Zeiss ZM50 - color fringes - would you expect better ?

The Zeiss ZM50 I ordered from Robert White on Friday arrived at 7am this morning - so I set off and took

some test snapshots on Fuji Pro 160S.

 

Looking through the results, I was surprised to see obvious fringing around tree leaves and other outlines

against a brighter - but not that bright scottish sky. Almost every instance of a white to black transition

shows the same effect when looking at 50 or 100% zoom.

 

This shot is of the windows on Holyrood Palace - I would not have expected this much fringing on such a

straightforward scene.

 

Do have a bad lens here or is this a Halation or other effect with Pro160S ?<div></div>

Here is another example - white walls giving same effect<div></div>

You have a pretty sharp lens. The enlargements appear to be beyond the film's capability. Inspite of that, there are discernable details.

 

I would try Kodak EPN to check for problems with color fringing.

It could be a scanning artifact, possibly from oversharpening. Scanning is a rather bad way to proof a lens or film. You should look at the film through a quality microscope.

Yeah, I was going to suggest you rule out your scanner as well. Most scanners have lenses

that aren't exactly Zeiss or Leica quality. Do other lenses you have exhibit the same effect? I

would suggest shooting some slide film and examining it with a good loupe, or microscope if

you have one. Or project it if you have a slide projector.

Which scanner?

FWIW, my ZM 50mm shows no color fringing at f2 when Provia 100f is viewed at 30x on

my Versalab laser aligned Bessler 45 enlarger with my Rodenstock APO 50mm at F4, but

hey, YMMV. Must be a Zeiss/Cosina manufacturing error, you should write the fellow who

signed the Zeiss Quality Control card that came with the lens and tell him he's wrong, its

really a dud.

Maybe they can\'t start out with full brightness, needing a few dusk/dawn shots for break-in - like new bearings.

It doesn't look like CA to me, FWIW. Nothing to do with the lens.

Don, I wouldn't get too excited about it until you've tried it with a better film--I'd suggest Velvia, or Kodachrome 64.

Colour fringing as far as my expreience only exists when the image is digitized. If you were to make a print directly from a negative, without a scanner in between, there would be no colour fringing.

 

Colour fringing is a limitation that is created by the limitations of current digital technology, not the lens. The fact that some lenses are more prone to colour fringing than others leads to the assumnption that it is purely the lens, but I believe it is a limitation of digital conversion, in your case. I could be wrong, but how often did the term 'colour fringing' come up before digital scanning/imaging hit the scene?

Colour fringing as far as my expreience only exists when the image is digitized. If you were to make a print directly from a negative, without a scanner in between, there would be no colour fringing.

Colour fringing is a limitation that is created by the limitations of current digital technology, not the lens. The fact that some lenses are more prone to colour fringing than others leads to the assumnption that it is purely the lens, but I believe it is a limitation of digital conversion, in your case. I could be wrong, but how often did the term 'colour fringing' come up befre digital scanning/imaging hit the scene?

 

Trying a differen film won't make much of a difference. Maybe a more saturated film will distract with higher saturated colours, other than that there is no other solution, other than choosing a better scanner.

Thanks for all the suggestions:

 

It's a bit dull outside so far today, but next time it's sunny, I will try another roll with a mix

of the Zeiss 50mm and an Elmar 50mm.

 

As a comparison to scanning, I will try to get some RA-4 chemicals and paper ( it's been 6

years since I ran color through the darkroom ).

 

The scanner was a Nikon ED4000 - on which I've not seen this effect before, but I normally

use NPH or NPZ which are not as fine grained as the Pro160s.

The effect I'm seeing looks to be digital. If you can process your own color film or have it

done and look at the negs and prints under a good loop would be better than a scanner.

Honestly what you are getting is nothing to worry about Donald. It shouldn't show in prints at moderate to large sizes, and for larger, you'd best use a drum scanner anyway. The glass on your camera is far better than the glass on your scanner, no other way to put it.

I've just finished a few RA-4 prints including this extreme enlargement using a CE Rokkor

28mm lens. I'm quite impressed by detail that has been pulled out of the negative.

 

The Zeiss lens does appear to be sharp beyond reproach.

 

Surprisingly, the Nikon scanner does not seem to be the problem.

 

I'd agree the 'problem' is insignificant at normal print sizes, but I would like to nail it down

now that I've going.

 

Which film should I try next ? - in the fridge I have Velvia 50, Provia 100F, Reala and NPH.<div></div>

oops.. minor correction it was a 30mm CE Rokkor enlarger lens.

The Fuji Pro 160C and Pro160S films are very good, fine grained films. Kodak UC100 is about

the only thing higher resolution in color print films now made.

<best sarcactic voice>

Clearly a bad lens. What do you expect from a rebadged CV? Now you know why we all spend all that money on Leica optics.

right on brother. you pay for what you get.

 

and by the way [ Donald ], blowing images up and eye-balling at those

magnifications is just a bit too much in real world applications. unless you are

blowing up billboard size

I'm going to agree that it's unrealistic to expect a lens to be perfect under such scrutiny.

 

The super fine, but not razor sharp grain of the Pro160 is letting me see all sorts of

aberrations - film and lens in all their glory.

 

I looked into trying UC100, but it does not seem to be available in the UK : Elite Color 200

is - I tried UC 200 once ( the same thing ? ) it was very creamy, low grain but not as sharp

as the pro160s.

 

All this pixel peeking stuff just gets worse the more I look.

 

Just look at the geometric distortions I get if I compress the X axis !

 

I'm just going to load the camera up with Tri-X or NPH, get out and take some normal

pictures - after all I chose this lens as the Elmar's flare looking into light was really poor.<div></div>