Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Makten on April 22, 2011, 07:07:13 am
-
I've been shooting Zeiss ZF lenses on my D700 for a year or so now, and in my opinion they give a very special "look". I know that many agree with that, but also that some think it's just nonsense, so lets not get too deep into that subject. :D
Now, lately I've put the digital gear aside and instead I enjoy a Pentax 67II with three lenses. I just love everything about it, including the lenses. But of course I can't help wondering if there is a MF system that uses Zeiss lenses. Because that would be heaven! Yes, I know about Hasselblad, but that's 6x6 and I really prefer 6x7. I don't know about the old Jena glass, but nothing I've seen from that stuff indicates that they would give the "Zeiss look".
Any ideas, or am I restricted to 6x6? ::)
-
You're restricted to 6x6 :)
-
You're restricted to 6x6 :)
Boo! :D Alright, but any alternatives to Hasselblad?
-
Boo! :D Alright, but any alternatives to Hasselblad?
Rollei 6000 series and Hy6/AFi (basically an updated 6000 series). There are both Zeiss and Schneider lenses available for this platform.
-
For what I've seen in the different MF forums, the last glass from the RZ was hard to beat.
-
Yeah, I was thinking to suggest you check the RZ as well if you like the 6x7 format. Unfortunately they don't make digital sensors in 6x7 or square formats.
-
Rollei 6000 series and Hy6/AFi (basically an updated 6000 series). There are both Zeiss and Schneider lenses available for this platform.
I'll check it out, thanks! :) How do these compare with Hasselblad, in terms of size and weight? I've got the impression that Hassys are quite small for 6x6 (haven't tried one myself).
For what I've seen in the different MF forums, the last glass from the RZ was hard to beat.
Well, I suppose that depends on what you want from a lens. I have yet to see any other manufacturer that have the same "design philosophy" as Zeiss, which means extremely high micro contrast.
Interestingly enough, my D700 with ZF lenses gives more "pop" than what I get out of the P67. The larger format helps by itself, but still doesn't get "there".
This is the look I'm after, if you see what I mean:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/Distagon%2035/DSC_9908.jpg)
The scene looks almost rendered, or "3D" even on the screen. Of course I can just use the D700 for it, but I like film. :D And I hate the 3:2 aspect ratio! >:(
-
Yeah, I was thinking to suggest you check the RZ as well if you like the 6x7 format. Unfortunately they don't make digital sensors in 6x7 or square formats.
Digital MF is way out of my budget, so it doesn't matter. ;)
Edit: What the heck, how about 645 then? Contax? :P Probably also too expensive for me though.
-
That picture doesn't do anything for me. And your Zeiss MF choices are Hass/Contax/Rollei
-
That picture doesn't do anything for me.
I wasn't meant to "do" anything. It was about the look that the lens (35/2) gives. If you have examples of any MF system doing the same, I'd like to see it of course. :)
Edit: Just to make clear; this is not some kind of brand snobbery. I just like Zeiss, but I'm happy with whatever lens/system/manufacturer that gets me what I want.
And your Zeiss MF choices are Hass/Contax/Rollei
Great, then I'll just start the investigation! 8)
-
Or Sinar M. (Not a recommendation, just adding to the list.)
-
Hi,
How much of that "pop" comes from processing?
Best regards
Erik
I'll check it out, thanks! :) How do these compare with Hasselblad, in terms of size and weight? I've got the impression that Hassys are quite small for 6x6 (haven't tried one myself).
Well, I suppose that depends on what you want from a lens. I have yet to see any other manufacturer that have the same "design philosophy" as Zeiss, which means extremely high micro contrast.
Interestingly enough, my D700 with ZF lenses gives more "pop" than what I get out of the P67. The larger format helps by itself, but still doesn't get "there".
This is the look I'm after, if you see what I mean:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/Distagon%2035/DSC_9908.jpg)
The scene looks almost rendered, or "3D" even on the screen. Of course I can just use the D700 for it, but I like film. :D And I hate the 3:2 aspect ratio! >:(
-
Hi,
How much of that "pop" comes from processing?
It depends of what you compare with, of course. ;) But the only thing I've done is sharpening in two steps when downsampling, which I always do.
I'd say that 90% of the pop is from the lens. I've had ~50 lenses in Nikon mount, and only the ZF ones give this sort of look. I also have one Zeiss lens for Leica M mount, and it does the very same thing, both on film and digital.
-
Linhof or Arca Swiss or Ebony or Wista... + Zeiss lenses: Biogon 53mm, Biogon 75mm, Planar 80mm, Planar 100mm, Planar 135mm, Sonnar 180mm, Sonnar 250mm.
Romano
-
This is the look I'm after, if you see what I mean:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/Distagon%2035/DSC_9908.jpg)
The scene looks almost rendered, or "3D" even on the screen. Of course I can just use the D700 for it, but I like film. :D And I hate the 3:2 aspect ratio! >:(
Makten:
I've seen some of your posts at Pentaxforums and I when I saw some of the images you posted thought " he really makes the camera and 105 sing".
e.g. http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-medium-format-645-6x7-645d/134572-nikon-d700-vs-pentax-67ii-pictures.html
I see nothing exceptional in the image you posted. So I am at a loss to understand
-
I do like Zeiss quality, I have a Hasselblad V system myself. Unfortunately no digital back yet. My dmf criteria is based solely on what I have seen and read on the internet. As a matter of fact, I've never seen a digital back in person. Digital files are crispier than film. In the film days, Zeiss glass was known to be too clinical for portraiture. Many liked the quality of the RB/RZ glass and they called it "creamy".
The RZ glass renders the most film-like digital images I've seen over the internet. Maybe it is because they don't look "that" sharp. The creamy look give them an organic quality that some hyper sharp digital files totally lack. In my humble opinion the stair image posted by Makten lacks 3D looks. I would say it looks more like a bas-relief work. Carved but still a 2D object. No offense.
Eduardo
-
if you dont mind 645
Contax 645 is probably the best overall medium format with AF Zeiss optics
its a dead system but still makes amazing pictures
Rollei is next, but also a half dead system, and more expensive
Hasselblad of course is your best bet
-
Old Linhof Technika's has Carl Zeiss glass options, like
Biogons 53mm f/4.5 and 75mm f/4.5
Sonnar 180mm f/4.8 and 250mm f/5.6
wonderful Planar 135mm f/3.5
Tessaк 100mm f/3.5
(and this camera offers also really wonderful Shneider lens options too)
But pretty expensive and can be a little tricky to use rangefinder or ground-glass after SLRs
-
Hello,
I’ve just had a look at the Hasselblad website for the first time, as I use Mamiya RZ and 645AFDII.
Looking at the lenses in the V System they mention there lenses are made by Carl Zeiss but the lenses in the H System there is no mention of Carl Zeiss.
So I’m I correct in thinking that the H lenses are made by Fuji who also played a major part in the development of the H System camera body?
Simon
-
Looking at the lenses in the V System they mention there lenses are made by Carl Zeiss but the lenses in the H System there is no mention of Carl Zeiss.
That's right - they moved away from Zeiss with the H platform, which irked countless Hasselblad devotees.
-
Hi Graham,
So who is making the H System lenses?
I remember back in 1985 went I lived in Australia talking to the rep form Rollie about the then new Rollie 6006 camera system. Rollie use of course Carl Ziess and Schneider lenses. The also had a cheaper range of lenses called Rolienor lenses or some thing like that which where made under licence in Japan for Rollie.
When I asked him what Japanese lens manufacturer it was I was told Tokina.
If the H System lenses are manufactured in Japan may be its is Tokina as well?
Simon
-
Hi Graham,
So who is making the H System lenses?
I remember back in 1985 went I lived in Australia talking to the rep form Rollie about the then new Rollie 6006 camera system. Rollie use of course Carl Ziess and Schneider lenses. The also had a cheaper range of lenses called Rolienor lenses or some thing like that which where made under licence in Japan for Rollie.
When I asked him what Japanese lens manufacturer it was I was told Tokina.
If the H System lenses are manufactured in Japan may be its is Tokina as well?
Simon
There are no Tokina-made lenses for the Rollei 6000 platform, but I think Rollei did make the excellent 'kit' 80mm in-house. As far as I know Fuji makes the H series lenses for Hasselblad.
-
In my humble opinion the stair image posted by Makten lacks 3D looks. I would say it looks more like a bas-relief work. Carved but still a 2D object. No offense.
That was a very good explanation actually! The "3D" term is a bit annoying since we all have different interpretations of it.
However, this "relief" style is exactly what I want, because it's the closest to 3D I can get with full depth of field and/or flat objects with just structure.
The Zeiss lenses being "too crisp" is also what makes them desirable for me. I don't shoot portraits at all. ::)
I see some suggestions here that I think are large format cameras? That would of course be nice, but I'm really not ready for that yet. :D
I almost exclusively shoot handheld, hence my choice of the Pentax. And I like exact compositions, which sort of rules out rangefinders (already tried it).
-
There are no Tokina-made lenses for the Rollei 6000 platform, but I think Rollei did make the excellent 'kit' 80mm in-house. The rest are Zeiss and Schneider lenses. As far as I know Fuji makes the H series lenses for Hasselblad.
-
Hi Graham,
There where 3 lenses in 1985 under the Rollienor name or some thing like that which where made in Japan for Rollie in the Tokina factory as I was told by the Australian rep for Rollie back in 1985.
I could have been misinformation back then, but I had no reason not to believe him. I did see made in Japan on one of these lenses showed to me in there Brisbane show room.
I eventually when with the Mamiya RZ system which 26 year later I am still using.
Simon
-
I used the 500 series 'blads for many years, with the 'silver' 50, 80 amd 150. I rmember reading in the BJP that Norman Parkinson had refused a 'free' new 150 from the makers (I assume that to mean the black type) because it was too contrasty for shooting women. He should have known, so I believe it. The main drawback I found with the 150 was that it wasn't a 180; they didn't exist when I bought into the system. If there was another downside to the 'silver' 150 it was that I found it pretty poor for shooting into the light; the Nikkors, on the other hand, handled such situations without problems.
I'm surprised that the Pentax 67 gets such praise; I bought a new Mk 11 and it wasn't what I'd hoped at all, and I got rid of it before the ordered replacement screen arrived. I realised that shutter bounce wasn't something you could avoid as you can mirror slap. But then, I find some other troubles with the D200 and D700: there is no better screen system (for me) than the split image wedge and a grid combined. Sadly, even for the F series, Nikon only made that combination available for use with slow lenses. Crazy. As for the digi bodies above, I really don't know if the screens can even be changed somewhere. I've given up the fight and accepted that I have to make do with what comes in the box. In other words, I've come to believe that we pay much more and also get less choice within whatever we buy; yes, plenty of functions I'll never want to use, but not a lot that I do desire. Of course, were I into af that would be something else, but I don't like it at all, and find that in rotten available darkness (such as bars) I can focus perfectly well with manual lenses of the 1.8 variety as well as my longer 2.8s. It's just that a split-image system would be so much faster in use; it always was, even when my eyes were young and bloody good.
Rob C
-
I used the 500 series 'blads for many years, with the 'silver' 50, 80 amd 150. I rmember reading in the BJP that Norman Parkinson had refused a 'free' new 150 from the makers (I assume that to mean the black type) because it was too contrasty for shooting women. He should have known, so I believe it. The main drawback I found with the 150 was that it wasn't a 180; they didn't exist when I bought into the system. If there was another downside to the 'silver' 150 it was that I found it pretty poor for shooting into the light; the Nikkors, on the other hand, handled such situations without problems.
That sounds promising! ;D
I'm surprised that the Pentax 67 gets such praise; I bought a new Mk 11 and it wasn't what I'd hoped at all, and I got rid of it before the ordered replacement screen arrived. I realised that shutter bounce wasn't something you could avoid as you can mirror slap.
Hmm, I find the viewfinder of the P67II to be very easy to focus with. Much, much better than any modern 24x36 camera, whatever the screen might be. And I haven't had any problems with shutter bounce, even if I often shoot handheld down to 1/60 or so. Maybe it's only a problem at medium long times on a tripod?
But then, I find some other troubles with the D200 and D700: there is no better screen system (for me) than the split image wedge and a grid combined. Sadly, even for the F series, Nikon only made that combination available for use with slow lenses. Crazy. As for the digi bodies above, I really don't know if the screens can even be changed somewhere. I've given up the fight and accepted that I have to make do with what comes in the box. In other words, I've come to believe that we pay much more and also get less choice within whatever we buy; yes, plenty of functions I'll never want to use, but not a lot that I do desire. Of course, were I into af that would be something else, but I don't like it at all, and find that in rotten available darkness (such as bars) I can focus perfectly well with manual lenses of the 1.8 variety as well as my longer 2.8s. It's just that a split-image system would be so much faster in use; it always was, even when my eyes were young and bloody good.
I've changed the screen in my D700, which helps a lot when using manual focus glass. There are plenty of aftermarket screens, and it's easy to make the switch at your kitchen table or whatever. :)
-
"I've changed the screen in my D700, which helps a lot when using manual focus glass. There are plenty of aftermarket screens, and it's easy to make the switch at your kitchen table or whatever."
That's interesting; what have you used and where did you get it?
Rob C
-
Yes, I know about Hasselblad, but that's 6x6 and I really prefer 6x7. I don't know about the old Jena glass, but nothing I've seen from that stuff indicates that they would give the "Zeiss look".
I gather you have already concluded there is no Zeiss lens for 6x7, unless you are willing to go with a plate camera and large format Zeiss Planar lenses, or a 6x9 camera such as perhaps a Shen-Hao TFC69 with lens movements. Perhaps you should give that a thought? Of the Zeiss large format lenses the 135mm 3.5 Planar is available used but $$$. There are of course also other large format lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock but it requires researching for what lenses you like the rendering of. Some are actually very affordable used.
If you do like sharp lenses and prime interest is not portraits I can suggest the Mamiya 7. I had it before and sold it off a few months ago. It was difficult thing to sell because I simply found it such an excellent system. All you would need is probably two lenses. I had the 43mm and 80mm. No matter which lenses you would choose they are super sharp. It is a rangefinder camera with the rangefinder mechanism compensating for parallex, but for the 43mm and 50mm there are add on viewfinders for framing. Since it is a rangefinder it also means the camera is also much lighter than the heavy Pentax 6x7 or Mamiya RZ/RB to carry around! Per memory I believe my Mamiya 7 with two lenses weighed around 1.5 kg...
Above aside I have myself come to the conclusion that there is no substitute for glass made in Germany, be it Zeiss, Schnieder, Rodenstock or Leica. Those simply have a character in rendering unlike Japanese, which can be very sharp, but... sharp with a lack of character. That said, in my experience Mamiya 7 glass was my top crop favorite glass from Japan, and with far more pleasing rendering than the Mamiya 645 D lenses I have owned.
Not sure if you shoot black and white or color or landscape or what? For 6x7 landscapes I can say with ease, Mamiya 7 system with Velvia 50 slide film is indeed very very difficult to beat.
Regards
Anders
-
Indeed as mentioned above, the Sinar M system, had probably the only MF digital Zeiss lenses made. All other MF and LF Zeiss were for film originally.
IIRC, the 80mm Zeiss for Sinar M set world standards for resolution. possibly only equalled by the Leica S2 70mm. It was insanely expensive. The marketing disaster was that it's a closed system, only usable with Sinar backs, locking major MF back users (Phase, Hassy) out of using the camera system. Very silly move, that lead to its failure to take off. I might have gone down that path otherwise.
Saw one M system with 2 lenses on eBay in the depths of the recession, went for an ok price, about equal to one of the lenses new.
-
Indeed as mentioned above, the Sinar M system, had probably the only MF digital Zeiss lenses made. All other MF and LF Zeiss were for film originally.
IIRC, the 80mm Zeiss for Sinar M set world standards for resolution. possibly only equalled by the Leica S2 70mm. It was insanely expensive. The marketing disaster was that it's a closed system, only usable with Sinar backs, locking major MF back users (Phase, Hassy) out of using the camera system. Very silly move, that lead to its failure to take off. I might have gone down that path otherwise.
Saw one M system with 2 lenses on eBay in the depths of the recession, went for an ok price, about equal to one of the lenses new.
That's okay?
Rob C
-
That's interesting; what have you used and where did you get it?
I bought an old F2 screen and filed it down to size! :D Can't recommend that, but it works even if it is a little bit too narrow on one end.
But there are new screens:
http://www.focusingscreen.com/index.php?cPath=22_92
http://brightscreen.com/styles2.html
http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/cat--Nikon-DSLRs--cat_nikon.html
I gather you have already concluded there is no Zeiss lens for 6x7, unless you are willing to go with a plate camera and large format Zeiss Planar lenses, or a 6x9 camera such as perhaps a Shen-Hao TFC69 with lens movements. Perhaps you should give that a thought? Of the Zeiss large format lenses the 135mm 3.5 Planar is available used but $$$. There are of course also other large format lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock but it requires researching for what lenses you like the rendering of. Some are actually very affordable used.
I think that's a few steps too far. ;) I've only developed 50 rolls or so yet, so right now I'm just playing with the thought. But I'm a gear freak, so sooner or later...
If you do like sharp lenses and prime interest is not portraits I can suggest the Mamiya 7. I had it before and sold it off a few months ago. It was difficult thing to sell because I simply found it such an excellent system. All you would need is probably two lenses. I had the 43mm and 80mm. No matter which lenses you would choose they are super sharp. It is a rangefinder camera with the rangefinder mechanism compensating for parallex, but for the 43mm and 50mm there are add on viewfinders for framing. Since it is a rangefinder it also means the camera is also much lighter than the heavy Pentax 6x7 or Mamiya RZ/RB to carry around! Per memory I believe my Mamiya 7 with two lenses weighed around 1.5 kg...
I actually had a Fujica GM670 before the Pentax, and it's sort of the same as the Mamiya 7 but larger. The 100/3.5 lens was very nice and sharp, but the bokeh was a bit too harsh.
The worst thing with it was the inaccurate rangefinder. I've read that about the Mamiyas too, so I guess they are best for shooting well stopped down. On the other hand, handheld is how I like to shoot.
Above aside I have myself come to the conclusion that there is no substitute for glass made in Germany, be it Zeiss, Schnieder, Rodenstock or Leica. Those simply have a character in rendering unlike Japanese, which can be very sharp, but... sharp with a lack of character. That said, in my experience Mamiya 7 glass was my top crop favorite glass from Japan, and with far more pleasing rendering than the Mamiya 645 D lenses I have owned.
The modern Zeiss lenses are actually made by Cosina in Japan. ;D And I really don't see any similarities between Zeiss and Leica.
Not sure if you shoot black and white or color or landscape or what? For 6x7 landscapes I can say with ease, Mamiya 7 system with Velvia 50 slide film is indeed very very difficult to beat.
I shoot mostly "urban scenes" or abstracts. I plan on shooting more color now since I've just tried developing C-41 at home with great results, but I've only done B/W before.
Here's som stuff: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v621/Makten/Pentax%2067II/
The further back you go in the album, the crappier the results. :D I did a lot of experimenting with stand dev in the beginning, which didn't turn out very well.
Anyway, you'll get an idea of what stuff I like to shoot.