Carl Zeiss

While I cannot state for sure that the figures below indicate that the Zeiss lens is better than any other consumer grade lens in a Digicam........

I CAN say that the lens is absolutely NOT a limiting factor in the 5MP Sony.....whereas it might be in other cameras.

The lens is all about resolution.
No, not CCD resolution, but photo resolution.

The Sony F707, with CZ lens, is the ONLY camera that can resolve to at least 1450 LPH with extinction at 1800 LPH.

Other cameras use the very same CCD but cannot touch it. Why can't they? Well it "could" be the lens . It certainly isn't the CCD in the case of the minolta for instance, Same CCD.

But most certainly the lens is capable of a higher demonstrated photo resoloution than any other camera out there.

Read

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/page17.asp

For a true test of Photo Resolution/lens resolutiuon/
This is IMO the only Viable "scientific" methodology available to us.
It is just not practical to remove the lens and test it.

Scientific and logical must be logical.

Homer

Pete said:

Steve Wong said:

What? Is that what you mean by scientific and logical evaluation of
lens? lol!

Click to expand...

The meaning of scientific and logical evaluation speaks for itself.
If you think there is something humorous about the subject or that
opinion and speculation are superior - that is your prerogative.

Pete said:

Sorry! I don't really see any new idea of your own here!

Click to expand...

I never claimed any of these thoughts were original to me - just
that they were a better way to evaluate lens performance (objective

• scientific - logical as opposed to subjective and emotional).

Pete said:

And you are wrong AGAIN! Leica still owns the best lens. The Carl
Zeiss T* comes second.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I said anything about who was first or second -
just that there is a better way to find out.

Pete said:

Last, but not least. Please learn to put your ideas in short
paragraphs. Just that you wrote more doesn't mean you know more (It
is only a copy of what you have read somewhere else.). Nothing in
your writings is your own ideas. What a waste of time!

Click to expand...

Of course you are right quantity is no substitute for quality - but
then I wasn't trying to substitute one for the other. Some ideas
take a few more words to express. And I never claimed that the
ideas were my own. I didn't invent optical bench testing or methods

• but you can be sure they are used fairly universally by companies

that make lenses and people that evaluate them. These ideas are not
a waste of time - but it does seem the logic of them is wasted on
you.

Pete said:

Sorry, if I made you feel bad. But this is my last reply to your
posting.

Click to expand...

Steve - you didn't make me feel bad. I never made any (objectively)
unsupported claims as to who made better lenses so I have no basis
for feeling one way or the other. My only claim is that there is a
better way to decide these things and it is the one used by the
companies you seem to respect so highly. Beyond speculation and
opinion there is something called truth. It is in the numbers that
come from the measurements made on these lenses. Now maybe not all
the tests are run or the results available on all the lenses but
that doesn't mean that speculation and opinion can step in and be
elevated to the same level.

Reply or not as you choose. What I've stated is fairly simple and
fairly basic and has NOT made any claim as to who or what is
better. If you choose to elevate opinion above fact and logic -
that is your right.

Pete

Pete said:

Steve Wong

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Homer40784 said:

The lens is all about resolution.
No, not CCD resolution, but photo resolution.

Click to expand...

Homer40784 said:

For a true test of Photo Resolution/lens resolutiuon/
This is IMO the only Viable "scientific" methodology available to us.
It is just not practical to remove the lens and test it.

Scientific and logical must be logical.

Click to expand...

While resolution is one of the factors, it isnt the only factor ...

What good is a fine resolution photo when it comes out too dark, color being off, or a line comes out looking like a curve? Arent any of these can also be effected by the quality of the lens?

jc

Give me a break Jimmy.
You know the answer to that as well as I do.
Of course they are important.
Are you saying that the Zeiss lens causes
the 707 to produce a picture that is too dark? Bull.
Are you saying the color is "off"? Bull.

Are you saying the 707 lens causes "curves". Yes. 1.1% barrel distortion at worst case. Not bad for a 5x tele lens. And as opposed to resolution, easliy correctable in PS.

Homer

Jimmy Chen said:

Jimmy Chen said:

The lens is all about resolution.
No, not CCD resolution, but photo resolution.

Click to expand...

Jimmy Chen said:

For a true test of Photo Resolution/lens resolutiuon/
This is IMO the only Viable "scientific" methodology available to us.
It is just not practical to remove the lens and test it.

Scientific and logical must be logical.

Click to expand...

While resolution is one of the factors, it isnt the only factor ...

What good is a fine resolution photo when it comes out too dark,
color being off, or a line comes out looking like a curve? Arent
any of these can also be effected by the quality of the lens?

jc

Click to expand...

Homer,

I presumed everybody giving comment here has some kind of BASIC knowledge. But it turned out I was wrong.

I absolutely agree with what you have pointed out about the resolution. In fact, resolution is among the most objective test parameters of a lens performance to me. (Maybe you also agree with this.)

Steve Wong.

Homer said:

Give me a break Jimmy.
You know the answer to that as well as I do.
Of course they are important.
Are you saying that the Zeiss lens causes
the 707 to produce a picture that is too dark? Bull.
Are you saying the color is "off"? Bull.
Are you saying the 707 lens causes "curves". Yes. 1.1% barrel
distortion at worst case. Not bad for a 5x tele lens. And as
opposed to resolution, easliy correctable in PS.

Homer

Click to expand...

Larry,

When we were comparing "which hamburgers are more delicious", some people are talking about analyzing them for their content of "sugar, salt, water, etc" (VERY scientific though) ......

LOL!!!

Steve Wong.

Larry G said:

Pete said:

Larry G said:

I was handed some digital images on a CD a few weeks ago and was
asked to prepare some 'flyers' and promo material for an
exhibition. The pictures were sharper and cleaner than I was used
to seeing (having once owned a Fuji 6900) and curiousity got the
better of me. I discovered the shots had been taken on a Sony S70.
Need I say more... for me, that Carl Ziess lens lived up the name.

--
Larry G

Click to expand...

No - I think you said enough. But what I think you need to do is
think about what you are saying before you say it.

Click to expand...

Pompous git!

Larry G43983 said:

If you want to compare the performance of a particular lens with
another, the worst way you can possibly do it is to introduce other
variables into the evaluation. You are talking about two different
lenses on two different cameras. The camera imagers don't have the
same resolution (interpolated six megapixels is not the same as six
megapixels or even five). The imager pixel patterns are different.
The 6900's is definitely processed to get the final image. Plus you
don't know what other processing is done in the camera for the two
images. It doesn't even sound like you are comparing the same
subject matter shot with two different cameras. And I sense you
know little about how the pictures were taken (do photographers A
and B have steady hands, use tripods - was each camera at optimum
focus?). I can't imagine much worse of a foundation for stating
that "Carl Ziess lens lived up the name".

Now it sounds like you are in the business of looking at pictures -
so I have no reason to doubt your statement that the 707 shots were
"were sharper and cleaner" then the 6900 shots.

Click to expand...

Who mentioned a 707?????????????????????????????????????????
Larry G.
All I'm saying is

Larry G43983 said:

there is much more then the lens involved in your comparison. And
the only true way to compare lens performance is with test images
on a test bench.

Pete

Click to expand...

--
Larry G

Click to expand...

Pete, I was debating furiously with myself whether it would be a waste of breath to comment on your post at all. However your intemperate response to Larry begged for som additonal perspective.

While the glaring light and structure of the scientific method can often bring clarity to an investigation, closed mindedness and rigidity of thinking can never help.

When you claim that the only valid comparison is a one to one comparison of lens to lens—sans camera and accoutrements, you are being unreasonably arbitrary. Since the parameters you set for the study are impossible you doom it to failure and then say that because of this no objective comparison can be made.

What is considerably worse is that you beligerently maintain that any other comparison and resultant conclusions are tainted or worse. This is arrogance and indicative of narrow mindedness.

Even the scientific method allows for inference and extrapolation. Common sense is a term oft bandied about and misunderstood and I try to avoid the term in all but the most egregious cases.

As to this specific instance of comparison and analysis of fixed lenses on digicams, I would point out that even interchangable lenses made for film cameras are not tested by themselves. If they were the results would be meaningless.

A camera lens system is designed for a particular camera. To "test" it in any manner other than connected to it's camera, might be a fine exercise but meaningless to its ultimate use.

Because fixed lenses are just that, fixed permanently to its camera, it would be folly indeed to try to remove it in order to subject it to some arbitrary "test" which could have little bearing on how it would function once reattached to its camera.

While I could go into detail as to why other sufficient evidence exists to validate the Carl Zeiss lenses used on Sony digicams as exceptional and, arguably, the finest currently available on any fixed lens camera, that is a topic beyond the scope and intent of this post.

Which is to merely point out the extremely shaky perch you have built on fallacious and arbitrary underpinnings and the inadvisability of using it to cast aspersions.

-Ed (Void Where Prohibited, Your Mileage May Vary) W.
http://www.pbase.com/ewaldorph/dpreview
Sony F505v (with Canon 500D +2 lens for macros)
(;¬ þ)

Hi All,

I read with much interest this thread. No doubt the CZ lens is a excellent lens. I have seen a lot of great, high resolution pictures from it. My question is why Sony & CZ did not introduce a 28 mm in their zoom: 28-85 (x3) , 28-110 (x4) or 28-140 (x5). The Sony DSC-D700 is the only Sony digicam with a 28 mm (28-140 mm). Any idea why this practice has been discontinued? Are 28 mm zooms so difficult or expensive to manufacture? How many of you here would have preferred a zoom starting with 28mm? In my opinion the 28 mm is very versatile (indoor spaces, group photography, landscape, architecture, street scape etc.) As for me the 28mm is determinant in my choice of a digicam. I need a 28mm for most of the time. Having the Sony or Canon WD-58 attached to the F707 most of the time renders it unappropriate to me.

John

Kelcey said:

Hi! What is good about the Carl Zeiss lens that makes it better
than any other lens? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Homer40784 said:

Are you saying that the Zeiss lens causes
the 707 to produce a picture that is too dark? Bull.
Are you saying the color is "off"? Bull.
Are you saying the 707 lens causes "curves". Yes. 1.1% barrel
distortion at worst case. Not bad for a 5x tele lens. And as
opposed to resolution, easliy correctable in PS.

Click to expand...

Homer ...

Please review your statements ... So are you saying most, if not all, of the problems of the Sony cannot be caused by the lens just because it is CZ?

I mean, really break your answer down into how one would present the facts as it if this is a 35mm SLR instead of a digitial ...

What proof does anyone have on what is the real cause for each of the problems the 707 has? Has anyone extracted the lens out of the body and attach it to some other body to verify it isnt the lens? Or the other way around, another lens on the 707 body and see if the problems still occure. No, so how can you assume it isnt the lens? Of course, I am not saying the 707 doesnt produce good images either.

The fact of the matter is so far all of the reviews/conclusions/images are all based on the 707 as one, and I have not seen any reviews of the CZ lens alone. So to say CZ is the reason why the 707 is better then other digitals is inconclusive at best.

jc

Jimmy,

2 comments for you.

1) Please learn more about the basics b4 you put yourself into a discussion situation.

2) Be reasonable. Tell me, how you are going to separate the lens out of the digital camera to test it? Do you know the basic structure of a digital camera???

Steve Wong.

Jimmy Chen said:

Jimmy Chen said:

Are you saying that the Zeiss lens causes
the 707 to produce a picture that is too dark? Bull.
Are you saying the color is "off"? Bull.
Are you saying the 707 lens causes "curves". Yes. 1.1% barrel
distortion at worst case. Not bad for a 5x tele lens. And as
opposed to resolution, easliy correctable in PS.

Click to expand...

Homer ...

Please review your statements ... So are you saying most, if not
all, of the problems of the Sony cannot be caused by the lens just
because it is CZ?

I mean, really break your answer down into how one would present
the facts as it if this is a 35mm SLR instead of a digitial ...

What proof does anyone have on what is the real cause for each of
the problems the 707 has? Has anyone extracted the lens out of the
body and attach it to some other body to verify it isnt the lens?
Or the other way around, another lens on the 707 body and see if
the problems still occure. No, so how can you assume it isnt the
lens? Of course, I am not saying the 707 doesnt produce good images
either.

The fact of the matter is so far all of the
reviews/conclusions/images are all based on the 707 as one, and I
have not seen any reviews of the CZ lens alone. So to say CZ is the
reason why the 707 is better then other digitals is inconclusive at
best.

jc

Click to expand...

Steve,

Thank you for your comments ...

Steve Wong said:

1) Please learn more about the basics b4 you put yourself into a
discussion situation.

Click to expand...

Basics of photo = body, film, lens ... In the digital world, we removed the film and replaced with CCD. That does not mean lens issues vanish into thin air and dont exist anymore, CZ or not.

Steve Wong said:

2) Be reasonable. Tell me, how you are going to separate the lens
out of the digital camera to test it? Do you know the basic
structure of a digital camera???

Click to expand...

LOL, so you also stating that no one has actually tested the true optical possibilities of what the 707 CZ lens can produce other then the 707? If so, then how do you know if the 707 body/firmware isnt correcting any possible dissortions of the lens?

It doesnt require an expert to be able to figure out when many items combine are used to produce a set of results, any one item in itself isnt the only item that produced the set of results.

jc

I agree with you about testing the lens in isolation; this is the best way for assessing its quality. However, firmware is nothing more than software, so it cannot get "data" that is not present on the CCD. So any lack of detail cannot be created out of nothing by firmware.

A digicam reminds me of an HIFI chain, where every step adds distortion/loss of data to the final sound. Think of a digicam as a serial system: first the lens, then the CCD and finally the DSP chipset plus firmware. Every step contributes to "ruin" the final image.

Best regards.

Jimmy Chen said:

Jimmy Chen said:

Of course, there are so many more factors that contribute to the
final result, but at least these two are closely related to the
quality of lenses.

Click to expand...

This is one of the major problems with any digitcam, however. I do
not claim myself to be knowledgeable in photos, but even I know a
good lens can make a bad 35mm body good, or bad films can make it
all bad no matter what lens/body you use.

However, here we are in the digital world assuming the CZ is the
best lens availabile in the digital world ... Here is a question
then ... Has anyone actually taken apart the lens and place it on
another digital body and test if there are improvements due to the
lens? I mean, how do we know the CCD is not the one causing the
problems? How do we know the firmware isnt the one causing the
problems? Or to reverse the issues, how do we know the firmware
isnt actually correcting any possible issues of the lens? If they
can correct the firmware to fix the BFS, whose to say they didnt
code the firmware to have more or less red?

Here we are, assuming CZ on the Sony is the best, meanwhile no one
has taken the subject matter and perform an indendpenant test of
it. All objective observations, I'll say.

jc

Click to expand...

Amando Hernández said:

I agree with you about testing the lens in isolation; this is the
best way for assessing its quality. However, firmware is nothing
more than software, so it cannot get "data" that is not present on
the CCD. So any lack of detail cannot be created out of nothing by
firmware.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you on the details, but firmware can effect the final output as well, after all, firmware is what translates and transfers that CCD data to the stick. The pre/post production changes are good examples of firmware fixes.

jc

Kyocera has the license to produce Zeiss lenses in Japan. Kyocera also makes the Contax camera, originally from Germany.

Richard Ozaroff
[email protected]

Steve_K said:

Mishik said:

xsivone said:

Buying a camera with the Carl Zeiss lens is like comparing home
speakers that are THX certified. The highest standards of quality.
Guaranteed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I assume your joking here. True, Zeis lenses are among the best in
the world but Nikkor lenses are top quality professional equipment.
Many pro photographers swear by Nikon equipment & lenses. I'd put
a real Nikkor (not the ones in their digicams) up against a Zeis
any day, but for now the Sony's with the Zeis lenses have to be the
best prosumer deal out there.
Also, I'd be interested if someone out there could answer this but
I'll bet that Sony probably manufactures the lenses under licence
from Zeis. I doubt that (with the quantities of cameras they sell)
Zeis makes & supplies the lenses themselves.

As far as the THX certified speakers ... LOL !!! Don't even
compare home theater junk with real hi-end audio. Go to a hi-end
audio showroom & listen to some systems with some of the better
B&W, JMLab or Theil's. Even something like the Paradigm Reference
(Canadian) speakers wihich are only 'B' rated will blow away the
'THX' stuff.

Click to expand...

Ah Jimmy you are talking just to hear your head rattle now.
What you postulate is just not done.

Not one shred of evidence exists that this has ever been done any company. And there are good technicl reasons why this is so.

Any one can say what tyhey want but we do require that some semblance of proof exists. Just as you "say" you do.
As to the My post....you missed the whole point. Probably my fault.

THere is a finite resolution that can be reached with 5MP. That is approx 1800 LPH. It is nearly impossible because there is no "perfect" lens that has total purity. Even the electronics are suspect. It is generally agreed that about 1400LPH is about all that is possible.

By reaching 1450LPH and 1800 LPH extinction (In other words right at the theoretical limit of 5MP, we know that the lens cannot be limiting the performance of the camera. NO OTHER CONSUMER CAMERA can make that claim. Of course it is possible that the next Nikon lens (The CP5000) may match it. And Canon may respond. But...it is patently obvioux that the Sony could NOT have matched this resolution with a lesser lens.

It is also obvious that the Sony could not have improved on this performance with a BETTER lens.

THis will be my last post on the matter unless you present some eveidence instead of demanding it.

Homer

Jimmy Chen said:

Thank you for your comments ...

Jimmy Chen said:

1) Please learn more about the basics b4 you put yourself into a
discussion situation.

Click to expand...

Basics of photo = body, film, lens ... In the digital world, we
removed the film and replaced with CCD. That does not mean lens
issues vanish into thin air and dont exist anymore, CZ or not.

Jimmy Chen said:

2) Be reasonable. Tell me, how you are going to separate the lens
out of the digital camera to test it? Do you know the basic
structure of a digital camera???

Click to expand...

LOL, so you also stating that no one has actually tested the true
optical possibilities of what the 707 CZ lens can produce other
then the 707? If so, then how do you know if the 707 body/firmware
isnt correcting any possible dissortions of the lens?

It doesnt require an expert to be able to figure out when many
items combine are used to produce a set of results, any one item in
itself isnt the only item that produced the set of results.

jc

Click to expand...

My B&W speakers are NOT THX certified, but they sound absolutly stunning. They are probably better than most THX certified speakers.

Carl Zeiss makes some of the best lenses out there.

xsivone said:

Buying a camera with the Carl Zeiss lens is like comparing home
speakers that are THX certified. The highest standards of quality.
Guaranteed.

Click to expand...

When it comes to SLR lenses, Nikon make some of the best lenses. At times it might be equal to or better than Carl Zeiss. For digicams/ and PS cameras i am not sure how good the lenses are comparable to their CZ counterparts.

I think the CZ lens on the 707 is very good, but I dont think you are getting the quality of the Leica/Contax(read Yashica) lens variety. The cost of the Sonys would go way up it were otherwise.

BTW this is not a flame or flame bait.

Mishik said:

xsivone said:

Kelcey said:

Hi! What is good about the Carl Zeiss lens that makes it better
than any other lens? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
All the best,
Michael

Click to expand...

Homer,

It's not your fault man!

I believe there are a lot to improve on image capture (be it ccd or cmos). Now it is becoming clear to us that it is not only the megapixels that counts.

The other problem is with the zoom lens. We all know fixed focal length lens are much better. This is probably a solution to break the 1800LPH limit.

After all, I am very happy with my S75 as a point-n-shot. I don't usually print them out. Sometimes the grains are really "bad". But to me, a lovely picture doesn't have to be grain/noise-free. Agree?

Steve Wong.

Homer said:

Ah Jimmy you are talking just to hear your head rattle now.
What you postulate is just not done.
Not one shred of evidence exists that this has ever been done any
company. And there are good technicl reasons why this is so.
Any one can say what tyhey want but we do require that some
semblance of proof exists. Just as you "say" you do.
As to the My post....you missed the whole point. Probably my fault.

THere is a finite resolution that can be reached with 5MP. That is
approx 1800 LPH. It is nearly impossible because there is no
"perfect" lens that has total purity. Even the electronics are
suspect. It is generally agreed that about 1400LPH is about all
that is possible.
By reaching 1450LPH and 1800 LPH extinction (In other words right
at the theoretical limit of 5MP, we know that the lens cannot be
limiting the performance of the camera. NO OTHER CONSUMER CAMERA
can make that claim. Of course it is possible that the next Nikon
lens (The CP5000) may match it. And Canon may respond. But...it is
patently obvioux that the Sony could NOT have matched this
resolution with a lesser lens.
It is also obvious that the Sony could not have improved on this
performance with a BETTER lens.

THis will be my last post on the matter unless you present some
eveidence instead of demanding it.

Homer

Click to expand...

Homer40784 said:

Not one shred of evidence exists that this has ever been done any
company. And there are good technicl reasons why this is so.

Click to expand...

So even you agree that no one has shown the quality of the lens on its own merit.

Homer40784 said:

As to the My post....you missed the whole point. Probably my fault.

THere is a finite resolution that can be reached with 5MP. That is
approx 1800 LPH. It is nearly impossible because there is no
"perfect" lens that has total purity. Even the electronics are
suspect. It is generally agreed that about 1400LPH is about all
that is possible.

Click to expand...

No, Homer, I understood your point very clearly, and I totally concur with the fact that the CZ lens on the Sony can offer some very fine res. But is res. the ONLY factor one should use to determin the quality of the lens? I hope you arent suggesting that. That is my point. There are MANY lens even in the 35mm world that offers sharp images, but fall short on other aspects.

Homer40784 said:

THis will be my last post on the matter unless you present some
eveidence instead of demanding it.

Click to expand...

LOL, so we should all just accept it as a fact that the CZ on the 707 is the best in the market w/o any facts other then that is it a CZ?

Btw, I do not believe I need to the facts when I have raise the questions of doubt ... It is the "truth" sayers that needs to present the eveidences to prove my doubts are wrong. The burren of proof isnt on my shoulders ...

The only fact that I have seen as of today is no one has presented any data on the quality of the lens itself.

jc

This might be interesting to you.

http://www.company7.com/zeiss/history.html

Amy

--beauty is really in the LCD/EVF of the beholder http://www.something-fishy.com/photography

John Lai said:

Hi All,
I read with much interest this thread. No doubt the CZ lens is a
excellent lens. I have seen a lot of great, high resolution
pictures from it. My question is why Sony & CZ did not introduce a
28 mm in their zoom: 28-85 (x3) , 28-110 (x4) or 28-140 (x5). The
Sony DSC-D700 is the only Sony digicam with a 28 mm (28-140 mm).
Any idea why this practice has been discontinued? Are 28 mm zooms
so difficult or expensive to manufacture? How many of you here
would have preferred a zoom starting with 28mm? In my opinion the
28 mm is very versatile (indoor spaces, group photography,
landscape, architecture, street scape etc.) As for me the 28mm is
determinant in my choice of a digicam. I need a 28mm for most of
the time. Having the Sony or Canon WD-58 attached to the F707 most
of the time renders it unappropriate to me.

Click to expand...

I agree that I would have liked a 28mm lens on the f707. The lack of 28mm is one of the main things that made me think twice about buying it.

I believe that it is missing the 28mm wide angle because most consumers are more interested in telephoto lenses than wide angle lenses. It would be nice if they made two versions of the f707, one with a 28-xx zoom and one with the 35-190, but I'm not suprised that they didn't do so. It would alternatively be nice if a camera manufacturer took initiative to teach consumers the value of a wide angle lens, but I don't think any of them want to take that risk.

Hopefully in a few years D-SLR cameras will be less expensive and we can choose our own lenses focal lengths.

alex