P
Peter Sanderson
Guest
Hi Ulysses.
ED stands for extra low dispersion glass,which a
good designer uses to produce a first class lens.Leave the
next nine months dear friend,look at and enjoy,the stars.
Regards dear friend,
Perter.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Zeiss lenses for Sony getting better!!
- Thread starter Robert MacLellan
- Start date
ED stands for extra low dispersion glass,which a
good designer uses to produce a first class lens.Leave the
next nine months dear friend,look at and enjoy,the stars.
Regards dear friend,
Perter.
P
Peter Sanderson
Guest
Is this your personal opinion as photographer and user of
emulsion based cameras,or just a wind up.Zeiss might have
invented multicoating,they certainly were not the masters
of it.Canon and Pentax beat Zeiss hands down.Have had and
used all.I do know what I am talking about.
Peter.
Robert MacLellan
Veteran Member
Most of my posting was directly from the Zeiss homepage.
As far as other lens makers are concerned, there is no magic to making exceptional lenses and Canon certainly has their share. And the very best of the Pentax line.. like their 50/f1.8...are right up there at the top.
However, it goes too far to say that they are consistently as good across their entire line since they also make some lenses which are...shall we say...not up to the level of their best lenses.
One thing I like about Zeiss is that they ARE that good across the entire line. There are no consumer grade lenses in the Zeiss catalog...now this means they aren't as padded as Pentax, Nikon or Canon with more "affordable" options for the less demanding snapshooter.
The Zeiss T* coating is truely exceptional
As far as other lens makers are concerned, there is no magic to making exceptional lenses and Canon certainly has their share. And the very best of the Pentax line.. like their 50/f1.8...are right up there at the top.
However, it goes too far to say that they are consistently as good across their entire line since they also make some lenses which are...shall we say...not up to the level of their best lenses.
One thing I like about Zeiss is that they ARE that good across the entire line. There are no consumer grade lenses in the Zeiss catalog...now this means they aren't as padded as Pentax, Nikon or Canon with more "affordable" options for the less demanding snapshooter.
The Zeiss T* coating is truely exceptional
U
Ulysses
Guest
IOW, what you're saying is that Carl Zeiss consistently stands for quality, whereas many other makers produce great lenses along with some not so great.
Lanthanum Glasses can provide a higher refraction index with the same abbe number compared to the usual glass lines.
I think Zeiss have been using it quite extensively since the prewar era. The internal transmittance between LaK10 and BK7 is negligible in the 300nm to 700nm region.
BTW, coatings can be optimized for low light visual use and film/digital camera use, For low light visual use you want to maximize the percent transmission*eye sensitivity integrated over wavelength, however this can result in a "cool" looking color in daylight situation. So for a daylight visual use instrument you may not want the highest transmittance possible, but rather the flatest transmission vs wavelength curve with reasonable transmission (85%???)
Zeiss have said that they make sure that all their film camera lens, even across the platform (MF, SLR, G series RF) will have a similar shaped transmission vs wavelength curve so you get the same color balance as long as you use Zeiss and the same flim/process. (the down side i think is that on a few of their lens the light transmittance is not as high as it can be.
(thats on thing they put in that T* coating notation, although i sure hope that for digicams they can optimize it some otherway, and the same goes with their binoculars and microscopes)
For digicams I think one should go with the flatest CCD sensitivity*light transmission curve with respective to the 3 or 4 filters used. (this makes things much more coplex)
in short, La glasses allows you to make stuff with lower dispersion and in a sense its a semi ED. (although in practice it pairs up rather nicely with the ED glasses like FK54, so you would make the positive elements with the ED and then the negative element with the Lanthanum glasses for an achromatic doublet in a lens system for minimal secondary spectrum)
I think Zeiss have been using it quite extensively since the prewar era. The internal transmittance between LaK10 and BK7 is negligible in the 300nm to 700nm region.
BTW, coatings can be optimized for low light visual use and film/digital camera use, For low light visual use you want to maximize the percent transmission*eye sensitivity integrated over wavelength, however this can result in a "cool" looking color in daylight situation. So for a daylight visual use instrument you may not want the highest transmittance possible, but rather the flatest transmission vs wavelength curve with reasonable transmission (85%???)
Zeiss have said that they make sure that all their film camera lens, even across the platform (MF, SLR, G series RF) will have a similar shaped transmission vs wavelength curve so you get the same color balance as long as you use Zeiss and the same flim/process. (the down side i think is that on a few of their lens the light transmittance is not as high as it can be.
(thats on thing they put in that T* coating notation, although i sure hope that for digicams they can optimize it some otherway, and the same goes with their binoculars and microscopes)
For digicams I think one should go with the flatest CCD sensitivity*light transmission curve with respective to the 3 or 4 filters used. (this makes things much more coplex)
in short, La glasses allows you to make stuff with lower dispersion and in a sense its a semi ED. (although in practice it pairs up rather nicely with the ED glasses like FK54, so you would make the positive elements with the ED and then the negative element with the Lanthanum glasses for an achromatic doublet in a lens system for minimal secondary spectrum)
P
Peter Sanderson
Guest
Hi idiot,
Have had and used two Contax cameras,had 35,
28 mm distagons.The 35 was poor.The only time Zeiss
lenses were of consistant quality was when I owned a
Hassleblad.Zeiss do produce 'comsumer grade optics'.
They are called rejects.
Peter.
Old Ed
Veteran Member
Hi Peter -
It looks like "idiot" works in the optical field... interesting.
Re Zeiss products, I can't claim to have had a lot of them.
I've had about 30 35mm lenses, and currently have about 15.
I've also had about 8 medium-format lenses, and I think I
still have them all. More recently, the S70 and the 505V
are my fourth and fifth digicams.
Based on that experience, you can take this one to the bank:
The "Zeiss" by Sony lens on the S70 is no "reject." The S70
lens is not only head and shoulders above other consumer
digicams, but also above its stablemate--the (very competent)
505V lens.
Why do I say this? Not only because the S70 is razor sharp,
but--more importantly--because it has very high contrast, AND
stunningly good performance WIDE OPEN.
I don't know if the comparison will be meaningful to you;
but the lenses I would compare to it are the Nikkor 105/2.5,
and the Micro-Nikkors. (And they're not zooms, of course!)
It's too bad the S70 body design is so lame... but that's
another story.
It looks like "idiot" works in the optical field... interesting.
Re Zeiss products, I can't claim to have had a lot of them.
I've had about 30 35mm lenses, and currently have about 15.
I've also had about 8 medium-format lenses, and I think I
still have them all. More recently, the S70 and the 505V
are my fourth and fifth digicams.
Based on that experience, you can take this one to the bank:
The "Zeiss" by Sony lens on the S70 is no "reject." The S70
lens is not only head and shoulders above other consumer
digicams, but also above its stablemate--the (very competent)
505V lens.
Why do I say this? Not only because the S70 is razor sharp,
but--more importantly--because it has very high contrast, AND
stunningly good performance WIDE OPEN.
I don't know if the comparison will be meaningful to you;
but the lenses I would compare to it are the Nikkor 105/2.5,
and the Micro-Nikkors. (And they're not zooms, of course!)
It's too bad the S70 body design is so lame... but that's
another story.
U
Ulysses
Guest
idiot (I don't like calling you by that handle, really...)
You certainly passed on more information than I was expecting to receive! But this is a good thing. I like having enough info that I can ponder for a while and even embark on other research projects as a result of posts like these.
Thanks for the thorough details.
You certainly passed on more information than I was expecting to receive! But this is a good thing. I like having enough info that I can ponder for a while and even embark on other research projects as a result of posts like these.
Thanks for the thorough details.
P
Peter Sanderson
Guest
In my too long life I have taken pix with bottle glassThat would explain the artifacts in some of those cameras' images
that appear to read "Always Coca-Cola".
Seriously, what you say has agrees with my theory that the glass
configuration (curvature and figuring) and perhaps even coatings
(those special recipes patented by CZ) can contribute to a superior
lens system.
It's kind of like in astronomy, you can have a Plössl lens by two
companies, the arrangement of the elements the same in each
company's lens. Yet the details of how that lens is created and
coatings used are clearly superior in some company products than in
others. What matters most is not the metallic barrel that holds the
lens elements in place, but the precise composition and
construction of the elements themselves.
lenses,and learned a lesson,Canon and Pentax produce the best glass,
and coatings,unless you have a Hassleblad Zeiss are poor,
have had them all.Leitz is now the only producer of quality lenses.
That is,best image wide open.
Peter.
Robert MacLellan
Veteran Member
While I admire your brand loyalty, I'm afraid that you "long experience" flies in the face of the rest of the world's experience.
While Leica makes some excellent lenses..THEY hardly view their main rivals and competition as Canon or Pentax but Zeiss. Even a brief visit to one of the 35mm newsgroups (like rec.photo.equipment.35mm) will certainly confirm that.
As I have said in other postings, the best of Canon and Pentax lenses are as good as some of the Zeiss and Leica...the best of Zeiss and Leica are certainly better than the best of Canon or Pentax. This in no way, says that they are not good lenses. The Pentax SMC-A 85mm/f1.4 or the Canon EF 85mm/f1.2 are just as good as the Zeiss Planar 85mm/f1.4 and that is to be expected since any company that takes the time to produce a carefully engineered product; using the best components will make an excellent lens. Just like the Zeiss Planar 50mm/f1.4 and the Pentax SMC-F 50mm/f1.4 are about equal and both are a bit better than the Nikkor 50mm/f1.4 or the Canon EF 50mm/f1.4 USM.
Is the difference great enough to matter? I doubt it.
When you get into zoom lenses the differences across product lines become more apparent. Canon, Pentax and Nikon have mch larger ranges of lenses than Zeiss/Contax which is fairly conservative where zooms are concerned. But the quality differences are significant.
I have a very nice Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 28-85mm/f3.3-4 zoom which is excellent. On the other hand, you must be certainly aware that the Pentax SMC-A 28-80mm/f3.5-4.5 and the Canon EF 28-80mm/f3.5-5.6 IV USM are hardly stellar examples of the lens maker's art. There in lies the problem...
In the smaller Zeiss line, there are none of these low level, consumer grade lenses. Zeiss users can be sure that no matter which lense they choose..if it has the Zeiss name on it..it will be superb. Users of other lenses (other than Leica) have no such assurance..which is why Leica sees Zeiss as their competition.
While Leica makes some excellent lenses..THEY hardly view their main rivals and competition as Canon or Pentax but Zeiss. Even a brief visit to one of the 35mm newsgroups (like rec.photo.equipment.35mm) will certainly confirm that.
As I have said in other postings, the best of Canon and Pentax lenses are as good as some of the Zeiss and Leica...the best of Zeiss and Leica are certainly better than the best of Canon or Pentax. This in no way, says that they are not good lenses. The Pentax SMC-A 85mm/f1.4 or the Canon EF 85mm/f1.2 are just as good as the Zeiss Planar 85mm/f1.4 and that is to be expected since any company that takes the time to produce a carefully engineered product; using the best components will make an excellent lens. Just like the Zeiss Planar 50mm/f1.4 and the Pentax SMC-F 50mm/f1.4 are about equal and both are a bit better than the Nikkor 50mm/f1.4 or the Canon EF 50mm/f1.4 USM.
Is the difference great enough to matter? I doubt it.
When you get into zoom lenses the differences across product lines become more apparent. Canon, Pentax and Nikon have mch larger ranges of lenses than Zeiss/Contax which is fairly conservative where zooms are concerned. But the quality differences are significant.
I have a very nice Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 28-85mm/f3.3-4 zoom which is excellent. On the other hand, you must be certainly aware that the Pentax SMC-A 28-80mm/f3.5-4.5 and the Canon EF 28-80mm/f3.5-5.6 IV USM are hardly stellar examples of the lens maker's art. There in lies the problem...
In the smaller Zeiss line, there are none of these low level, consumer grade lenses. Zeiss users can be sure that no matter which lense they choose..if it has the Zeiss name on it..it will be superb. Users of other lenses (other than Leica) have no such assurance..which is why Leica sees Zeiss as their competition.
U
Ulysses
Guest
Peter, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one.
I haven't seen many people proclaiming that Canon and Pentax make the best glass. And I've NEVER seen anyone say that CZ produces poor glass.
Oh well. Life moves on....
I haven't seen many people proclaiming that Canon and Pentax make the best glass. And I've NEVER seen anyone say that CZ produces poor glass.
Oh well. Life moves on....
P
Peter Sanderson
Guest
I haven't seen many people proclaiming that Canon and Pentax make
the best glass. And I've NEVER seen anyone say that CZ produces
poor glass.
Oh well. Life moves on....
Hi Ulysses,
Thanx for your reply dear friend.My past photography
has been B/W,did my own D and P,20*16 prints.The comments
I made regarding Zeiss glass was down to my personal experience
with Contax cameras and the opinions of several friends of mine
who are professional photographers,They all use Hassleblads and
swear by Zeiss lenses produced for that camera,but they won't
use 35mm Contax cameras,they tell me the lense quality is variable.
That has been my experience,ie the 50mm f1.4 Planar is soft at f1.4 and
f2,doesn't deliver a sharp image until stopped down to f 2.8.
The Canon T90 I have with the Canon 50mm f1.4 delivers superb
images at f1.4.the 35mm Distagon doesn't compare with the 25mm
Distagon,contrast and sharpness are down on the 35mm.
As one of my prof: friends said,'when I buy any Zeiss lens for my
Blad,I know I'm getting the best in the world everytime'.
He won't use Contax for his 35mm work though.
Peter
.
Ok, some corrections/hypothesis.
While some of the Lanthanum Glasses don't differ too much from standard optical glasses, the ultra-high refractive Types (nd> 1.8) have very low transmission on the short wavelength range. (i.e. they block violet and sometimes even bluw lights, with human eyes sensitive to the blues, and the fact this causes a yellow color shift, may contribute to the dimmer image in those eyepieces)
Some examples of this type things can be found in some older Zeiss/German Binoculars, where you get a slight yellowish taint.
(on the otherhand blocking violets makes chromatic aberration less apparent)
While some of the Lanthanum Glasses don't differ too much from standard optical glasses, the ultra-high refractive Types (nd> 1.8) have very low transmission on the short wavelength range. (i.e. they block violet and sometimes even bluw lights, with human eyes sensitive to the blues, and the fact this causes a yellow color shift, may contribute to the dimmer image in those eyepieces)
Some examples of this type things can be found in some older Zeiss/German Binoculars, where you get a slight yellowish taint.
(on the otherhand blocking violets makes chromatic aberration less apparent)
P
Peter Sanderson
Guest
Hi Idiot,
If ever I found a name that does not apply it's yours.
Used Vixen Lanthanum eyepiece on my Takahashi scope.
Agree with your assessment vis Zeiss binos,found the same.
Peter
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum