The Zeiss Myth...

I got this off of a side link from one Jeremy posted in the "Speaking
of Bokeh" thread. Hilights (blur circles may not be any thing or the
only thing to consider in bokeh (Zeiss lenses still have wonderfully
soft bokeh both sides of the focus plane) but if one were looking at
just hilight blur circles themeselves, both Nikon and the Cosina made
Zeiss may be something to steer clear of -- Pentax or Contax (Zeiss) or
Leica lenses instead anybody? :-)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/bokeh.htm
Of particular interest are the bottom paragraphs of Ken Rockwell's web
page that explain the Zeiss myth (as compared to the Nikon) and that
their hilight bokeh(s) are jokeh(s) and that their gaussian blurs are
currs (my phraseology) ;-) :-)
Too bad he didn't compare the 43mm Pentax Limited, the 40mm f/2?
Voigtlander SL lens (I know, not the same focal lengths as the rest of
the 50mm test lenses) and the Pentax 50/1.4 and 1.7 lenses against
those Nikon/Zeiss lenses but the test is already large and well done/a
service to people who care about bokeh (not to mention sharpness,
chromatic aberration and all the other factors he tested). Thanks Ken
for the test(s) (and Jeremy for the link).
Happy reading/viewing...

Thebokehking

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

The empiracle "standard", fortunately or unfortunately is the users
"bokeh aji" (bokeh taste or preference). The best judge has been and
always will be your eye/mind/taste. That's why I always prefer actual
images (small crops of large images) to rhetoric or even numbered
tests. "Show me the blur circles!" (or the creaminess/harshness). I'll
be the judge of what I like/don't like or can/can't use for my
tastes/sensitivities/subject matter. Others may/should do the same.
Some types of shots don't require good
For most landscape photographers of the f/64 school (whether they know
they're of that bent or not) that would be true. But there are others
who use Holga's, Dianas and Lens Babies rather than view cameras so its
still a matter of horses for courses.
And I don't
That would really depend on the type of reportage being done and for
whom. Those who do more macro and "standard portraiture" (head shots,
slective focus subject in environment) would be more attuned to lenses
whose bokeh would show off their subjects best.
Again, still a matter of taste/type of photography and/or subject
matter and an "aji" of a sort.
My Pentax lenses have always had excellent bokeh,
Your choice. However, on the K10D (the pro Pentax DSLR), with an
adapter, you could use all of your screw mount lenses with their
excellent bokeh and still get both (stopped down) aperture priority and
manual exposure as well as Anti-shake built into the body (possibly
spot metering too, I'm not sure). With Nikon or Canon, excellent as
they are, you are not only springing for a set of new lenses but you
would need to make sure you bought their IS/VR lenses respectively to
get Image Stabilization or Vibration Reduction. Now if you are the type
that bolts down his camera on a tripod and/or likes/is able to shoot at
both high apertures and shutter speeds, this may not be a problem for
if you do landscapes -- unless you are in California, then the
Anti-shake mechanism of any manufacturer would comein mighty handy ;-).
Also Pentax's pro model is under $1,000 which would make it the least
expensive pro model out there. It has inclement weather seals on both
the body and the battery grip too...
Even back in the "old days" (early 80's and before, Modern Photography?
would have numbers that would show an excellent lens while the
summation would rate it as an average lens. That's why I take
everything (all tests/advice), regardless of the source, worth a grain
of silver halide, even if its digital. :-)


Thebokehking

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

It depends a lot of the FL of the lens. For long lenses more MP is
almost always going to be good and more MP with a fair lens will likely
beat a really good lens that is on a camera that has a lot less MP.
But things change when dealing with shorter FL lenses, 50mm is pretty
easy 28mm is getting a lot harder and the lens counts for a lot more.
Scott


Scott W

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

Can't digital lenses, (on digital cameras) have bad and good bokeh?


William Graham

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

I think nobody can argue about the test he did showing chromatic aberration?
It should be a quite simple and objective test?
But I must admit I was very surprised that the Zeiss did it so bad showing a
lot
of chromatic aberration. One should think the lens was bad aligned or so....
The test result fits with the experience I have using the AIS 50/1.8 on my
D2X (very clean).
But every major brand should be able to make a 50mm lens which is virtually
free
for chromatic aberration......if not....how can they make other more
advanced lenses?
Max
"Kinon O'Cann" <somewhere@over.the.rainbow> skrev i en meddelelse


Max Perl

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

Zeiss CLAIMS to hold bokeh as a high priority. Leica (according to Puts)
designs for optimal balance of several factors--not for bokeh alone.
Pentax has a reputation for creamy bokeh, but they were making lenses like
that before the concept of OOF was even discussed in photographic circles,
so what do we make of that? Coincidence?
As I see it, there are now so many things that factor into creating a
quality digital image that the lens does not hold prominence anymore. As
one example of what I mean, consider this question:
Would an excellent lens, mounted on a low-MP camera without RAW format
capability, produce a better image than a lesser-quality lens mounted on a
high-MP camera that can output in RAW format? I suspect that the ability to
tweak the image during post-shoot editing would tend to make the lens
quality less-important than it was back when we were shooting Kodachromes,
no?


Jeremy

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

There is still no empirical standard of measurement of how "creamy" the
bokeh is on any particular lens. Some types of shots don't require good
bokeh at all, for example, landscapes, where the goal is to shoot for
hyperfocal distance and keep as much in focus as possible. And I don't
believe that reportage applications would factor bokeh as a high-priority
characteristic.
I'm beginning to fall on the side of those for whom bokeh is relatively
less-important. My Pentax lenses have always had excellent bokeh,
especially the normal lenses. I'm looking at migrating slowly over to
digital, and Nikon and Canon are the only two camera brands that I am
considering. They seem to be the ones with all the research and development
behind their equipment. So bokeh, for me, will take a back seat to other
factors. Besides, I still have my film SLRs and lenses if I have a
situation where bokeh is really important.
But I would say that it is more difficult to evaluate equipment (especially
lenses) today, because they are part of a larger chain of elements that all
contribute to the image. Equipment reviewers today seem to be rating
quality more subjectively, saying that the camera "takes good photographs."
rather than offer more empirical numbers, as in former times.


Jeremy

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

So, Leica, Zeiss, Cosina/Voigtländer and many others are actually NOT
making any new lenses?
You must really know something I don't know...


Chris Loffredo

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

SOME SNIPS
Canon just released (or is about to) a 50mm/1.2 L lens, yum! But
besides that every new lens, whether for DSLR or 35mm film or usable
for both (as in the Canon lens just mentioned) has bokeh
characteristics which can be tested, or at the very least, their
effects visually observed by those who would care to...
True, but don't at least some lens tests tell at least which DSLR model
they were shot on if not the camera settings used?
What ever the author says/"feels" it is. Pretty moronic without at
least some numbers, point distribution (if I am using the right term
here) visual examples of of light distribution in the blur discs when
front and back focused (to better show background and foreground bokeh
respectively). Best of all is to show largish (not those Pop Photo tiny
postage stamps) crops from hilights and lines (bricks, tree limbs,
etc.) to show actual real image examples of bokeh. In the end, I'd
prefer to see for myself rather than just take somebody's word or
interpretation.
This is a very gross/global application of _imitation_ bokeh. Optical
bokeh shows transition from out to in to out of focus again in a 3D
transition that can not be duplicated by a gross global kludge like
gaussian blur. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge
there are no computer programs/plug-ins yet that can do the subtle type
of transitioning of focus from fore to aft of a photo that has been
already taken. Simulations of gross/global (or even localized gross
effects that do not include a lenses/real scenes real/3D focus
transitioning attributes) amount of blurriness independent of real
scene 3D attributes is _not_ the kind of "bokeh" I am talking about and
is the electronic equivalent of smearing a filter with vaseline or a
Coken filter to me. If some photographers prefer "the smudgies" that's
their taste/prefernece/problem. Coken filters (no slam on the company,
just on their (ab)users) is the kludge religion of mindless morons
whether they are in camera clubs or P.P. of A. Shot doesn't work? Slap
a tobacco/sunset filter on it. I am not saying that you can't use a
global filter thoughtfully, just that they are most often used by the
thoughtless/tasteless/insesitive set to imitate a cliche they've seen
before whether or not it is appropriate or useful. Vomit through an
orange or even a gaussian filter is still vomit.
I thought they were already doing this, at least with Nikon's (others
too?) 10.5mm fisheye lens which has either a plug in or a program for
converting the fisheye image to a super wide angle rectilinear one.
There may be other programs to correct for chromatic aberration. Color
balance does not need any special programs as it can be adjusted finely
within photoshop or its equivalent (and for more gross efects) within
some DSLR cameras.
I suspect that lens performance
I suspect that there will always be a portion of the lens buying public
who don't care so long as the lens forms an image beyond that of a Coke
bottle as there will always be some (professionals, artists, and/or
advanced amatures) who will always be ready and willing to compare and
buy lenses (especially Canon L, Zeiss, Leica, Pentax Limited, Nikon ED,
Olympus 4/3, etc.) for their finer characteristics - bokeh, sharpness
or otherwise, post-shooting editing aside


Thebokehking

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

Canon and Nikon are, unless you want to argue that a couple of small
changes, such as coatings, to optimize them for sensor reflection takes
them out of running as new "film" lenses. Many would argue that a 35mm
lens is a 35mm lens.
--
John McWilliams


John McWilliams

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

Bokeh is a big deal in motion pictures and they have terribly fancy
lenses for that work. I'm just saying this as a movie watcher, I'd
assume the lens designers consider this because of the huge role OOF
backgrounds play in many movies' most dramatic/emotional moments.
--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
Bay Natives
http://www.baynatives.com


Paul Furman

Content - The Zeiss Myth...
Found 66 post(s). Page 5 of 7
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |










 
South Africa Homes - Manila Homes - Apple Computer - What Is Voip - Kryssning
Photoshop questions