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...

On another slant - do lens makers really give a rat's ass about bokeh,
design lenses with bokeh in mind, or even bother to think about it?
Or do they simply design a lens with certain desirable characteristics,
which just happens to produce some kind of bokeh as a side effect, so that
is what you get?


Norm Fleming

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

I've carried out *lots* of tests on lenses (though none particularly for
bokeh - there using the lens for a while tells me what I need to know
about its bokeh), but I don't have the presumption to post them on the
World Wide Web as the *ultimate truth*...


Chris Loffredo

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

But at least Rockwell got off his butt and DID some tests. That is a lot
more than his critics did.


Jeremy

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

Considering that nobody is releasing new 35mm film lenses anymore, it is
fast becoming a moot point.
Even new digital lenses are not easily compared, because they are one part
of a larger system including the chip, the number of MP, the amount of
digital noise and the sharpening algorithms utilized. The notion of
isolating lens performance measurements, and not taking the other factors
into account, seems inappropriate.
Just read the online camera reviews, and lenses are described in only the
broadest, most generic terms ("it has what seems to be a pretty good lens").
Just WHAT is the definition of a "pretty good lens?"
True, lens data never did tell the whole story, but it was useful in
spotting trends. Some brands had consistently better performance than
others. Given 35mm's limits, photographers that wanted to squeeze every bit
of performance out of their equipment needed to know that information.
As for bokeh, it is going to become a function of post-shoot editing, just
like we apply gaussian blur, rather than use soft-focus filters in front of
lenses. Already, Corel PSP XI has a rather primitive method of applying a
blur to the parts of the image that surround the main subject. Just a
couple of mouse clicks and you have bokeh--adjustable to taste. I'm sure
that feature will be continually refined in future upgrades of the software.
How long before software vendors begin creating databases of lenses so they
can apply fixes designed specifically for individual lens models? Imagine
being able to batch process all the photos taken by a given lens to apply
corrections for barrel/pincushion distortion, chromatic aberration, maybe
even slight adjustments for color balance? I suspect that lens performance
measurements won't be quite as significant as they used to be, because it is
easy to make corrections during post-shoot editing.


Jeremy

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

"a test focusing on one small aspect of
bokeh"
A quite paradoxical phrase - anybody "focusing" on bokeh at all needs
both their head and their lens examined ;-)
:-)


Thebokehking

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

BIG SNIP
I understand and agree with your points, mostly, however, but I am
greatful that he (or anybody else for that matter) has done anything at
all when it comes to _bokeh_ and even more greatful when the comparison
is between 50mm fast normals (for the most part) and a Zeiss vs. Nikon
comparison to boot (an area I am particularly interested in) .
"Simplistic" or not, something (a test focusing on one small aspect of
bokeh at one specific distance) is better than nothing - the "tests"
(at least the bokeh part of it) was "meaningful" to me. YMMV :-)


Thebokehking

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

Partly repeating what I posted elsewhere regarding Rockwell:
Rockwell's "tests" are based on flawed methodology and laughable
conclusions.
Lens "performance", according Rockwell, is only the sharpness at the
center of a digital capture.
Also Rockwell's "tests" of bokeh - based on only one focusing distance
and only one OOF plane - are utterly meaningless.
To attempt to measure or evaluate extremely complex characteristics like
bokeh (and overall lens performance) with a couple of snapshots is
simply ludicrous!
Unless all you are interested in is taking such snapshots, in which case
his "tests" might actually be good predictors of what you'll get...
Also, Rockwell loses any credibility when he argues that lens shades are
useless.
But then often those who provide simplistic answers to difficult
questions are the most admired.


Chris Loffredo

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

It seems to me that you can get any bokeh you want/need with
Photoshop.....Just take some photos of out of focus throw rugs, and towels
in various colors, and keep them on file for background layers.......


William Graham

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote
No, I needed a focusing helical. The Lentar has a focusing
helical - which I plan to use. The glass in the lens and
the aperture will be removed and I will use what is left.
Why you may ask?
Close-up lenses make good sharp-in-the-middle soft
focusy lenses. Problem is how to mount just the close
up lens on a camera. Need a focusing helical...
And that's why. The Lentar was the cheapest thing I
could find on ebay: $0.99
I had a 35mm f3.5 Lentar pre-set when I was
young. It took as good pictures as anything else -
perfectly good lens.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com


Nicholas O. Lindan

Re: The Zeiss Myth...

Yes, but there is an element of inconsistency (and, therefore, risk) with
3rd-party lenses. Take Vivitar: They spec'ed out their lens designs and
awarded contracts to the lowest bidders. I suspect that Quanterray does the
same thing.
Even if you find a good lens among such brands, the odds are good that the
same model of lens next year will have been made by another company. And
WHO has the time to go around buying and testing all those cheaper lenses in
search of some good ones?
I had a fling with third-party lenses 30 years ago, (including a Lentar 25mm
lens), and I still remember seeing the differences on my film. The frames
shot by the SMC Takumars were bright, clear and color-saturated. The other
frames--on the same roll of film--were grayish and much less saturated. I
still have that Lentar. I have no clue as to why I didn't just chuck it
into the trash.
While I fault no one who chooses to buy cheap lenses, I personally have
found that I am more often than not disappointed by such lenses, and I pay a
little more to get consistency. I believe that my real cost has been less
than it would have been with third-party lenses. I have 5 SMC Takumar
normal lenses that function just as they did when they were new in 1974.
Contrast them with my Fuji 50mm normal lens, where the lubricant has
virtually solidified, making it nearly impossible to twist the focusing
ring.
Or my SMC Takumar 28mm/35mm/50mm and 55mm lenses that all take the
same-sized 49mm filters. My Lentar requires a 50mm filter. Who needs to be
bothered buying separate filters for various lenses, when the OEM brand is
designed to virtually all use the same size filter?
I have learned the hard way the difference between "lowest price" and "best
value," and for me, it seems better to stick to OEM branded lenses.


Jeremy

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










 
Kayak Rentals Myrtle Beach
Photoshop questions