WHY zeiss lenses nowadays

[clive_kenyon]

Dieter,
Sorry for coming into this late!

When you say that you are disappointed with the results from Fuji 100 negatives how what are you viewing in the way of prints? I say this because recently many if not most of the photo labs who produced photographs by means of the old fashioned chemical process are now printing digitally.

I have found the even using a Zeiss Vario - Sonnar and slow film my recent prints have the appearance of being digitally catured images and are not a patch on the prints I had processed last year. (I shoot 90% slides).

I have just placed an old fashioned R-41 produced photograph on the test photos pages which was taken with an old compact using Fuji 100 negative film and also an enlargement of 1% of the it's image area.

It may be that the negative is holding all the information that you remembered, but the processor is not making full advantage of it when converting it to a print.

Clive

 

[9designs]

Dermot,

Yes, ! The 6x6 without doubt would look better, but I think the point is hidden in your posting, "Maybe it's the
fact he's a good photographer " exactly, 35mm with or without Zeiss lenses is better than most peoples technique !
Would I have bought a 6x6, maybe not, because I have no plans, pictures worthy, or the budget to start produce prints over a meter wide !......But it proved I had all I need with in my reach to produce A3 / 12x16 prints of superb quality.
To give myself the best chance, and because they are such dam fine items to own and use I stuck with 35mm and Contax/Zeiss, and have really enjoyed the back to traditional approach that a "modern" autofocus zoom set-up denied me.
Plus the issue others have raised on convenience.

The shots I have taken, in Cornwal, recently have the best colour and contrast I have seen, it looks like I used a polarizer, but I didn't touch it ! or any filter. Sharpness is excellent, grain doesn't exist at A3 enlargement, I hand held all them, which I must stop doing, but explain that to the wife and daughter when they are getting impatient !
I'm about to try some B+W, I haven't shoot any for months, and not on the new lenses. So Some PanF and Delta 100 will be tried soon. This I can do wet in my darkroom, should be interesting !

Steve

PS Still might tempted by a used Bronie one day ;-)

 

[europanorama]

What tipped the decision for me was see a Yann Arthus Bertrand ( >http://www.yannarthusbertrand.com/us/index.htm ) >exhibition outside the National History Museum in London. > >The picture were stunning both photographically ad technically, they >were enlarged to over a metre wide ! ! ! and were original prints on >Fuji crystal archive paper. They were shot using Velvia on a Canon EOS >1......35mm ! he is always using a kenyon gyrostabilizer. 1800(used) to 2500 usd(new). you will not see this on his helicopter-camera-photographer-shots since he does not like concurrence i guess. btw: all his shots are not new. the was a swiss dr georg gerster who started doing just the same 40 years ago-all over the world using nikons. posters were also made but not with the actual quality. most expensive scanners were used. not that new minolta 5400. much better ones. creo-scitex has the best ones.- and here we are talking about tamron zoom-lenses with 2x doublers..its a crazy world- 35mm-photography. using colornegatives will always get better results than slidefilms. resolution is much better. take a loupe and produce posters.

 

[europanorama]

Maybe it's the fact he's a good photographer and it matters not a bit which 35mm lenses he used. good in the sense to use the right tools-gyrostabilyzer-best scanner/films. he used slowspeed-slidefilm because it is easier to handle when shooting thousands of aeroshots. with contax 645 one can even go bigger of course. i am looking forward to a 70mm-back.

 

[joanjordi]

Film format (35mm, medium format...) is a personal choice based on personal preferences, needs or skills. But, IMO, in every format the zeiss lenses assist the good photograph to have the best results. There are some other very good lenses, but, I think, there's something "special" in photos made with a CZ lens.

 

[9designs]

Sorry you have confused me there !

“Uses colour slide because it’s easier to handle aero shoots, colour neg is higher resolution “!

I’ve always been lead to believe the complete opposite, slide is difficult because of it’s small exposure latitude, it also has a wider contrast range.. yes no ?
Slide I thought had finer grain hence sharper and better definition.
If this not the case why id slide used so much !

I take your not fond of film scanners ! ……. I can stretch to Zeiss lenses but drum scanners are another mater ;-)) or gyro what its…….

 

[europanorama]

I think, there's something "special" in photos made with a CZ lens.

what is this special?

 

[speedcore]

hello,
thanks for the answers.

take into account:

- e.g. photos of landscapes MUST be of a high resolution and a colour balance (that's the reason why velvia is not the best choice in my opinion: too much bonbon-like colours). here the sensia 100 is superior.
- the lab finishing gets very cheap, but often the results (prints) are dirty, scratched, false colour filters etc.
- the prints coming from slide material is – if you cannot afford cibachrome or high-end scanner – of a medium or even lousy quality
- consequently someone who prefers maximum class has to invest in hasselblad-zeiss or rollei combination, EVERYTHING ELSE IS A COMPROMISE (or you reduce yourself to B&W or Velvia, which relly cannot satisfy me...)
- i am aware of the fact that i focus only one aspect of the queation 'what is a good photo?' - the technical one. but i state that a GOOD IDEA and a GOOD TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT are both relevant. we cannot argue about ideas (except we see the results), but technical pros and cons are worth to be considered. or not?

 

[paulcontax]

Hi, as been postet before : There is something special with photos taken by a = Zeiss-lenss. I'm using Canon EOS, Pentax, Rollei and Contax (and a Olympus E20 too) and= I did a lot of comparing....(I even tested a Leica but it's got no chanc= e against Canon and Contax, it's very SPECIAL in another way). I'll try to explain : 1. Color is very different, it seems to make more differences 2. Pictures are like 3D, all the other seem to be flat (even the Leica, Ca= non...) 3. Sharpness and contrast : You don't have to take care because every Zeis= s-lens is a top-lens (you cannot say that for every Canon-Nikon-Minolta-Pe= ntax....-lens)

This is only my personal experience with the Distagon 2.8/28, 2.8/35, Plan= ar 1.4/50 and Sonnar 2.8/135. I'll have to try my old Rollei (just bought an old used SL 35 M + E with t= he 1.4/35, 1.8/50, 1.4/85, and Rolleinar 2.8/28, 2.8/135 and 3.5/200) to c= ompare these Zeiss-lenses.

Paul

 

[joanjordi]

Paul's explained perfectly the meaning of "special"