Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate

[KirbyKrieger]

Does anyone else agree that from a journalistic or pedagogical point of view, any time a claim is made that a lens is "special" or produces an un-measurable but important effect (which I don' t doubt for a moment) that the claim should be illustrated not only by a well-glossed sample but also by a counter-example?

I taught painting for a number of years, and was well aware that much of what one wanted to impart was perceptible but not effable.  We resorted to the simply emphatic "This works", and almost always contrasted that to "This isn't working" -- in each case while mutually examining a painted passage.

Mikael Törnwall in his short piece (21 sentences) on the Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 C Sonnar ZM says (all direct quotations):

• the lens had something extra, a classic look and feel to the pictures
  
• a very pleasant 3D feeling to the pictures
  
• the combination Leica M9 and Sonnar 50mm sometimes is capable of producing results that can rival my Hasselblad film cameras
• a lens that often produces great results and every now and then is unique and totally outstanding
• sometimes it can produce images that neither the Planar or the Sumicron can come close to

He provides two illustrations, neither of which is captioned or clearly glossed.

It may be that this is all some kind of shorthand for photography aficionados.  I am not one.  Other than that if I were to use his equipment I am advised to correct for mis-focusing of near subjects by moving the camera forward one inch after focussing, I learned nothing.  If this is my shortcoming, so be it.

I am, however, an avid and experienced learner.  I come to Lum La to learn.  I consort with those more learned than me.  And I would like to take this opportunity to ask teachers to please clearly illustrate their points with both examples and counter-examples.  With thanks in advance --

Kirby.

[feppe]

Scientific method, falsifiability and double-blind studies are as foreign to vast majority of photographers and gearheads as they are for high-end audiophiles. They talk about tonality, 3D effect, micro-contrast, color separation, etc. as if the terms are are well-defined, widely agreed upon, and measurable, but they are none of the above.

There are exceptions, DXOmark sensor tests and DPReview lens tests being perhaps the most notable ones. They are of course poo-pood when they don't confirm the subjective conclusions owners of camera X or lens Y have already made.

[DaveCurtis]

I really enjoyed the review. In fact I would like more reviews regarding character lenses. I find this kind of lens review very refreshing.

If you to would like increase your knowledgw regarding drawing styles of lenses, Fred Miranda Alternative gear is a good forum to start.

There is much to learn about lenses other than score sheets and test charts.

Im not sure if "Scientific method" is that useful when it comes down to lens drawing styles and 3D as it comes back to personal preference and photographic usage.

Different optical designs deliver different drawing styles. Sometimes designers like Zeiss will leave optical aberations in the design to provide a particular rendering style. Case in point the new Zeiss 35mm f1.4 ZE. Under f2.8 it has  undercorrected SA design rendering which provides very smooth bokeh with very slow focus transition. Not exactly contemporary like the new Nikon.

[KirbyKrieger]

DaveDN -- appreciate your input (as well as that from feppe).  Your response seems to be more to him/her than to me.  My point is that claims should be demonstrated or illustrated.  Where you found refreshment, I found frustration.  I agree that there is much to learn -- which is why teachers teach: they don't just make statements.  Teaching involves illustrating differences.  My response to Mikael Törnwall is simply, "That's sounds interesting -- can you show me what you mean?"

[JimU]

i agree with kirby.  i took a look at Mikael's flickr stream and looked at photos tagged with 50mm which seemed like the zeiss 50/1.5 was his only 50mm.

i didn't learn anything.

in fact it was even more baffling in that none of the photos looked anything close to a hasselblad, with 80/2.8 at least.  that's not a criticism, just my uninformed opinion.

please, inform me.

[michael]

Some things lend themselves to technical analysis. Some things don't. Lenses and sensors fall between these camps.

I would't buy a wine based on a chemical assay, because knowing its acidity and tannin content doesn't tell me how it will taste.

The reason that I appended the quote from Zeiss at the end of the article was because I felt it important to help describe why and how certain observable attributes contribute to this lens' special character.

Michael

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I just could repeat it over and over:

http://www.zeiss.co.uk/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf
http://www.zeiss.co.uk/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_31_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_2_en.pdf

Seeing comparative example images would help greatly to see what is meant in the article.
Using my own equipment from the stone ages (Mamiya Universal) I see a difference to digital and modern lenses,
but I could not quantify or even explain it.
The great thing about these Zeiss articles is, that they give an explanation (in part 2 I believe) why MTF is not everything,
but actually seeing a meaningful comparison would be great.

I'd love to see a comparative shootout between different sensor sizes, media and lenses (from compact digital to LF film) with explanations of the different shown aestetics of the respective systems.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I´m both with Michael and Feppe on this. I do believe that there are many placebo effect in this area, but I also think that there are characteristics that are hard to quantify. For instance I have both Minolta 28-75/2.8 which is a rebadged Tamron lens and one of the best Tamron made and the "Zeiss" 24-70/2.8. In my comparison there was no competition, Tamron won hands down. At large apertures there is no competion, Tamron wins, it's actually quite good at any aperture.

On the other hand I mostly use f/8. The "Zeiss" lens goes from 24 to 70 while the "Minolta" lens goes from 28 to 75. Those four millimetes matter. I also like the mechanical "heft" of the "Zeiss" lens and I use f/8 mostly anyway. The Zeiss lens may be better at medium apertures, not so according to my testing, but not much worse either. The "Zeiss" lens is quite awful at the edges at full aperture while the "Tamron" is quite OK. but across the field the "Zeiss" is OK.

Little doubt that the "Tamron" lens is the better one but I still use the Zeiss. Has probably a lot do with shelling out like 2500 USD.

Now, does the Zeiss make better images? I don't have the slightest idea! But, the images are good enough, and I'm not in the lens testing business.

Best regards
Erik

Some things lend themselves to technical analysis. Some things don't. Lenses and sensors fall between these camps.

I would't buy a wine based on a chemical assay, because knowing its acidity and tannin content doesn't tell me how it will taste.

The reason that I appended the quote from Zeiss at the end of the article was because I felt it important to help describe why and how certain observable attributes contribute to this lens' special character.

Michael

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I would't buy a wine based on a chemical assay, because knowing its acidity and tannin content doesn't tell me how it will taste...

Michael, I am glad you used wine as an example. This is not to challenge your wine connoisseurship, but studies after studies show that people can hardly differentiate between cheap and expensive wine in blind tests. Other studies show that people tend to equate price with quality (i.e., not only they expect more expensive wines to have better quality, but measuring of their brain activity demonstrates they actually get more pleasure in drinking wine they are led to think is more expensive). It is also known that placebos do work.

So, yes, drinking wine is a complex experience: atmosphere, company you are with, occasion, price, label design, name, reputation, mystique, room temperature, wine temperature, type of wine glass, star and moon alignment, ... (ok, scratch the last one.. or not). One cynical economist suggested the following trick when ordering wine: do not go for the most expensive one, but go for the lower-priced group and pick the one with the most expensive-looking label.

So, back to lenses. They also benefit from all these "extras": perceptions, expectations, mystique, laudatory reviews, brand reputation, price, search for a silver bullet (to raise one's photography above their inherent talent and skills), 3D, blah, blah... Not unlike religious beliefs... once you believe it to be true, it then becomes indisputable. If others do not see it (or "see" it), they have only their ignorance to blame. One of those examples of "the emperor has no clothes" syndrome.

Bottom line: forget about specs and MTF, show me two pictures side by side and let me see the difference.

[Schewe]

So, yes, drinking wine is a complex experience: atmosphere, company you are with, occasion, price, label design, name, reputation, mystique, room temperature, wine temperature, type of wine glass, star and moon alignment, ... (ok, scratch the last one.. or not).

You forgot a few additional really important criteria, your knowledge and experience with wines and your palette...it takes a long time to develop a palette and that only comes with experience and knowledge. Some people never do...just like some people can't see the differences between lens or sensors.

Ironically, I find that many of the photographers I know who CAN tell the differences between lenses also have a refined palette for wine. Also not that price alone is not a good gauge on the quality of a lens or a wine.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Fair enough, Jeff. As someone at the stage in life where it would be in my best interest to tout "knowledge and experience" (though in my case not in wine connoisseurship), I should not say anything against it.

On the other hand, I can't count how many times I made a fool of myself relying on my knowledge and experience. For example, I was at one point working for a European Kodak company, at the time when we were facing a serious challenge from Konica in machine-printed images, mostly on price. Our defense was to point out the difference in quality, of course. As a (rare) photographer among the management, I especially felt obliged to push that argument. One day, a local distributor took me to their lab, threw a dozen of photographs on the table and asked me to pick which ones are Kodak and which Konica. "Ha, that is so easy", I said, "this and this and this is Kodak... obviously superior in quality!" He turned every one of my picks and every one was... Konica. Ooops!

[DaveCurtis]

I can certainly tell the difference between Canon and my Zeiss shots. Personally, I prefer the Zeiss rendering. The Distagon and Makro-Planar have different renderings also.

Now back to my pinot noir, (Central Otago NZ of course).

[PeterAit]

You forgot a few additional really important criteria, your knowledge and experience with wines and your palette...it takes a long time to develop a palette and that only comes with experience and knowledge. Some people never do...just like some people can't see the differences between lens or sensors.

Ironically, I find that many of the photographers I know who CAN tell the differences between lenses also have a refined palette for wine. Also not that price alone is not a good gauge on the quality of a lens or a wine.

But who is better off - the guy who gets great enjoyment from a wide variety of "good" wines or the other guy who is always finding fault and is rarely really happy with what he's drinking? It seems a bit odd to spend a great deal of time and money "refining" your palette with the result of reducing your enjoyment.

There's a phenomenon - mostly among men - where great value, and competitiveness, is placed on being able to make the most minuscule distinctions in flavor, appearance, whatever. It illustrates, some people seem to think, refinement and expertise. Oh really? The audiophile wingnuts are perhaps the classic example (I was one briefly). You'll see guys playing their Alvin and the Chipmunks record over and over because of its soundstage and so on, while their "imperfect" Mozart, Ella Fitzgerald, and Wes Montgomery records gather dust.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I can certainly tell the difference between Canon and my Zeiss shots...

In a blind test? Same subject, same everything (but the lens), two sets of pictures labeled only on the back? And no peeking? After a bottle of pinot noir (of your choice)?

[Schewe]

But who is better off - the guy who gets great enjoyment from a wide variety of "good" wines or the other guy who is always finding fault and is rarely really happy with what he's drinking? It seems a bit odd to spend a great deal of time and money "refining" your palette with the result of reducing your enjoyment.

A great deal of time is spent in drinking, yes. But if you don't enjoy tasting great wines and finding inexpensive gems then you really don't enjoy the process. Same thing with lenses...sometimes you find a particular lens specimen that far exceeds your expectations. Other times you try a really expensive lens that is a lemon. Price is no real guarantee that either a wine or lens will be great.

[Sheldon N]

You forgot a few additional really important criteria, your knowledge and experience with wines and your palette...it takes a long time to develop a palette and that only comes with experience and knowledge. Some people never do...just like some people can't see the differences between lens or sensors.

Ironically, I find that many of the photographers I know who CAN tell the differences between lenses also have a refined palette for wine. Also not that price alone is not a good gauge on the quality of a lens or a wine.

There area also many accounts of wine connoisseurs and those with sophisticated palettes being fooled by double blind comparisons. It's always good to use caution when someone says "I can tell the difference between X and Y because of my superior knowledge and experience, and your inability to discern the difference is due to your lack thereof." 

Now if they can back it up with the ability to do so in a blind comparison, then they are right. Often the case is that they cannot.

[NikoJorj]

Michael, I am glad you used wine as an example. This is not to challenge your wine connoisseurship, but studies after studies show that people can hardly differentiate between cheap and expensive wine in blind tests.

Easy conclusion : if studies after studies show that people can hardly differentiate between cheap and expensive wine in blind tests, that demonstrates scientifically that many people on Earth are ignorant barbarians unable to appreciate the skill and goodness radiating from our country.
Well, blind testing is a full part of wine education, to say it a tad more seriously. Of course, apart from very specific places (how do you say "terroir" in english? ) or years (the 2003 drought has given a taste of south to many wines of the "northern" half of France eg), the stories of people reading an entire label just with a blind test are generally fakes (isn't there a Mark Twain's tale like that?), but not telling apart a Bourgogne (strong scents of flowers, acidity...)  from a Bordeaux (tanins predominantly, more discrete scents of forest or leather...), only denotes a lack of education (or a rhynopharyngitis).

You forgot a few additional really important criteria, your knowledge and experience with wines and your palette...

Very good remark indeed.

And then, once you really have experience, you can better describe what you feel in your palais (or in your eyes)... just as I'd like to have some illustrations of the praised qualities of a given lens.
As we say, "ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement" (Boileau) - what you clearly think of, you can clearly describe.

Ironically, I find that many of the photographers I know who CAN tell the differences between lenses also have a refined palette for wine.

I may not fit that well in your statistics... I generally can't tell lenses, but it may only be that I've been more educated to wine than to lenses.
For one though, I feel that the kind of contributions a lens makes to an image, apart from some extreme cases (the spherical aberration of the pictorialists one century ago comes to my mind), are generally marginal.
But well, "everybody's someone else's nigger" as says the song, and I'd think I may just be a ignorant barbarian? Anyway I'd be glad to educate my self, with the help of a few well-chosen graphical illustrations to lens reviews.


Back to topic : correct me if I'm wrong, but the focus shift remarks in the 50/1.5C review may point to spherical aberration - the one of the aforementioned Pictorialists, or is that some other kind?
Are there other identifiable contributors to the "look", if any?

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

How could you "blind test" images?
Do you smell them ?

[Sheldon N]

How could you "blind test" images?
Do you smell them ?

Shoot the same subject at the same time with two lenses, strip exif and compare images. Have someone else help number/label the images so you don't know which ones are which. Or even if it's not a double blind comparison, shoot the same image with two lenses and see what the differences truly are.

Too often a person will go out with their favored lens, shoot a bunch of images and come back and see "the magic properties". Then they'll look at a whole series of other images shot with another lens under totally different circumstances and conclude that they lack those same "magic" properties.  Once you start comparing truly similar images side by side, the differences tend to be much smaller or nonexistent.

I'm not saying there's no difference between lenses, because there definitely is. It just helps to remove the "magic, 3D, ethereal, perceptual" mystique and just look at plain old A vs B.

[David Sutton]

Does anyone else agree that from a journalistic or pedagogical point of view, any time a claim is made that a lens is "special" or produces an un-measurable but important effect (which I don' t doubt for a moment) that the claim should be illustrated not only by a well-glossed sample but also by a counter-example?

Absolutely agree. But I've re-read Mikael Törnwall's report and what comes across is the pleasure of using the lens. I learned a lot from that. After all, I can read reports on equipment until my brain hurts, but until I beg, borrow or steal a copy and try it for myself, I just won't really know.
The wine example is a good one. You can blind test or you can enjoy the process. Totally different things.
I use a Canon body because that's what I happen to have. If I start thinking about it's sub-sub menu system I get so annoyed I lose all the fun in being out photographing. What I'm reminded in Mikael's report is that this is just stuff and what is important is the pleasure and privilege of the process of making images. Maybe not what he intended but.