Carl Zeiss

Jimmy Chen · Jan 2, 2002

Ed (;¬ >) said:
while you were just being pleasantly
narrow-minded. I simply felt that I would be wasting my breath.
However, since you are so incessant and since there are a large
number of lurkers in this forum who might be swayed by your
incessant illogic, I will respond as a public service.

Ed, name calling isnt going to prove anything. Facts will ... Please do continue to provide the forum the necessary infomation on how to truly evaluate an $1,000 investment.

As for testing lens ... Here are some instructions that seems to be pretty common in the photo world ... I really fail to see why when it comes to the digitial world, we are saying it is impossable to do them ...

http://www.focalwidth.com/library/lesson5.shtml
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html
http://bobatkins.freeyellow.com/lenstest.html
http://wdn.com/~johnchap/lenstest/testlens.htm

Ed (;¬ >) said:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=1974075

Interesting POV, but here are mine ... ;p

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/E8B873E7C487F87AC12569770054B146

Of the DSC-F55E, while proving CZ can produce quality product, it isnt proof of the 707 lens by fact, only association.

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/911080C7F5DCD057C12569770054C1A1

Again, same as about ... of the F55, not the 707.

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/8A44E2E57B046DC0C125697700549957

Marketing hpye and offered no spec on the given subject matter, the 707 lens.

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/73D528C09B620A11C125697700548CD6

f-no......................resolution
.............................(line pairs per millimeter)
.45.............................35
.32.............................50
.22.............................70
.16...........................100
.11...........................140
...8...........................200
5.6...........................280
...4...........................400
2.8...........................560 > >

So how does the 707 lens stack up against the above info?

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/AD374A192F982690C12569770054CA7B

...

Today's image receivers come with pixel sizes ranging from 12 to 4 microns. Using pixels of this size range, resolutions from 40 to 125 lp/mm can be achieved. The resolving power of many Zeiss lenses is considerably higher, so 4 micron pixel size is in no way a problem for Zeiss lenses. > >

Very informative. But it still does not answer one very basic question ... Is the 707 lens one of these CZ lens, so does this "professional" standard apply to the 707 lens?

Ed (;¬ >) said:
Can you really believe that a company like CZ, that makes lenses
for high tech medical, research, industrial and astronomical optics
would sell its name to Sony to slap on an inferior product?

But let me ask you a question in reply to your question ... Do you actually believe a company like CZ, where their professional quality lens are commands for thousands on the market, uses the same lens in a sub-$1000 digital?

Ed (;¬ >) said:
Can you imagine a company like Intel

Ed (;¬ >) said:
And because CZ
made knock-off lenses once, might they not do it again?

Intel makes some quality high end CPUs, such as the Itanium which commands anywhere from $2600 for low end to $7000 for a high end CPU. They also are the same maker that produces the Celeron which can be as cheap as $25. Are you saying CZ is a company that only makes high end product, and not low cheap end products?

Please, no way am I knocking CZ by saying they do not make quality products ... My question since the start is, do we know for fact that the lens in the 707 is one of those high end QC lens that apply to their professional line?

And for your other post ...

"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."

Please do provide some of that "sufficient evidence" for the 707, if you dont mind me requesting ...

jc

alex wetmore · Jan 2, 2002

Steve Wong said:
"I have been down this primrose path of lens testing, and I've even
been sucked into thinking it was useful. Afterall, as an engineer
with a Ph.D., I should be in favor of objective testing, right?

Well, I've gotten over it, and I finally agree with Ansel Adams,
who said when asked about lens testing, that he took pictures with
the lens, and if he liked the pictures, he kept the lens."

I like this quote and agree with it.

I'll also say that I'm only halfway pleased with the CZ lens. It has some flaws, not fatal ones, but flaws anyway.

The lens has noticable barrel distortion at it's widest angle. It also flares quite badly compared to the Pentax SMC lenses that I use on my SLR.

is an example of an image which flared a lot with the CZ lens on the f707, but wouldn't have flared on one of the lenses that I normally use. A lens hood probably would have prevented this though (you can see that the sun is just outside of the image).

If you look at the lens you can see many more internal reflections on the CZ lens than a Pentax SMC lens.

On the other hand the CZ lens is nice and sharp. I would prefer a different zoom range, but wasn't given that option...

alex

Jimmy Chen · Jan 2, 2002

Ed (;¬ >) said:
Ed (;¬ >) said:

I don't think you can say its the lens - the most you can say is
what the camera as a system is capable of.

Click to expand...

Ed (;¬ >) said:
What about this concept is so difficult for you to understand?
Tests performed on a lens outside of the camera in no way relate to
the lens performance with the camera.

Please do explain ...

Let me use an example and you tell me of this is possible or not ...

We know the pre/post 707 had the following adjustments ...

No more green cast on gray patches
Green toned down (saturation decreased 5%)
Yellow toned down (saturation decreased 4%)
Red toned down (saturation decreased 7%)
Magenta toned down (saturation decreased 3%)
Cyan corrected (before had a 'dirty' green cast)

So, while it is possible for them to adjust the firmware to reduce the saturations. So we know the out come of the image can be adjusted via the firmware.

So, how can we truly know what lens is doing and what the firmware is doing that produced the final out come?

jc

Jimmy Chen · Jan 2, 2002

KCTrio said:
What is your point?

Simple ... no one proven the lens on the 707 is top of the line in the consumer market on its own merit, be better then Nikon, Canon, or anyone else ... But you seems to want to stuff that idea into the brains of people like me just because it is made by CZ.

KCTrio said:
Namely, you point out that no one has offered veridical, objective
evidence that the CZ lens is the "best," so therefore it's only
someone's freaking opinion. You further go on to insult the
majority of the people that have offered up evidence which, in
their opinion, buttresses their assertion that the CZ lens is best.
You base this again upon the solitary fact that no scientific
experiment has been conducted, so again, the majority are dealing
in subjective opinions while you keep waiting for facts.

When no facts are presented, they are just opinions ... It is as simple as that. My statements are of doubts, which happens to be against the facts some of you are making. As long as no one has provided the facts to fill the holes of my doubts, then we just cannot ass-u-me that the CZ lens on the 707 is the same quality of those multi-thousand $$ CZ lens just because it is made from the same factor/company.

KCTrio said:
Socrates didn't simply question people's knowledge, he tried to
arrive at the truth. I'll assert you've done neither. All you've
done is continue to offer your same statement back in people's
face. You've committed a fundamental logical error...you've
created a self-seeling argument, which by definition is illogical.

LOL, I am not trying to arrive to anything, other then just want more facts so I can obtain the answers that will remove my doubts ... If you want logic, it is also a "fundamental logical error", borrowing your words, to claim a statement as fact when no proof is provided to back it up. What grade do you believe you will receive when you do that on a college research paper? A or F?

KCTrio said:
I urge you to read Ed's response to your request earlier in this
thread entitled "reason sacrificed at the altar of scientific
method." [I've noticed you haven't responded to him, which doesn't
surprise me in the least.]

LOL, if you read this thread again, you will noticed I already have answered his post. Btw, dont ass-me-u, we dont all glue to the computer 24x7 just so we can reply to the posts on STF. If you know me from my other hobby, you will know I am a sucker for in-depth discussions when facts and evidences are presented, because that is the best way I learn. Those facts and evidences will only lead me to do more informational search to futher my knowledge.

KCTrio said:
Best might also mean "best for me." Some might not like the
low-end WA range of the F707. Clearly, no matter how good the CZ
lens is, it still might not be best for that person.

Ahh, so following your defination the word "best" is a very subjective word ... not as a matter of fact.

KCTrio said:
But best must in your eyes must be based on some objective lab
standard.

As for me, I am seriouly looking at the 707, as it does offer very sharp images, which I will need for the kind of shots I will need to take. A good enough macro, which I can improve by additional lens and flash (while a real hot shoe would be even better). The night-shot/frame, which within my hobby no one has yet to been able to document for the subjects matters involved. So as of to-date, the 707 is the best for me because of these features. The CZ quality lens just happens to be a nice bouns.

So far Ed has provided some interesting information which shows the CZ lens for Sony are in general considerabely good, and I appricate his informative post. I wish I could have said the same to your post.

jc

Ed (;¬ >) · Jan 2, 2002

Jimmy Chen said:
Jimmy Chen said:

while you were just being pleasantly
narrow-minded. I simply felt that I would be wasting my breath.
However, since you are so incessant and since there are a large
number of lurkers in this forum who might be swayed by your
incessant illogic, I will respond as a public service.

Click to expand...

Ed, name calling isnt going to prove anything. Facts will ...

Hello... Hello??? Knock, nock. Anybody home?

Jimmy Chen said:
Please do continue to provide the forum the necessary infomation on
how to truly evaluate an $1,000 investment.

As always, this forum is and will remain one of the best places to find pertinent information on Sony digicams. For those who really want it.

Jimmy Chen said:
As for testing lens ... Here are some instructions that seems to be
pretty common in the photo world ... I really fail to see why when
it comes to the digitial world, we are saying it is impossable to
do them ...

Did you even read this stuff? I quotefrom them below

Jimmy Chen said:
http://www.focalwidth.com/library/lesson5.shtml

He starts out: "An objective measure of lenses is useful to enable lenses to be compared with confidence."

But he, as do both you and Pete, fails to outline what an objective test might be. He goes on to promote using a resolution chart by, of all things, taking a picture of it!

Jimmy Chen said:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html

"In this section we discuss lens testing (actually, testing complete photographic systems) "

Jimmy Chen said:
http://bobatkins.freeyellow.com/lenstest.html

This guy not only promotes using a resolution charthe sells one in a "kit", too!

Jimmy Chen said:
http://wdn.com/~johnchap/lenstest/testlens.htm

Yet another resolution chart method.

Not one of these references explains how to test a lens without its camera. Nor do they say how that might be relevant. You have proved nothing here except to reinforce what eveyone in this forum has been saying: 1. You can only adequately test a lens with its camera. 2. Resolution charts are an excellent method of performing such tests. 3. Every reviewer of Sony cameras with CZ lenses has performed such tests and rated the lenses very highly.

Jimmy Chen said:
Interesting POV, but here are mine ... ;p

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/E8B873E7C487F87AC12569770054B146

Of the DSC-F55E, while proving CZ can produce quality product, it
isnt proof of the 707 lens by fact, only association.

Fact!! What kind of fact do you want. You are being obstinate.

Jimmy Chen said:
http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/911080C7F5DCD057C12569770054C1A1

Again, same as about ... of the F55, not the 707.

You are being unreasonable.

http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/73D528C09B620A11C125697700548CD6

Jimmy Chen said:
or motion, can produce resolutions higher than given in the
following table

[removed for space]

Jimmy Chen said:
So how does the 707 lens stack up against the above info?

Question asked and answered, many times. Read Phil's review as well as those of the other online reviewers.

Jimmy Chen said:
http://www.carlzeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/AD374A192F982690C12569770054CA7B

Very informative. But it still does not answer one very basic
question ... Is the 707 lens one of these CZ lens, so does this
"professional" standard apply to the 707 lens?

Oh, please. Again I remind you that I am not trying to change your mind. I am only trying to prevent you from negatively influencing folks who rely on experts like Phil and other credible reviewers to help them make decisions.

[removed for space]

Jimmy Chen said:
But let me ask you a question in reply to your question ... Do you
actually believe a company like CZ, where their professional
quality lens are commands for thousands on the market, uses the
same lens in a sub-$1000 digital?

Non-sequiter. Now you are assuming facts not in evidence. This is a conclusion that exists in your mind only. No other respondant in this thread, including me has said this.

Jimmy Chen said:
Jimmy Chen said:

Can you imagine a company like Intel

Click to expand...

Intel makes some quality high end CPUs, such as the Itanium which
commands anywhere from $2600 for low end to $7000 for a high end
CPU. They also are the same maker that produces the Celeron which
can be as cheap as $25. Are you saying CZ is a company that only
makes high end product, and not low cheap end products?

Very good example, but not for your point. Intel does not have the sterling reputation that CZ enjoys. They are known for delivering buggy products, deliberately disabling functionality in their processors so they can sell them cheaply, predatory marketing and pricing practices... need I go on?

Jimmy Chen said:
Please, no way am I knocking CZ by saying they do not make quality
products ... My question since the start is, do we know for fact
that the lens in the 707 is one of those high end QC lens that
apply to their professional line?

No one has said that it is. There are things in this world that can never be known for a "fact," or to the degree of certainty that you apparantly require. The "fact" remains that the CZ lenses on Sony digicams (including the F707) are the finest available today on any fixed-lens digital camera.

Jimmy Chen said:
And for your other post ...

[removed for space]

Jimmy Chen said:
Please do provide some of that "sufficient evidence" for the 707,
if you dont mind me requesting ...

Actually I do mind. If you haven't noticed I have covered much of that in my post to you (which was one of the reasons I sent it.) I can only hope that readers of this thread have been able to see your pessimism for what it is.

I am reminded of the child who has just learned the word 'why' and uses it ad infinitum-as nauseum in respose to every answer.

-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)

KCTrio · Jan 2, 2002

No, your point is to obfuscate with technobabble.

You think the word "best" isn't subjective? You're kidding, right?

I didn't make any argument for best lens, if you'll read my post, I avoided such observations intentionally, since I believe arriving at an answer to the question is an excercise in futillity. And, I never stated that the CZ lens were the best in the absence of any evidence to the contrary...that's the logical error you've accused others of. Save this accusation for them, not for me.

However, suffice it to say that I believe Ed has addressed your complaints sufficiently on the technical side. I simply accused you of making the error of a slippery slope, which you have failed to demonstrate otherwise.

Ed (;¬ >) · Jan 2, 2002

Jimmy Chen said:
Jimmy Chen said:

Jimmy Chen said:

I don't think you can say its the lens - the most you can say is
what the camera as a system is capable of.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Jimmy Chen said:

What about this concept is so difficult for you to understand?
Tests performed on a lens outside of the camera in no way relate to
the lens performance with the camera.

Click to expand...

Please do explain ...

Let me use an example and you tell me of this is possible or not ...

We know the pre/post 707 had the following adjustments ...

No more green cast on gray patches
Green toned down (saturation decreased 5%)
Yellow toned down (saturation decreased 4%)
Red toned down (saturation decreased 7%)
Magenta toned down (saturation decreased 3%)
Cyan corrected (before had a 'dirty' green cast)

So, while it is possible for them to adjust the firmware to reduce
the saturations. So we know the out come of the image can be
adjusted via the firmware.

So, how can we truly know what lens is doing and what the firmware
is doing that produced the final out come?

So how do you know the sky is blue and the grass is green? Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society? All I hear you shout is, "facts! Facts! Facts!" Are you conversant with the concept that there is no such thing as a fact?

We are all slaves of our senses and that interpreting mass of protoplasm between our ears. Have you ever experienced someone who has had their corpus callosum severed? Dealt with anyone under mind-altering drugs or brain damage in the sensory areas?

I suggest that if you are such a fan of "deep discussions" you join a philosophy forum. You are accomplishing nothing here.

-Ed

Jimmy Chen said:
jc

Homer40784 · Jan 2, 2002

alex wetmore said:
Steve Wong said:

Well, I've gotten over it, and I finally agree with Ansel Adams,
who said when asked about lens testing, that he took pictures with
the lens, and if he liked the pictures, he kept the lens."

Click to expand...

I like this quote and agree with it.

Me too.

alex wetmore said:
I'll also say that I'm only halfway pleased with the CZ lens. It
has some flaws, not fatal ones, but flaws anyway.

Yes this is true. Of every lens in the world.

alex wetmore said:
The lens has noticable barrel distortion at it's widest angle.

This is common knowledge. It is certainlty addressed in Phil's review.
Deosn't anybody raed the review section anymore?

It

alex wetmore said:
also flares quite badly compared to the Pentax SMC lenses that I
use on my SLR.

I wopuldn't know about this but I know that some lenses flare more than others.
You are however comparing apples to oranges I think.
How much did this Pentax cost?

alex wetmore said:
If you look at the lens you can see many more internal reflections
on the CZ lens than a Pentax SMC lens.

Oh, OK. I believe then that this lens would flare more than the Pentax.

alex wetmore said:
On the other hand the CZ lens is nice and sharp.

Yes it is.
Let me correct what seems to be a growing feeling here.
NO ONE has said that the CZ lens on the F707 is perfect.
Or even very good.......COMPARED to lenses that cost more than the whole camera.

What has been said, is that there is only so much resolution you can get out of a 5MP camera and it doesn't matter if you put a 500l/mm lerns on it or a 50l/mm lens on it.
THis camera gets ALL the theoretical limit of resiolution.
And it is the oNLY one so far (IN the sub $3000 range).

Therefore we know that the lens is "good enough". We believe that some lenses are not as good and therefore the cameras cannot match the 707 for resolution. Some even have the same CCD and still can't.

Is it the electronics perhaps and not the lens? Very unlikely. we are talking digital herte. It is very easy to build the electronics.

BTW, I thought you might like to see the lens flare on a 35mm F 1.4 Leica (Pretty good lens company ;> ) ) summilux ASPH.
It was mounted on an M6.
I believe this lens costs more than the whole 707.
And it is a fixed focal length which should be better than a vario lens.
I picked up this image over at the luminous site. Great site.

Now THAT is lens flare! LOL. But it is still considered a very good lens I imagine.

alex wetmore said:
alex

Steve Wong · Jan 2, 2002

Oh, at last, we have some intelligent discussion here.

My S75 also suffers from severe flare. But using it at a point-n-shot, I didn't even try a lens hood. It reminds me that was a sunny day though

Barrel distortion ..... more than I can expect on a 35mm focal length. But I suspect others will be having similar problems.

But I must say, with the right lighting, right exposure, and a tripod, the vivid colors are something I haven't seen with other consumer level digital cameras in the price range.

Cheers!!!

Steve Wong

Homer said:
alex wetmore said:

Steve Wong said:

Well, I've gotten over it, and I finally agree with Ansel Adams,
who said when asked about lens testing, that he took pictures with
the lens, and if he liked the pictures, he kept the lens."

Click to expand...

I like this quote and agree with it.

Click to expand...

Me too.

Homer40784 said:

I'll also say that I'm only halfway pleased with the CZ lens. It
has some flaws, not fatal ones, but flaws anyway.

Click to expand...

Yes this is true. Of every lens in the world.

Homer40784 said:

The lens has noticable barrel distortion at it's widest angle.

Click to expand...

This is common knowledge. It is certainlty addressed in Phil's review.
Deosn't anybody raed the review section anymore?

It

Homer40784 said:

also flares quite badly compared to the Pentax SMC lenses that I
use on my SLR.

Click to expand...

I wopuldn't know about this but I know that some lenses flare more
than others.
You are however comparing apples to oranges I think.
How much did this Pentax cost?

Homer40784 said:

If you look at the lens you can see many more internal reflections
on the CZ lens than a Pentax SMC lens.

Click to expand...

Oh, OK. I believe then that this lens would flare more than the
Pentax.

Homer40784 said:

On the other hand the CZ lens is nice and sharp.

Click to expand...

Yes it is.
Let me correct what seems to be a growing feeling here.
NO ONE has said that the CZ lens on the F707 is perfect.
Or even very good.......COMPARED to lenses that cost more than the
whole camera.
What has been said, is that there is only so much resolution you
can get out of a 5MP camera and it doesn't matter if you put a
500l/mm lerns on it or a 50l/mm lens on it.
THis camera gets ALL the theoretical limit of resiolution.
And it is the oNLY one so far (IN the sub $3000 range).

Therefore we know that the lens is "good enough". We believe that
some lenses are not as good and therefore the cameras cannot match
the 707 for resolution. Some even have the same CCD and still can't.
Is it the electronics perhaps and not the lens? Very unlikely. we
are talking digital herte. It is very easy to build the electronics.

BTW, I thought you might like to see the lens flare on a 35mm F 1.4
Leica (Pretty good lens company ;> ) ) summilux ASPH.
It was mounted on an M6.
I believe this lens costs more than the whole 707.
And it is a fixed focal length which should be better than a vario
lens.
I picked up this image over at the luminous site. Great site.

Now THAT is lens flare! LOL. But it is still considered a very good
lens I imagine.

Homer40784 said:

alex

Click to expand...

Pete · Jan 2, 2002

Ed (; > ) said:
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.

Ed - I wouldn't say it was a waste but then I don't think my comments to Larry were intemperate nor do I think I'm an arrogant butt.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
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.

True - and why your closed mindedness and rigidity of thinking are so obvious and offensive.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
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.

Yes I do (and have before) acknowledged that direct lens to lens comparison would be difficult (but not impossible) for consumer level digicams. But I didn't say that no other comparison could be validly made - just not ones (especially subjective ones) that are used to make arbitrary statements about the lens alone or in comparison to other lenses (alone) when they are based on objective or subjective observations of the performance of the entire camera. Since you can't readily remove the lens from the sensor and camera, any observations you make include the effects of the sensor, shutter and aperture settings and any post capture processing done in the camera. These effects are all included in the thing you are evaluating - the captured image. Also included are any other inputs to the camera - like shaking hands. If someone wants to do this kind of evaluation and then extrapolate some claim about comparative lens performance - that's fine with me. But if you say that my mind is closed or that I am rigid because I pointed out the folly of doing this, I vigorously disagree.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
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.

No - I never said that. If you want to claim that images captured with camera A are more vivid or sharper then images captured with camera B - go right ahead. If I don't agree with you I may state otherwise but I will never claim that my subjective evaluation is better or more accurate then yours. The only thing I've maintained is that if you want to talk about and compare lens performance, you shouldn't be including ten other factors in the observation that leads you to your conclusion. There is nothing arrogant or narrow minded about that statement.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
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.

Yes it does - in the absence of hard evidence, scientists will often infer or extrapolate - but they generally make that clear. What good science seldom does is to elevate conclusions based on inference and extrapolation to the same level as conclusions based on hard data - even when it is impossible to obtain hard data. That should be especially obvious in this case where there are so many other factors that can potentially influence the extrapolated or inferred conclusion. Larry was not even talking about comparing test target images - not even images of identical subjects - not even images taken by the same person with the same camera body and set up - but different lenses. The error of drawing a hard conclusion about lens performance should be so obvious to you that I can only imagine that you have no concept whatsoever of what common sense means!

However, if you simply want to take a portion of what Larry says:

"The pictures were sharper and cleaner than I was used to seeing (having once owned a Fuji 6900)"

No argument here - even with all the limitations implicit in his statement - it is Larry's subjective conclusion and he is entitled - no matter who disagrees with him. But when he extends it to say:

"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."

All I can say is that it was a very fuzzy process that enabled him to go from the image comparison to the conclusion. Given all the other factors that are or could have been a part of the difference he saw - I just don't know how he got there.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
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.

Oh but they are. Both in the labs where the lenses are designed and on the factory floor where they are sample tested and, sometimes, by some people who review cameras and lenses. Lens performance can be and is often evaluated by examination of the image formed in the film or imager plane without any film or imager present - using specialized equipment designed for the purpose. Now the resolution numbers you get with film may be different because of the details of the emulsion structure and the degree to which the film can be maintained in a single plane. These filmless results define the stand alone performance of the lens and are far from meaningless they tell you what the limiting resolution is due to the lens and they allow you to measure other performance aberations (chromatic and spatial). The only thing meaningless was your statement!

To be continued (I hope you don't have Steve's problem with regqards to word count)

Pete · Jan 2, 2002

Part II

Ed (;¬ >) said:
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.

In the past, aftermarket 35 mm lens manufacturers routinely designed a common lens for a variety of different cameras. The only thing different was a separate adapter ring purchased and mounted by the end user at the rear of the lens to interface to a specific camera body. I think this was called the T mount system - I don't know if they are still made.

While some aftermarket lenses were not all that good - that had little to do with the commonality of their design. Note also that 35 mm film camera makers routinely design a single lens that work with a number of different bodies of different quality and feature levels. AND higher end digital SLR style cameras use lenses designed for 35 mm film cameras (Fuji, Nikon, Canon - the Fuji S1 uses Nikor lenses). A camera lens is one element in a system. Its performance, features and interface can be specified just like any other element in the system - with a knowledge of the overall performance goals and interface requirements. Now camera and body design have to be compatible but there is obviously nothing to preclude a body maker from picking an existing lens and designing their camera to be used with it. Before they make their choice, they evaluate lenses based on cost and stand alone performance. Measuring the lens by itself is much more then a meaningless exercise - only your statement is meaningless!

Ed (;¬ >) said:
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.

It may not be easy or possible after the fact but I can assure you that it was done during the design process of the lens. I hope you don't think that Minolta or Sony waited until the camera body and sensor were designed before they specified the design of the lens. Time to market considerations with competitors hot on your heels just don't allow this approach. As with many other systems, the lens performance and interface parameters were specified early in the process along with the other elements of the camera and the design of the lens proceeds in parallel with the design of the rest of the camera. This is especially necessary when outsourcing the lens design, as Sony is not CZ's only customer. In effect, the lens was designed to meet certain requirements. Those requirements were driven by the design (and performance goals) of the rest of the camera but testing to determine lens compliance with design specifications was likely done on the lens alone. This does not imply that more testing and maybe some tweaking weren't done when the lens and body were brought together. In the same way then and also with 35 mm lenses, medium format - etc., meaningful test results from the lens alone form the basis for comparing performance of the lens to its spec and relative to other lenses.

Once again - if you want to compare lens performance in a meaningful way - you test the lens, not the lens and ten other things whose influence could alter your conclusion about the lens - if you ignored the possibility of that influence. And if you can't isolate the lens, then you can't reach hard and sweeping conclusions about its performance. Likely the most you can infer (for resolution) is what resolution the sensor design is capable of using raw images. And, if the overall design hits that target (for RAW images)then you can likely say the lens was not the limiting factor. Note this says nothing about chromatic aberration or any other distortion the lens might produce. That is common sense - not the rubbish you put forth.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
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.

On the contrary - if you go back to the top of the post that is exactly what Kelcey was asking:

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

Since you can "go into detail" - why don't you go ahead and do so for Kelcey. He has already concluded that CZ lenses are better then any other lenses - so you can just spout some more of your meaningless drivel and you will get no argument from him.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
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.

I would imagine you pulled this last one from the same place you get your common sense. I won't even guess where that might be but from the smell of it I have very strong suspicions. I can only say to you what I - in effect - said to Steve. Carl Zeiss (who you seem to respect very highly and whose company likely in general make very fine lenses) is probably turning in his grave to hear that he has the likes of you on his side.

Pete

Ed (;¬ >) said:
-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)

Lin Evans · Jan 2, 2002

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

Lots of variables, but the one thing which they seem to consistently do on the Sony cameras is win the resolution wars on resolution chart photos. This may or may not be of significant overall importance, but it does show in an easy comparison that they hold up well among the competition.

Lin -- http://204.42.233.244

Pete · Jan 2, 2002

Larry G said:
Who mentioned a 707?????????????????????????????????????????
Larry G.

You are right Larry and my apologies. I didn't pick up on my misread of your post till just now.

All I'm saying is there is much more then the lens involved in your comparison and I don't think you can reasonably jump from that comparison to your glowing conclusion about CZ lenses in general. I doubt even Carl Zeiss would do that. That is not to say that CZ lenses in general aren't fine products or that the particular CZ lens on the 70 or 707 is inferior to other lenses in similar class products. I just don't think you can get from point A to point B based on your observation.

Pete

PS: and If I offended you or came off as an arrogant butt as some have stated - I apologize for that too - that was not my intention.

Pete · Jan 2, 2002

Steve Wong said:
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.

but I don't apologize to you Steve - you are just an ignorant boob!

Steve Wong · Jan 2, 2002

Jimmy,

There are basically the educated and the uneducated.

There are basically people who write and people who read.

Just because you read a thousand articles doesn't mean you are in a position to write.

When you discuss, you thought you were an "analyst", just because you thought you thought you had a whole bunch of lens tests you had read in the photo magazines.

True to a certain extent though.

BUT!

First, many people in the discussion also have the same background. That makes you look like a robot.

Second, the way you present it make you look very illogical (and hence uneducated).

Sad but true. There are things you can learn in life as you grow up. But there are things that do not come up with your chronological age or life experience.

When smart people THINK, they put all the factors with different degree of question marks together and arrive at a conclusion (rather a best GUESS).

People who create a whole series of new question marks from the old question marks never arrive at a conclusion. In fact, they mess up everything. This kind of thinking is typical of illogical, inconherent, and uneducated type. Uneducated, in the way because they fail to put a judgement on those pre-existing questions marks, which in turn is because of lack of a knowledge of it. Just like a little kid putting on a why on every single phrase on your answer. They are more welcome though, 'cos they are more ready to learn.

Your whole "discussion" rooted in one question: "why people don't do the objective lens test you have seen in photographic magazines on those digital camera lens?"

Begin exercising your brain by giving 10 answers to the above question. THINK!!! (You don't have to search it somewhere in the net or magazines!)

Steve Wong

Jimmy Chen said:
Jimmy Chen said:

What is your point?

Click to expand...

Simple ... no one proven the lens on the 707 is top of the line in
the consumer market on its own merit, be better then Nikon, Canon,
or anyone else ... But you seems to want to stuff that idea into
the brains of people like me just because it is made by CZ.

Jimmy Chen said:

Namely, you point out that no one has offered veridical, objective
evidence that the CZ lens is the "best," so therefore it's only
someone's freaking opinion. You further go on to insult the
majority of the people that have offered up evidence which, in
their opinion, buttresses their assertion that the CZ lens is best.
You base this again upon the solitary fact that no scientific
experiment has been conducted, so again, the majority are dealing
in subjective opinions while you keep waiting for facts.

Click to expand...

When no facts are presented, they are just opinions ... It is as
simple as that. My statements are of doubts, which happens to be
against the facts some of you are making. As long as no one has
provided the facts to fill the holes of my doubts, then we just
cannot ass-u-me that the CZ lens on the 707 is the same quality of
those multi-thousand $$ CZ lens just because it is made from the
same factor/company.

Jimmy Chen said:

Socrates didn't simply question people's knowledge, he tried to
arrive at the truth. I'll assert you've done neither. All you've
done is continue to offer your same statement back in people's
face. You've committed a fundamental logical error...you've
created a self-seeling argument, which by definition is illogical.

Click to expand...

LOL, I am not trying to arrive to anything, other then just want
more facts so I can obtain the answers that will remove my doubts
... If you want logic, it is also a "fundamental logical error",
borrowing your words, to claim a statement as fact when no proof is
provided to back it up. What grade do you believe you will receive
when you do that on a college research paper? A or F?

Jimmy Chen said:

I urge you to read Ed's response to your request earlier in this
thread entitled "reason sacrificed at the altar of scientific
method." [I've noticed you haven't responded to him, which doesn't
surprise me in the least.]

Click to expand...

LOL, if you read this thread again, you will noticed I already have
answered his post. Btw, dont ass-me-u, we dont all glue to the
computer 24x7 just so we can reply to the posts on STF. If you know
me from my other hobby, you will know I am a sucker for in-depth
discussions when facts and evidences are presented, because that is
the best way I learn. Those facts and evidences will only lead me
to do more informational search to futher my knowledge.

Jimmy Chen said:

Best might also mean "best for me." Some might not like the
low-end WA range of the F707. Clearly, no matter how good the CZ
lens is, it still might not be best for that person.

Click to expand...

Ahh, so following your defination the word "best" is a very
subjective word ... not as a matter of fact.

Jimmy Chen said:

But best must in your eyes must be based on some objective lab
standard.

Click to expand...

As for me, I am seriouly looking at the 707, as it does offer very
sharp images, which I will need for the kind of shots I will need
to take. A good enough macro, which I can improve by additional
lens and flash (while a real hot shoe would be even better). The
night-shot/frame, which within my hobby no one has yet to been able
to document for the subjects matters involved. So as of to-date,
the 707 is the best for me because of these features. The CZ
quality lens just happens to be a nice bouns.

So far Ed has provided some interesting information which shows the
CZ lens for Sony are in general considerabely good, and I appricate
his informative post. I wish I could have said the same to your
post.

jc

Pete · Jan 2, 2002

VladN said:
VladN68497 said:

which further brings home the point. If you want to compare

lens performance the comparisons you can trust are the ones made
with test images on a test bench. And these need to be sensor
independent (like tests done on removable 35 mm camera lenses)
otherwise we are really talking about performance of both the lens
and the imager.

Pete

Click to expand...

Pete,
This is a very interesting point, cause some lens defects,
theoretically, can be corrected by the shape of the imager. Or at
least it can be optimized for the best cost/performance
combination. For example: arrange the pixels of imager in cushion
pattern and you would compensate for barrel distortion. Even focal
surface doesn't have to be a plane anymore. You can make imager to
be an integral part of lens. This might be already the case when
they say: "the lens should be manufactured all together with the
electronics".
Of course, optical zoom makes this concept less feasible, but, in
my opinion, future belongs to fixed focal length lenses and digital
zoom anyway.
Fascinating.
Vlad.

Hi Vlad,

That is likely true in principle but I don't know how your specific example works in practice as this kind of distortion changes with focal length of the zoom - as you point out. I do think I've read that you can do something in PhotoShop to correct this kind of distortion - but again it would have to be made specific to focal length (or a range of lengths) as the distortion changes with focal length.

Pete

Chip Greenberg · Jan 2, 2002

I'm surprised the flare was so bad on this lens. My G lenses were MUCH better. T* coatings and prime focal lengths certainly help.
Chip

Jimmy Chen · Jan 2, 2002

Ed (;¬ >) said:
But he, as do both you and Pete, fails to outline what an objective
test might be. He goes on to promote using a resolution chart by,
of all things, taking a picture of it!

Ed (;¬ >) said:
Not one of these references explains how to test a lens without its
camera.

Ahh, I think I am finally beginning to see your POV now ... So you are saying it is impossable to test a lens w/o a body. Correct?

CZ offers a line of lens testing equipment ...

http://www.carlzeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf/Inhalt-FrameDHTML/D3892E25C8C86EFBC1256B280045D228

CZ also provides the data on their own lens, w/o the camera ... Here is one of the Vario-Sonnar T 3.5-4.5/24-85 lens ...

http://www.carlzeiss.com/de/photo/home_e.nsf/3187a822cd4605b7c125670900704e24/6cc1fb9f4a697462c125693000465a1f/ $FILE/Vario-Sonnar%2024-85_e.pdf

But anyway, lets assume I agree with you on the lens/body issue. Please allow me to explain my issue once again ... So far this CZ lens has ONLY been tested on the Sony 707 body, so how do we know the body/CCD/firmware is not doing anything that may or may not alter the final out come? IE pre/post production corrects noted by Phil and the well known BFS issue.

So to show the issues arent due to the lens, one will need to test it with another body, or testing equipment, dont we? Until that is done, we cannot conclude the lens is the reason why the whole camera is good, can we? Nor can we assume the lens is the best in consumer market it is designed for, can we? After all, we havent removed any of the other possible interferring factors such as the firmware.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
Fact!! What kind of fact do you want. You are being obstinate.

See the data chart of the Vario-Sonnar T 3.5-4.5/24-85 lens. They can do it for one lens, they can do it for another.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
Ed (;¬ >) said:

So how does the 707 lens stack up against the above info?

Click to expand...

Question asked and answered, many times. Read Phil's review as well
as those of the other online reviewers.

I never disagreed with that statement for the whole F707. But the subject in matter here is the lens only.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
Oh, please. Again I remind you that I am not trying to change
your mind. I am only trying to prevent you from negatively
influencing folks who rely on experts like Phil and other credible
reviewers to help them make decisions.

LOL, I am sorry if I came across like that. No way is it my objective. The question of the original poster what makes CZ lens better then others, and statements were made that they are the best. So I question has this been shown as fact for the Sony lens ... as least for me, I am still looking for data on the 707 ... But I must also thank you for providing info of other CZ lens for other Sony models.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
No other respondant in
this thread, including me has said this.

So we agree that the Sony CZ lens is not as good as the CZ professional ones?

Ed (;¬ >) said:
Very good example, but not for your point. Intel does not have the
sterling reputation that CZ enjoys.

But that is my point. While a CZ can and do make the best lens in the world, they can also be the same mfg'er that makes other lens of lesser quality as different QC/mfg'ing standards are applied to fill the low end market.

Ed (;¬ >) said:
The "fact" remains that the CZ lenses on Sony
digicams (including the F707) are the finest available today on any
fixed-lens digital camera.

LOL, "fact", or "opinion"?

I just want to conclude with a quote from Phil's review which shows the lens is not the only item that can effect the output ... "The F707 is a superbly capable digital camera. ... I just wish Sony had taken a more cautious approach to their image processing algorithms in regards to sharpening and colour saturation."

Once again, thanks, Ed, your infomation has been very informative, however uneducated you try to make me look. ;p

jc

Steve Wong · Jan 2, 2002

Chip,

Now you know why I was saying "it was a big decision".

But you don't lose anything though. Life is always an expedition. Something new and exciting is always ahead of you.

Steve Wong.

Chip Greenberg said:
I'm surprised the flare was so bad on this lens. My G lenses were
MUCH better. T* coatings and prime focal lengths certainly help.
Chip

alex wetmore · Jan 2, 2002

Homer said:
Homer40784 said:

I'll also say that I'm only halfway pleased with the CZ lens. It
has some flaws, not fatal ones, but flaws anyway.

Click to expand...

Yes this is true. Of every lens in the world.

Yup. That is why this discussion was flawed in the first place (it was talking about how the CZ is better than any other lens...of course it is not).

Homer40784 said:
Homer40784 said:

It
also flares quite badly compared to the Pentax SMC lenses that I
use on my SLR.

Click to expand...

I wopuldn't know about this but I know that some lenses flare more
than others.
You are however comparing apples to oranges I think.
How much did this Pentax cost?

Homer40784 said:

If you look at the lens you can see many more internal reflections
on the CZ lens than a Pentax SMC lens.

Click to expand...

Oh, OK. I believe then that this lens would flare more than the
Pentax.

It is very hard to compare the pricing of an SLR lens to the pricing of the f707 lens. For one thing we don't know the retail value of the f707 lens. For another thing digital camera lenses are designed to focus onto a much smaller image capture area so they have a different design.

Anyway, a Pentax SMC FA 50/1.7 lens which retails for about $150 is much better at avoiding flare than the f707 lens. So is the $200ish Pentax SMC FA 28-70 4/L. I don't own any Pentax lenses which are 5x like the CZ lens in the f707 (I don't own any other SLR zoom lenses besides the 28-70 4/L). I believe that this is mostly a matter of Pentax having a better coating system than CZ. Pentax SMC coating has always been known for being exceptionally good at avoiding flare.

I'm not disappointed with the lens in the f707, I think it performs well, especially considering the price of the camera. I'm just pointing out that it is far from perfect.

alex

Carl Zeiss

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Lin Evans

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts