Re: Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote: DavidBM wrote:
Someone said that they have a massive psychological barrier against lenses designed to have their distortion software corrected.
i think I\'m developing a psychological barrier against lenses which have their distortion optically corrected!
Here\'s why: optical distortion correction costs resolution. And if it is optically corrected, that\'s locked in: you can\'t get it back! At least if you took the same lens design and didn\'t optically correct (I know it\'s hard to compare) you will start of with higher resolution. Of course, after software correction, you lose it again. But there are scenes in which you don\'t need to correct - and then you can the full goodness of uncorrected resolution.
Of course exactly what the resolution costs of optical correction versus software is unclear. Modern lenses which are well corrected for distortion tend to be expensive too. So it\'s hard to compare apples with apples. Here\'s my guess: with low MP sensors, software correction will be worse than with high MP sensors, because the higher the sensor resolution, the more you can forget the limit of sharpness imposed by the sensor resolution, and the more you can think of the image as approximating an analogue representation of the sharpness of the lens.
Mabye there should be a new term...Optical Rationalization...
Well, I really hate to disagree with some of the most distinguished members of this board, but to me, a high quality lens should be well corrected for all aberrations, physically I consider the need for software correction as a kind of cheating Don\'t crucify me for saying that, just my opinion.
I do agree however that distortion is much more preferable to lateral CA, an aberration very common with SLR lenses. But since I switched to rangefinders, none of the ZM lenses I have owned or tried has any noticeable lat. CA and distortion is quite low. This proves that with the absence of the mirror design restrictions it is not difficult to make well corrected lenses. I would expect the same from the new Batis line, what I get with the ZM line.
Re: Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount
Tariq Gibran wrote: DavidBM wrote:
Someone said that they have a massive psychological barrier against lenses designed to have their distortion software corrected.
i think I\'m developing a psychological barrier against lenses which have their distortion optically corrected!
Here\'s why: optical distortion correction costs resolution. And if it is optically corrected, that\'s locked in: you can\'t get it back! At least if you took the same lens design and didn\'t optically correct (I know it\'s hard to compare) you will start of with higher resolution. Of course, after software correction, you lose it again. But there are scenes in which you don\'t need to correct - and then you can the full goodness of uncorrected resolution.
Of course exactly what the resolution costs of optical correction versus software is unclear. Modern lenses which are well corrected for distortion tend to be expensive too. So it\'s hard to compare apples with apples. Here\'s my guess: with low MP sensors, software correction will be worse than with high MP sensors, because the higher the sensor resolution, the more you can forget the limit of sharpness imposed by the sensor resolution, and the more you can think of the image as approximating an analogue representation of the sharpness of the lens.
Mabye there should be a new term...Optical Rationalization...
Well, I really hate to disagree with some of the most distinguished members of this board, but to me, a high quality lens should be well corrected for all aberrations, physically I consider the need for software correction as a kind of cheating Don\'t crucify me for saying that, just my opinion.
May 01, 2015 at 06:11 AM
Previous versions of edwardkaraa's message #12993721 « Zeiss "Batis" AF lens line to be released for FF E-mount »
