jtdnyc Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 He gives the 90AA first place at infinity but prefers the Zeiss for close-ups. At least, that's the way I read him. I wish he had also compared the Zeiss close up with the 90MEM close up. After all, it's quite possible that Leica gives the best performance at all distances if you select the right tool for the job. He also included the 75AA (and a Canon lens) in his tests. The 75AA seemed to take top prize overall. For those who are interested, he also compared the Canon lens in its film and digital applications. Here's the link. http://imx.nl/photosite/zeiss/test85/t004.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Given that he was also including the Canon f/1.2 85mm, I would like to have seen the Zeiss ZF 85mm f/1.4 Planar tested (about half the cost of the M mount ZM version and a stop faster and manual focus unlike the Canon). I really, really wish that lens testers were banned from the vicinity of brick walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Hi Pete. While we are (loosely) on the subject, have you got any of that ZF glass on your D200 snapper yet> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I can't follow him...except for one photo, all the model's pics have totally blown hair from the back lighting, looks good though, and she's very viewable, but I can't tell what he concludes or what he's trying to say. He seems to enjoy using 10 words, where 2 might suffice. It just sounds like techno-bull sh**te. I am interested in the Zeiss for the D200 though and would love to hear from anyone using one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 He should have removed the low pass filter from the 5D and done the tests. Bricks are better subjects in this test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatrice_flowers Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I think she's hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 He is saying Leica has competition. The 90 APO is not sharp in the near range as others have reported. The 90 R APO is the same. The Zeiss does not suffer this problem, but there is a trade off in ultimate brittle sharpness at infinity. My 90 pre Asph is not sharp under 6 feet at any stop and the literature at the time states so. I`ll never sell the 90 as it can be a great portrait lens with a touch of softness. Those who want sharp up close need the 90 2.8 Elmarit for the viso or the 90 2.8 R first version from 196x. An you can`t compare a darn thing on a computer screen. Go to Canon`s learning website and compare the Powershot 610 for $200 to the $8000 full frame digi. Can`t tell the differnce. No I can`t use my 610 for sports or low light, but it fits in my pocket and allows me to get pics of the grandkids on the net and off to grandma fast and easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_richardson Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I think the sharpest two things in the article are visible in the last picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert x Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I agree with Bee - at least in the last photo. I would have put down the camera. I also think it's amazing that a lens as good as the Summicron utterly failed to record the huge hot-air balloon that was evidently in the shot. Poor show Leica ! Bob X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pc_b Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Is it too hot in the Netherlands? King Putts pastes an overexposed f4 or f5.6 summi-pic to compare to the Sonnar at f2, does the sun flare test without a tripod (were the sun shades on?), uses the wrong film profile for his street shots scans. Na-na-na!And this time around there seems to be no red thread at all to his prose: never his strength, he goes here and there, as do his typos. Putts has become sloppy and amateurish in his approach, whatever the reason may be. Last time that I read one of his texts.Anyone can do a more meaningful test by borrowing/loaning the 'desired' lenses for a couple of hours! Cheers, P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_graham3 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 "Anyone can do a more meaningful test by borrowing/loaning the 'desired' lenses for a couple of hours!" Lenses are a lot like wine. Anyone with good eyes or tastebuds can come to their own conclusions, and whoever has bad eyes or tastebuds the differences are unperceptible anyway. It boils down to a few guys who are at least as good at self-promotion as they are at testing/tasting getting set up as authorities and everyone who knows from nothing but wants to look smart puppets them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oceanphysics Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 I don't know about the blah blah blah, but this guy really needs to stick to brick walls and resolution charts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_matherson Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 "Putts has become sloppy and amateurish in his approach, whatever the reason may be." Having read this article I must agree with you. I always try to take what I need too from Erwins writings and ignore some questionable comments but refferring to the Ikon as the latest Bessa incarnation really shows how little he has researched this and his amateur approach to his work these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikal_grass Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Bee and Robert X hit the nail on the head. Forced to make a decision based on the results shown, I will take the Canon 5 and the babe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_jovic Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 What lens test?JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_kincaid1 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 On the other hand, the new Panasonic Lumix TZ1 with Leica lens (35mm to 350mm zoom) produces a rather soft image at full zoom. Here's a crop of the same scene at 35mm so show how far away the "model" is, followed by a different image at full 350mm zoom. What this has in common with Erwin's photos is (1) there's a wall for those who like walls, and (2) there's another situation where you should put your camera down and introduce yourself.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_kincaid1 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Now at a moment later at 350mm zoom.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_woodford1 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Hmmm. Nice review. Makes me want to move to Holland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted July 14, 2006 Share Posted July 14, 2006 Maybe he will do another test so we can see more babes? How about a cute girl as a bricklayer? :) Some shots could be focused on the babe, others on the wall. Then we could evaluate babe bokeh versus wall bokeh. In movie work the "out of focus" effects have been done with actors, one wants to see the effect when a focus pull is done. <BR><BR>Adding the old late 1940's 85mm F2 LTM Nikkor to the test and several 85mm F2 Jupiter-9's would be cool too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_smith Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 All I see is poor quality scans, is he trying to say the shots he posted are representative of the Velvia originals? If not the whole article is rubbish and a 5D vs poor scans. Those scans are so bad the lens used is irrelevant, they looked more like 400 ISO Gold on auto scan with my flatbed. I agree about the last shot that canon lens has good depth of field (front to back) and renders the circles of confusion nicely. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthuryeo Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 >All I see is poor quality scans, is he trying to say the shots he posted are representative of the Velvia originals? I am not sure if he turned on GEM (grain management) and ICE for his scans but if he did, it would probably have the same resulting effect as the low-pass filter in the digital sensor although they have different purposes in their designs. If GEM is turned on more grains will disappear at the expense of resolution. Well, it's good to know the my 90mm APO 'cron is still considered as one of the best lenses in the world for that focal length. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot_rosen1 Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 The 90/2 APO Summicron M ASPH is great lens (optically) that is also well made. The 85/1.2 Canon EF-L lens is also a great lens optically but it is not well constructed. The lens is in a cheap plastic (polycarbonate) barrel that will not withstand any kind of trauma. It's too bad Canon did not see to cloth the optics of this terrific lens in fitting dress. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 I did not know that polycarbonate is "cheap" plastic. I also did not know that metal housings are safer for lenses. Is there any proof to support your assertions, Eliot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger_smith4 Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 His film scans seem pretty technically incompetent and why he's shooting portraits on Velvia is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eliot_rosen1 Posted July 15, 2006 Share Posted July 15, 2006 "Is there any proof to support your assertions, Eliot?" You've got to be kidding. Try dropping each of these lenses on the floor and see which survives better. Having dropped another Canon plastic barreled lens on the floor I can tell you that it just disintegrated, with lens parts coming our, barrel cracked, and unrepairable. Do you really doubt that solid metal construction is better than plastic? If so, nothing I can say will convince you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now