What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Something is going on with Zeiss

Personally,I think that all those conversations about MTFs,resolutions and bar targets are very relevant for practical photography in choosing the right gear or right lenses.
Excludes those situations when you just need blurred images,the fundamental activities in practical photography involve taking well composed photos with subject or subjects in focus and in acceptable resolution. Whether the subject has an acceptable resolution depend very much on the lenses. I agree that you don't need to know the MTF in order to take good pictures,but you do need to know whether the lenses is good enough for this particular purpose. With the knowledge from MTF curves,one knows how to choose the gear.
I agree it is important to how the images feel and look at any magnification.One has to know how many lines the lens can resolve in the centre and corners and with this knowledge one can choose the right gear and produce the right picture. Of course one can still choose the right gear without the knowledge of MTF,but it would mean one has to experiment with the gear first before they can acquire the knowledge or one will rely on someone for this knowledge.
With the help from Zeiss MTF curves and Mr Muller's comments,I know Biogon 21/2.8 ZM can help me to take pictures and is good enough to get magnifications to calender size. I know about this before the lens reach the consumer market and I don't have to experiment with it in order to know about this.
 
Do these MTF lines and curves translate to your photography? Are you a better photographer because one lens is a hair better in some company test...I'd rather apply myself to my work and you know the old saying a good photographer a good photographer regardless of camera used. In my experience a lot of those who argue about MTF's do just that !!
 
I cannot agree more with Dermot Conlon. Bravo Mr. Druid! You are 100% correct. I don't think Atget gave a hoot about MTF charts if they had existed then. Frankly these charts and the lengthy discussion of them are boring.
 
Chi Yuan, any Zeiss lens, or any professional prime from any camera manufacturer these days is capable of producing images that could be enlarged to a poster size. You don't even need to read MTF charts for that
happy.gif
happy.gif
happy.gif

I am an accomplished photo artist, and never in my photographic activity I had a need to count how many lines per millimeter my lenses can resolve.
Scientific and clandestine photography is a different thing, but I doubt that you are going to use a 2.8/21 lens for TEM-photography or to spy from a sattelite.
 
Let me respond to the forum on 08/10/04.

Do these MTF...photography? The answer to this question is yes.Part of photography involes the choice of equipment,as MTF does affect my choice of equipment,it would affect my practice of photography.
Are you a better...hair better..company... The answer to this question is also yes. One ex&le are G45 2 and C-Y 50 1.7. G45 2 is,as you say a hair better than C-Y 50 1.7 in Zeiss MTF graph. Using G45 2 does make me a better photographer as the photos taken by this lens are superior than to those taken by 50 1.7. The other reason why the standard of photography has improved is the avoidance of mirror shake when I am using a G instead of the C-Y body.
The old saying a good ...regardless ...came...used. I do not agree with this nowadays. In the old days when you have a small choice of photographic equipments,you can still take very good pictures with this very small choice according to the standard of the old days. Modern photography is very equipment dependent when the choice of them is diverse. My photographic activity will be restricted if I don't have the right equipment.Let us put it this way,one will not be able to know if he or she is a good photographer if he or she has not got the right equipment.
 
Frankly,these charts and lengthy discussion,to me, is very interesting. These charts are started off by Zeiss,but I am not sure why they started it. Perhaps Zeiss wish their client to think about the objective evaluation of photographic resolution. When the client startes to care about the resolution,they become better photographers and they stay with Zeiss,rather than other manufacturers. Other manufacturers might not like their clients to know about the charts,because if they know about these charts,they will not stay with them. Other brands like Leica and Canon do have these charts and their products do have very high standards.
 
Irakly,I agree with you that any professional prime from any camera manufacturer these days is capable of producing images that could be enlarged to a poster size. I also agree with you that you don't need to read MTF charts for that. Indeed I was like that a few years ago,didn't care which prime I used,didn't care which manufacturer I used and didn't know about the MTF chart. I remember When I looked at the enlargements I was not happy,low resolution turn out to be even a bigger problem after enlarging. Also,the colour was never right. So I switched to Zeiss,I become careful in the choice of lenses and learn to interpret the MTF.I achieved better resolutions in my enlargments and I am happier. If I don't care about which manufacturer,which prime,and keep on enlarging,the standard could be very unacceptable. If you don't care about the final outcome,you can keep on enlarging but I can tell you that I care. If I don't have the right equipments,the work of enlarging could be futile.
"I am accomplished...never...count...can resolve." What I am saying is consistent to this. Please refer to my third posting on 07 Oct line 6 and 7 " you don't need to know the MTF in order to take good pictures"
Although I will be using ZM 2.8/21 and now using C-Y 2.8/21 for leisure,I do expect a
high standard in my enlargement. When I look into the enlargement,I wish to see the neutral colour rendition and the right resolution. Well,this is what Zeiss ikon and its lenses are for. Please do not restrict your thought to only scientific,clandestine,TEM or spy photography. A stuningly good lens can also be used in leisure,and when it is being used in leisure,it's great fun.
 
There are many other lens qualities besides resolution that enter the decision making process. The MFT charts on two lenses from different makers may show one lens to resolve more, but in practice the other lens is the superior performer for making images that please the eye.

There are some Japanese lenses that are sharper than my Leica M glass on paper, but the M glass is clearly the superior performer in actual practice. I always liked the color rendition of Nikon glass compared to Canon but the opposite is true for me when shooting B&W films. Mamiya reps are fond of dragging out MTF charts to prove their medium format lenses are superior to the Zeiss/Contax 645 offerings.

This statement is interesting: "one will not be able to know if he or she is a good photographer if he or she has not got the right equipment." This equates gear with talent, which is about as far from reality as you can get. While it is nice to have the right kind of gear for the job at hand, MTF charts are a small consideration compared to choice of camera format, selection of film, and lighting and a host of other gear related applications.

Irakly could shoot with a Holga, and I would know he is a good photographer. HCB was a great photographer using ancient gear. Some of my most beautiful images were produced by a Leica M sporting 1957 technology using a few older lenses that were surpassed on paper decades ago.
 
The statment ''one will not ...right equipment.'' has no relation with the equation of gear and talent which is about as far from reality as you can understand. Photography is gear dependent.Even if someone has the talent of being a good photographer,nobody will know about this if he or she has no chance to shoot when equipments are not available. My statement is actually talent depends on gear to express itself. If one has no talent even when the right gear is around,good standard of photography will not happen.
 
What matters is the performance in the outer zones, for me at least. It is
not too hard to make a lens that performs wonderfully in the center. What I
am concerned about is uniform performance, that is fine performance not only
in the center but also in the outer zones, near the edges and the corners.
Why? Like a spy photographer or in suveillance, I am often concerned with
features of the image that happen to be in the edges or corners of the
negatives. Hence I am quite willing to give up perhaps 5-10% of the MTF in
the center zone for superior more uniform performance. That is what Zeiss
advertises. They figure, as well, that film flatness is not so good that
improvements in the center are as important and seeable as improvements in
the outer zones. Does anyone know who makes the best performing lenses over
all the negative? Zeiss would claim to.
Martin Krieger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top