DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is 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. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

WHY zeiss lenses nowadays

speedcore

New Member
WHY Zeiss lenses??

my question might irritate one or the other contax-zeiss user (i myself work with this stuff), BUT: regarding the 24-36 films nowadays available on the market, there is NO highlight concerning the resolution of films. i mean: when agfa dia direct (12 asa, mnjam mnjam!), kodachrome 25 or ektar 25 were available, the results really astonished me (and many others). blown up to 40-60 or 50-75 cm, the BRILLIANCE and DETAIL RESOLUTION was similar to medium format. simply great.

but if you take a – let's say 100 asa fuji reala (is there a better neg. film today?) the results are ok, BUT DO NOT REPRODUCE THE QUALITY OF ZEISS LENSES. in other words: zeiss is too good for the films, so that i mean it is – maybe – NOT necessary to invest so much money for the best 'hardware' if on the other hand the 'software' (compare bullsh... windows xp...) is medium quality.

what do YOU mean?

greetinx from germany,
dieter o.
 
Dieter, I agree with your comments to an extent. There is a "law of diminishing returns" with 35mm format. The sad part is that even a mediocre medium format camera can produce a sharper enlarged image than the best optics in 35mm, simply because of the meagre size of the 35mm negative. As I'm sure you know, a 35mm negative needs to be enlarged nearly 7 times to make an 8 X 10 print and once you go beyond that size of print the image starts to degrade no matter whether you use an old Minolta lens or a brand new Zeiss or Nikkor lens. As you indicate, the disappearance of the slower films is another issue. However, I personally find that the Zeiss lenses produce more pleasing images - especially with colour films like Reala. This may have something to do with the ability of the Zeiss lenses to produce better contrast, not just sharpness.
 
Not sure I agree with this, as someone who has just ditched some Tamron lenses and put his Nikon zooms back in the camera bag, I may be biased !
Just stocked up on CZ primes in the belief of improved quality, ( 18,28,50,85,135) I thought about medium format but the change was to great for me. Plus I had an RX being under used.

What tipped the decision for me was see a Yann Arthus Bertrand ( http://www.yannarthusbertrand.com/us/index.htm )
exhibition outside the National History Museum in London.

The picture were stunning both photographically ad technically, they were enlarged to over a metre wide ! ! ! and were original prints on Fuji crystal archive paper. They were shot using Velvia on a Canon EOS 1......35mm !
I did not think it possible to enlarge 35mm so much and archive such stunning results. even close up.

I was convinced and gave up thoughts of medium format and stuck with my RX, and bought said lenses.
I now shoot Velvia !
At present I scan and print digitally, A3, ( Microtek 4000tf and Canon S9000) with Vevia the grain is smaller than the pixels, Ie 4000 dpi is not enough to get all the definition out. Perhaps the new Minolta 5400 is required !

Golden rule I always break, use a tripod ! Blowing up 35mm exposes your technique more than medium format, before the short comings in the film. !

Steve T
 
Just an afterthought. I remembered having come across a couple of websites from companies that still produce slower black and white negative film (ISO 25, 40 50). They are: EFKE Film at www.efkefilm.com and Gigabitfilm at www.gigabitfilm.de
 
Why Zeiss lenses? I shooted a blue ceramic wall using fuji 400 slide and a black subject on a wite background using velvia 50. All two slides were scanned in a drum ICG scanner and enlarged up to A3 size, and used the blue ceramic wall photo as a background and the other as a subject for a new product box decoration, mounted in Photoshop and printed in offset. Perhaps the fuji 400 enlargement was a little grain, but the zeiss image quality minimized this.

I think Zeiss lenses permit photo enlargement until film grain limit. With other lenses, the limit can be the lens sharpeness before the film grain.

I'm not worried with "a mediocre medium format camera can produce a sharper enlarged image than the best optics in 35mm, simply because of the meagre size of the 35mm negative". A 35mm camera is much more versatile than medium format camera, and, with good optics, allow to make good studio photos having good quality for normal enlargements, and good travel photos, good architecture photos, good people photos... and much more.
 
Joan,

You're right but... I shoot a Canon 1V with "L" lenses and love it. Very easy to use. Great from unstable platforms (ie boats) too. That said I also shoot a 645 and love it. It's almost as versatile, in studio and on location. I'm using it more and more. As good as my Canon glass is my 645 reproductions are indeed better. But there's still nothing like looking through a well exposed 4x5 sheet of Velvia!

Guy
 
Joan, I agree with all your comments about the advantages and especially the versatility of 35mm format. I am exclusively a 35mm user, love my Contax cameras and believe most of the Zeiss optics to be the best in the world. I don't own a medium format camera, but I do print from both medium and 35mm formats. My response to Dieter's original message was related to his comments about older, slow-speed films which produced minimal grain in enlargements in 35mm format. Cheers, Rob
 
I think that if you want to experience the quality of Zeiss glasses even nowadays, you have to go to the limits of one's own capability in photo-technique and at the same time compare results in difficult lightening situations.

If we forget for a moment the MTF charts, then try out the N-lenses with a decent slide film i.e. Velvia. Look at lens flare and colour reproduction. And then try to find these results with any other brandname in the same focal-lenght.

After that comparison, you will have no questions anymore
happy.gif
 
hmmm so if Betrands work was printed up to a meter wide, from 6x6 Velvia chromes and placed side by side with the 35mm what would you do? You would probably be blown away by the quality. Maybe it's the fact he's a good photographer and it matters not a bit which 35mm lenses he used.
 
Back
Top