Paul, I have had for many years a Rollei SL35 and a SL35E, with an assortment of lenses by Carl Zeiss, Rollei-made-under-license Zeiss clones, and a Schneider-Kreuznach 50mm. These range from 25mm f2.8 to 35mm f1.4 to 50mm f1.4 and the Schneider 50f1.8, 135mm and 200 f3.5. I also have a few Tamron SPs, including the 90mm f2.5 macro, and SP zooms in Adaptall mounts. All are good even by today's standards. The only one I don't really like when used wide open is the German-made Zeiss 25mm f2.8, which vignettes, but is OK stopped down to normal apertures. I think most of my current Japanese and German Zeiss for Contax are better, but not by a great margin. The SL35's meter is dead, but the SL35E, overhauled a couple of years ago by a specialist, works and looks like new. The SLs are good, usable semi-classics.
-
Quick access all forums:Photography and Techniques Nature & Wildlife Landscape & Travel City, Street & Transportation People, Portrait & Wedding Black & White Macro & Still Life Sport & Action Everything else Editing / Hardware & Software
Assignments & Critique Images I took this week Photo Critique Challenges Challenge Discussions
Gear-Talk General Gear Talk Canon Nikon Sony & Minolta Fujifilm X System & DSLRs L-Mount Alliance MicroFourThirds (MFT) Pentax & Ricoh Medium Format Leica M, Leica R, Leica Q Other brands Contax MTF Charts, Broschures etc Information Contax & Zeiss Sigma SA/ DP/DPMerrill/Quattro Others Smartphones, P&S and Drones Adapted Lens Talk Classifieds
General stuff Announcements Forum-Help/ "Have you seen...?" Introduce yourself DPRF Cafe Suggestions regarding this forum
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
WHY zeiss lenses nowadays
- Thread starter speedcore
- Start date
clive_kenyon
Well-Known Member
Paul,
I too have been down the road of testing lenses of different marques to gauge image quality. The differences are often very hard if not impossible to see, but when I put an image taken with an old CZ 50mm M42 lens (mounted on ME-super with adapter) against identical shots taken with the Pentax 50mm f1.7 and Zuiko 50mm f1.4 (mounted on an OM4) the Zeiss image was noticably better in that fine detail was evident and it had a warmer cast.
I have also put other cameras head to head including Leica iii .v. Contax ii with their Russian copies thrown in for good measure and Minox GT.v. Rollei 35S .v. Olympus XA to name but a few.
I think that you will struggle to find a difference between your new classic Rollei optics and Zeiss glass because as far as I am aware the Rollei lenses were either made my Zeiss or made under licence using Zeiss specifications. But I may be wrong.
The lens is only part of the chain. Whilst Zeiss glass is invariably better than any other it cannot make a difference if the film or digital CCD is incapable of recording that difference. At work we use Mamiya RB67 and Nikon F100's with Konika 400 film. That to me is like putting a milk cart behind a racehorse. Similarly I cannot see that a Carl Zeiss lens is going to make a difference to a digital camera until the CCD is capable of recording the subtle nuances of tone and fine detail that a slow film records.
Clive
I too have been down the road of testing lenses of different marques to gauge image quality. The differences are often very hard if not impossible to see, but when I put an image taken with an old CZ 50mm M42 lens (mounted on ME-super with adapter) against identical shots taken with the Pentax 50mm f1.7 and Zuiko 50mm f1.4 (mounted on an OM4) the Zeiss image was noticably better in that fine detail was evident and it had a warmer cast.
I have also put other cameras head to head including Leica iii .v. Contax ii with their Russian copies thrown in for good measure and Minox GT.v. Rollei 35S .v. Olympus XA to name but a few.
I think that you will struggle to find a difference between your new classic Rollei optics and Zeiss glass because as far as I am aware the Rollei lenses were either made my Zeiss or made under licence using Zeiss specifications. But I may be wrong.
The lens is only part of the chain. Whilst Zeiss glass is invariably better than any other it cannot make a difference if the film or digital CCD is incapable of recording that difference. At work we use Mamiya RB67 and Nikon F100's with Konika 400 film. That to me is like putting a milk cart behind a racehorse. Similarly I cannot see that a Carl Zeiss lens is going to make a difference to a digital camera until the CCD is capable of recording the subtle nuances of tone and fine detail that a slow film records.
Clive
paulcontax
Well-Known Member
Thanx for your replies, I've tested the lenses formerly with the Kodak EKTAR 25 film (not available any more), and now with a 100 ASA film. Using tripod, unchangeable light indoor.... and i could see a difference ! I also have Tamron-lenses (28-80, 3.5/70-210, 90, 300, 500) and they a really quite good compared with Tokina, Sigma and.... but if you take a Zeiss-lens .... it's more than just noticeable !
photostranger
Member
When researching if I should go into C/Z a few weeks ago, I did a lot of research compairing photographs on Contax, Canon's and Nikons websites as well as teh info pages here compairing Nikon, Contax and Leica.
Contax/Zeiss optics seemed to produce more sharp, perfectly contrasted and evenly distributed colors. I also looked carefully at the images for unsharp mask and histogramatic damage, contax/zeiss also showed the least amount of visible correction overall.
Nikon in my opinion was the worsed performer with the least reliable results, while Contax and Leica were about the same and of highest quality, differing only in qualities which could be argued as mere preferance (Contax/Zeiss a little more punchy but rich in detail, making it a better option for digital darkroom)
While nikon had some very good images, it seemed that it picked up on additive primaries (red/blue/green) at an unusual rate. This can be expected from all lenses, but especially so with Nikon.
Leica seemed to favor skin tones, and Zeiss seemed to favor Blues. Neither casted blue (Zeiss) or yellow/orange/brown (Leica) and both reproduced all colors well.
I think the difference in reproduction without the difference in quality drives some into contax/leica psychosis where they obsessivly try to decide which is better (is this a myth?).
Canon was suprisingly good, not as good as Leica or Contax, but the build quality on Cannon's are not very good. The contrast and saturation was medium, and the sharpness, though hard to tell on a computer monitor, seemed good.
Overall, of the professional cameras commonly used today, I would list them in the following order:
Contax/Leica tied
Canon
Nikon
With the reputation which Nikon has, I am a bit disapointed in the quality I found at nikon's website, supposidly the best of the best. Though, i have found better results that, to the casual eye, may even be able to compair to Contax.
Canon seemed to have such a different reproduction quality to Contax, made it hard to compair.
Please note tho, this comparison was on low resolution images and sharpness could not be easily determined. However, no contax image showed any sign of unsharpen mask, indicating it must have been a sharp image to start with. Needless to say, I had not seen any "in your face" artifacts on any images on the official websites.
Contax/Zeiss optics seemed to produce more sharp, perfectly contrasted and evenly distributed colors. I also looked carefully at the images for unsharp mask and histogramatic damage, contax/zeiss also showed the least amount of visible correction overall.
Nikon in my opinion was the worsed performer with the least reliable results, while Contax and Leica were about the same and of highest quality, differing only in qualities which could be argued as mere preferance (Contax/Zeiss a little more punchy but rich in detail, making it a better option for digital darkroom)
While nikon had some very good images, it seemed that it picked up on additive primaries (red/blue/green) at an unusual rate. This can be expected from all lenses, but especially so with Nikon.
Leica seemed to favor skin tones, and Zeiss seemed to favor Blues. Neither casted blue (Zeiss) or yellow/orange/brown (Leica) and both reproduced all colors well.
I think the difference in reproduction without the difference in quality drives some into contax/leica psychosis where they obsessivly try to decide which is better (is this a myth?).
Canon was suprisingly good, not as good as Leica or Contax, but the build quality on Cannon's are not very good. The contrast and saturation was medium, and the sharpness, though hard to tell on a computer monitor, seemed good.
Overall, of the professional cameras commonly used today, I would list them in the following order:
Contax/Leica tied
Canon
Nikon
With the reputation which Nikon has, I am a bit disapointed in the quality I found at nikon's website, supposidly the best of the best. Though, i have found better results that, to the casual eye, may even be able to compair to Contax.
Canon seemed to have such a different reproduction quality to Contax, made it hard to compair.
Please note tho, this comparison was on low resolution images and sharpness could not be easily determined. However, no contax image showed any sign of unsharpen mask, indicating it must have been a sharp image to start with. Needless to say, I had not seen any "in your face" artifacts on any images on the official websites.
For sharpness, the lenses of all 4 manufacturers you mention (Zeiss, Leitz, Canon and Nikon) can probably resolve an image in finer detail than can be seen by the eye and captured with the film and paper combinations we generally use. Films like Velvia with imperceptible grain help in this regard. It is also true that medium format gives you more to work with (either scanned or conventionally printed) than 35mm.
However, with Zeiss lenses, here is the difference that sets them apart: beautiful "bokeh" effects and rich color saturation aside (these are important to the lens designers), the Zeiss engineers believe that the vivid detail is only perceived by our eyes if the lens can SUCCESSFULLY TRANSFER HIGH CONTRAST to the negative. Yes, the lenses are "punchy" compard with Canon and Nikon, but this is what allows the perception of sharpness that is so distinctive to the German lenses. Call it "wow" factor if you like. They are real artist's lenses, and also the "look" that the Zeiss glass produces is remarkably consistent across their product offerings, both in the 35mm Contax lenses and their MF designs.
I find that this perception of sharpness derived from the contrasty design, combined with the faithful color reproduction, is very helpful when I manipulate and enlarge scanned images digitally, as well.
However, with Zeiss lenses, here is the difference that sets them apart: beautiful "bokeh" effects and rich color saturation aside (these are important to the lens designers), the Zeiss engineers believe that the vivid detail is only perceived by our eyes if the lens can SUCCESSFULLY TRANSFER HIGH CONTRAST to the negative. Yes, the lenses are "punchy" compard with Canon and Nikon, but this is what allows the perception of sharpness that is so distinctive to the German lenses. Call it "wow" factor if you like. They are real artist's lenses, and also the "look" that the Zeiss glass produces is remarkably consistent across their product offerings, both in the 35mm Contax lenses and their MF designs.
I find that this perception of sharpness derived from the contrasty design, combined with the faithful color reproduction, is very helpful when I manipulate and enlarge scanned images digitally, as well.
photostranger
Member
Contrast has a plus and minus for digital darkroom. On one hand we want to edit as little as possible, but on the other hand it is far more easy to add contrast than take it out.
I think that the contrast of CZ is more "perfect" than "punchy", but this is a matter of opinion, so, less editing would need to be preformed. But that said, it is more contrasty than Leica.
That said, there are many different kinds of contrast (alberian color theory). Tonal, Color, Saturation can all have contrast. For instance color contrast may include things like Red on a blue field Blue, tonal the difference betwene cloudy and sunny days.
Saturation contrast can be discribed as color combinations whose relative saturation greater than 50% become more saturated on film and colors whose relative saturation is less than 50% become less saturated.
I have not had the time to really investigate which contrast modes are effected the greatest by CZ.
If it is tonal, which i do not think (i seriously doubt) it would be or dynamic range would be effected and would be detrimental to digital editing. This would also decrease the ability to pick up shadow/highlight detail.
Color contrast may be tweaked by punching up the response to additive primaries and theoreticals (subtractive primaries as discribed in additive space). This I have noticed, esp on the primaries. By doing this, all colors will have a degree of greater saturation, the more pure the color, the more saturated. The less pure, the less saturated (which is always the case as 1B+1G+1R="middle grey").
I have not looked close enough nor found images that show contrast in saturation. The lenses may, but i have not seen it demonstrated. If anything it appears that saturation is *increased* over all. (above)
I think that the contrast of CZ is more "perfect" than "punchy", but this is a matter of opinion, so, less editing would need to be preformed. But that said, it is more contrasty than Leica.
That said, there are many different kinds of contrast (alberian color theory). Tonal, Color, Saturation can all have contrast. For instance color contrast may include things like Red on a blue field Blue, tonal the difference betwene cloudy and sunny days.
Saturation contrast can be discribed as color combinations whose relative saturation greater than 50% become more saturated on film and colors whose relative saturation is less than 50% become less saturated.
I have not had the time to really investigate which contrast modes are effected the greatest by CZ.
If it is tonal, which i do not think (i seriously doubt) it would be or dynamic range would be effected and would be detrimental to digital editing. This would also decrease the ability to pick up shadow/highlight detail.
Color contrast may be tweaked by punching up the response to additive primaries and theoreticals (subtractive primaries as discribed in additive space). This I have noticed, esp on the primaries. By doing this, all colors will have a degree of greater saturation, the more pure the color, the more saturated. The less pure, the less saturated (which is always the case as 1B+1G+1R="middle grey").
I have not looked close enough nor found images that show contrast in saturation. The lenses may, but i have not seen it demonstrated. If anything it appears that saturation is *increased* over all. (above)
Thank you, this is very informative! In the "brave new world" of the digital darkroom, a lot of us are still sorting out these new concepts. I, too, have not yet gotten my mind around how much of the contrast exhibited by my CZ lenses is tonal and how much is color.
Boy, isn't it great to have a color lab on your own desktop, though?
(note: in my opinion, what others call "punchy" I call perfect too!)
Paul B.
Boy, isn't it great to have a color lab on your own desktop, though?
(note: in my opinion, what others call "punchy" I call perfect too!)
Paul B.
photostranger
Member
Paul - If you or anyone else needs any help with digital, send me a letter. sk_arts@hotmail.com
Hi, I would like to see some drum scanned s&le pics posted of joan jordi (although 72dpi web/screen resolution may hide the important details).
Furthermore I was also very deeply impressed by the exhibition of Mr yann arthus bertrand (it was also in Zurich at the Landesmuseum). He used also a 6x17 or 6x12 panorama camera (Fuij?) and not only 35mm SLR
--rainer
Furthermore I was also very deeply impressed by the exhibition of Mr yann arthus bertrand (it was also in Zurich at the Landesmuseum). He used also a 6x17 or 6x12 panorama camera (Fuij?) and not only 35mm SLR
--rainer
W
writing4me
Rainer, you mention the Fuji cameras. I found this site one day and have really enjoyed looking through the gallery there. Granted it is not as easy to see the quality looking at online images, but some of these photographers are unquestionably good! See this link: http://www.fujirangefinder.com/
Enjoy, -Lynn
Enjoy, -Lynn