly this is not the case.
I do expect this lens to be an equally super performer at its entire aperture range, which will make it as good for low light shooting as for landscapes.
ulrikft2 wrote:
But from the front of the glass, not the sensor. Making it closer to 40-50cm in reality, as I understand it. That is how they measure it on the 85mm.
The minimum focusing distance is from the sensor. If it's from the front of the lens, then it's the working distance
wayne seltzer wrote:
Which characteristics of the mtf curves determine how much lateral and longitudinal CA the lens will have?
How can you tell if the lens transitions to OOF faster?
What does the divergence of the sag and tag lines in the corners indicate?
1) Unfortunately MTF curves don't say anything about CA or a host of other optical aberrations.
2) You can't, at least not directly. The MTF is measured at a fixed distance, usually infinity but I'm not sure what Zeiss uses. You can in theory see something about the blur transition if you look at the wobble where you have field curvature.
3) That the image will be more blurred in one direction than the other.
denoir wrote:
1) Unfortunately MTF curves don't say anything about CA or a host of other optical aberrations.
I beg to disagree, MTF curves CAN say something about the ABSENCE of CA and other aberrations, since these influence contrast when white light is used to measure the MTF.
AFAIK CA was discovered early on to be a problem with B/W pictures, since the resolution suffered. I have forgot the reference, but I think it was in relation to
aerial photography in WW1
edwardkaraa wrote:
Zeiss MTF are measured at infinity.
That kind of sucks actually. It would have been much better to have one measurement at infinity, one at MFD and one at some typical application distance. There are some lenses like the 50/1.4 Planar that are excellent at larger distances but are completely overcome by spherical aberrations near MFD resulting in a drastic loss of contrast and resolution.
ClausC wrote:
I beg to disagree, MTF curves CAN say something about the ABSENCE of CA and other aberrations, since these influence contrast when white light is used to measure the MTF.
Absence, perhaps, I agree. There is however no way of telling what causes a drop in contrast - it could be astigmatism, coma, SA or a host of other things..
denoir wrote:
There are some lenses like the 50/1.4 Planar that are excellent at larger distances but are completely overcome by spherical aberrations near MFD resulting in a drastic loss of contrast and resolution.
I disagree, there is a flaw in that kind of logic.
The Z 50/1.4 Planar suffers most from SphA at larger distances wide open, on the other side at closer distances it is excellent once stopped down a bit.
The N is different in this regard BTW, doesnt have the same glow wide open.
