Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: KirbyKrieger on July 07, 2011, 05:29:10 pm
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?"
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
... 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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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).
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;D
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?
-
How could you "blind test" images?
Do you smell them ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hi,
Lloyd Chambers, AKA Diglloyd, makes a lot of semiscientific comparisons of lenses, mostly Nkon and Zeiss using real pictures. I'm no longer subscribing to his Zeiss site, but at least some of the Zeiss lenses perform really better than corresponding Nikon lenses. Than some lenses can have better bookeh.
Most large aperture lenses suffer from axial chromatic aberration, something that is quite visible if you know what to look for, but Zeiss lenses do not really perform that much better.
These differences may be small. At around f/8 most lenses perform pretty well, but many lenses can still have weak corners. Some lenses are very good, the Zeiss 21/2.8 is such a lens, but so is the Nikon 14-24/2.8.
Best regards
Erik
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)?
-
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.
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.
Lenses, as wine, exhibit a certain personality...it's been my experience over the years that German lenses tend to show better sharpness and contrast but don't do well being pointed at a light source because of flare due to the design of the lens.
In my experience, Japanese lenses tend to mitigate flare and a variety of other lens defects at the expense of the sharpness and contrast of the lens.
Even within the range of Germain lenses there are slight variations...I've always tended towards Zeiss lenses...basically because of using Blads for many years (and avoiding aiming at light sources).
For view camera lenses, I tended towards Rodenstock for certain focal lengths but Schneider for others...this compares with preferring certain wine varietals vs others (or certain vintage years vs others).
The differences between lenses (like wine) can be subtle...some bottles (and lenses) can be better than others...
The bottom line is can a certain lens (or bottle of wine) enhance your life (or images)? The answer is potentially yes...if, the lens (or wine) might make a difference...
Personally, I'm not sure which is more fun, testing wine or lenses...
-
Personally, I'm not sure which is more fun, testing wine or lenses...
Try both, the wine then the lens. :)
-
Try both, the wine then the lens. :)
The wine then the lens, the lens then the wine...vicious circle. Not sure where to stop!
:~)
-
Why not add to the analogy… wine and cheese tasting or lens and post-processing tasting. ACR, DxO, et al. certainly add their bit to the final image.
Cheers,
-
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.
I think I have to apologize.
My comment was meant as a sort of joke / play with the language.
With a medical background I am fairly knowledgeable with double blind tests and the like.
Sorry.
:P
-
I would love to see two shots in the same setup with that lens and another, showing one as '3D' and one as not to illustrate because I'm not clear on what that is meant to explain, image wise.
-
I am extremely cynical about peoples' performance in double-blind tests where any kind of connoisseurship is claimed.
The human brain is not generally designed that way. Experts in hifi-audio, wine, lenses, etc. can often perform slightly better than chance though the general public cannot.
An awful lot of effort goes into producing very marginal results, and then somehow those people who can perform ever-so-slightly better than the rest of us claim a degree of superiority which is vastly disproportional to their actual performance under test conditions.
Michael's comparison between the G10 and MFDB shows this very clearly.
In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.
I'd happily take bets on wine tasting, audio comparison and the like.
The emperor is usually naked.
-
I am extremely cynical about peoples' performance in double-blind tests where any kind of connoisseurship is claimed.
The human brain is not generally designed that way. Experts in hifi-audio, wine, lenses, etc. can often perform slightly better than chance though the general public cannot.
An awful lot of effort goes into producing very marginal results, and then somehow those people who can perform ever-so-slightly better than the rest of us claim a degree of superiority which is vastly disproportional to their actual performance under test conditions.
Michael's comparison between the G10 and MFDB shows this very clearly.
I'd happily take bets on wine tasting, audio comparison and the like.
The emperor is usually naked.
That's just another of the sad parts of life - should be the Empress; then you'd never hear anyone complain, not even the Republican Tendency. Will they never learn?
Rob C
-
Even though I am an avid Zeiss lens user, I also believed that it was a bit of lens 'snobbery' and that there would be little difference between high-end lenses. Then, I stumbled on this excellent blind test of Zeiss versus Canon L lenses:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/0 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/0)
To my own surprise, I identified 100% of the Zeiss images! And I was not the only one, I think it was about 88% of the respondents. Interestingly, both the L and Zeiss lenses are of the highest quality and there is little difference in MTF values and sharpness. So what is it what allows people to see the difference? I guess we can measure it, but it is somewhat unclear what it is that we should be measuring -- much like the chemistry in the wine I guess :-)
Then there are lenses like the Sony/Minolta 135mm STF (http://the135stf.net/) whose bokeh is immediately recognisable in any comparison.
-
What would interests me is how much these often miniscule differences have ever resulted in revenue....
-
Hi,
A major difference is that the some lenses vignette more than the others. Very clearly A1 vignettes much less than A2. But some folks like vignetting. If the images are converted by LR and LR has lens profiles it may eliminate vignetting. C1 and C2 has also an obvious difference in vignetting. C1 has none and C2 a lot. The vignetting issue very obvious in the A1/A2 and C1/C2 pair.
Comparing small images has more to do with rendition than detail. Now rendering is said to be identical, but that's never that easy
I'd also suggest that some of the images are oversharpened. Not saying that it gives unfair advantage to any lens, as long as oversharpening is same.
Some lenses are truly excellent. The Zeiss 21/2.8 is for instance known for it's excellence while Canon's 16-35/2.8 is know to be quite weak in some areas. Now, comparing a prime with a zoom is like comparing apples and oranges. Another lens in the test that is known for it's excellence is the Zeiss 100/2.0 macro.
My preferences
A1,C1,D1,E1
So it's two times Canon and two times Zeiss, and my guess is that A1 and C1 had automatic optical correction for vignetting applied.
Best regards
Erik
Even though I am an avid Zeiss lens user, I also believed that it was a bit of lens 'snobbery' and that there would be little difference between high-end lenses. Then, I stumbled on this excellent blind test of Zeiss versus Canon L lenses:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/0 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/0)
To my own surprise, I identified 100% of the Zeiss images! And I was not the only one, I think it was about 88% of the respondents. Interestingly, both the L and Zeiss lenses are of the highest quality and there is little difference in MTF values and sharpness. So what is it what allows people to see the difference? I guess we can measure it, but it is somewhat unclear what it is that we should be measuring -- much like the chemistry in the wine I guess :-)
Then there are lenses like the Sony/Minolta 135mm STF (http://the135stf.net/) whose bokeh is immediately recognisable in any comparison.
-
Hi Erik,
Perhaps you over-analysed the photos by looking at specific traits like the vignetting difference. I just picked what I found most appealing after looking at it for 3 seconds ;)
Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion on the validity of the test I linked to.
The reason I brought it up is to say that I do think there is more to a lens than just MTF numbers, and yes, I do think that in a blind test many people can see the difference (as evidenced by the linked test). That we lack a well-defined measure for it doesn't necessarily make it 'a phantom of the mind'.
I often use an older Minolta 35mm lens that often gives a really nice ummm, 'dreamy' look to an image that I have not seen from my modern zooms at 35mm. What is it? Perhaps uncompensated abberrations, perhaps lead in the glass, who knows -- but the images do have a subtle quality to it that I do not see on some more modern lenses.
-
Hi,
The point is that in two cases there was a very obvious difference, namely dark corners.
The other point is that it should not be possible to discern differences in sharpness on images reduced by about a factor five. You can see about each fifth pixel.
On the A and C pair of images the difference was very obvious and it was very obvious that there was vignetting. The D and E pairs were much harder to tell apart, at least for me.
On wide angles there is always some darkening in the corners. The corners sort of "light upp" when you apply correction in software. The A1 and C1 samples certainly looked like corrected in software.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
Perhaps you over-analysed the photos by looking at specific traits like the vignetting difference. I just picked what I found most appealing after looking at it for 3 seconds ;)
Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion on the validity of the test I linked to.
The reason I brought it up is to say that I do think there is more to a lens than just MTF numbers, and yes, I do think that in a blind test many people can see the difference (as evidenced by the linked test). That we lack a well-defined measure for it doesn't necessarily make it 'a phantom of the mind'.
I often use an older Minolta 35mm lens that often gives a really nice ummm, 'dreamy' look to an image that I have not seen from my modern zooms at 35mm. What is it? Perhaps uncompensated abberrations, perhaps lead in the glass, who knows -- but the images do have a subtle quality to it that I do not see on some more modern lenses.
-
Hi,
The point is that in two cases there was a very obvious difference, namely dark corners.
The other point is that it should not be possible to discern differences in sharpness on images reduced by about a factor five. You can see about each fifth pixel.
On the A and C pair of images the difference was very obvious and it was very obvious that there was vignetting. The D and E pairs were much harder to tell apart, at least for me.
On wide angles there is always some darkening in the corners. The corners sort of "light upp" when you apply correction in software. The A1 and C1 samples certainly looked like corrected in software.
Best regards
Erik
I have a 28mm Elmarit(2.8) M that shows no discernable vignetting at f8. I have a friend with high end Canon gear who adds vignetting in post on many of his images. We both use full frame and have about the same investment value in our systems. It is a bit funny that he actually adds an effect that is often described as a defect in optical design.
Like wine and the rest of the universe, it's all subjective. There usually seems to be two distinct camps in these discussions. Those who approach a photograph like any other work of art, taking it in it's entirety, and those who press their nose against it, primarily considering the technical aspects. Our perceptions can change from moment to moment, depending on our mental and physical condition and the environment. Add to this mix the tendency to manipulate images(data), and often you have to question whether you can trust your own eyes/brain.
In the end, gear is just a tool. It either produces the desired result or it doesn't. And my desired result may be quite different from that of other's.
-
Some things lend themselves to technical analysis. Some things don't. Lenses and sensors fall between these camps.
I don't think that what people are looking for here is technical analysis of photos (a la DxO) but rather something to illustrate the qualities that are mentioned. Count me in the group that read this article and have no clue about what it is that this lens may or may not look like when performing various tasks.
Although there was perhaps one aspect that I may have been able to gain some insight into - the ascribed "3D-ness" of photos: in the second photo where the flag behind the girl sitting at the computer is clearly out of focus but not obscured by really large bokeh. At least I think that's the right conclusion to draw (I'm looking past the digital noise of the camera itself.)
When I look at the first photo, I'm really confused ... it has a certain look to it, but I don't know if the look is because of the lens, camera, the combination or something else. I can see that it is a bit different but I don't know why...
I suppose it may be that this review doesn't really have much of anything for those that don't already own some of the other products mentioned in it?
-
Hi,
My point is more about telling apart lenses from small JPEG images. In the samples we discussed there was an obvious difference, and that was very clearly the amount of vignetting.
All wide angles vignette, according to something called cosinus four. Probably one of the images had vignetting removed in processing. I'm very much seeing a similar difference in Lightroom switching "lens corrections" on and off.
Some vendors supply Adobe with calculated data for all their lenses, I think Canon and Sigma does that.
Best regards
Erik
I have a 28mm Elmarit(2.8) M that shows no discernable vignetting at f8. I have a friend with high end Canon gear who adds vignetting in post on many of his images. We both use full frame and have about the same investment value in our systems. It is a bit funny that he actually adds an effect that is often described as a defect in optical design.
Like wine and the rest of the universe, it's all subjective. There usually seems to be two distinct camps in these discussions. Those who approach a photograph like any other work of art, taking it in it's entirety, and those who press their nose against it, primarily considering the technical aspects. Our perceptions can change from moment to moment, depending on our mental and physical condition and the environment. Add to this mix the tendency to manipulate images(data), and often you have to question whether you can trust your own eyes/brain.
In the end, gear is just a tool. It either produces the desired result or it doesn't. And my desired result may be quite different from that of other's.