jose_merino Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2004/12/27/634.html pictures show new zeiss lens against 50mm 1.5 nokton and 2.5 skopar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_jones4 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Please sir, what does it all mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasper1 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Could it be one of the answers to the mysteries of the cosmos? Or something to do with paying a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monsoonphoto.net Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 This is what it is: <P> Column 1: Zeiss Planar 50/2.0<P> Column 2: CV Nokton 50/1.5<P> Column 3: CV Color Skopar 50/2.5<P> Sorry, I can't decipher the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_jones4 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Oh dear. I consitently prefer the cheapo voigtlander 50 2.5 - it seems to me that it's got better tones/sense of depth and nicer bokeh. I can see that it's not as sharp as the other two especially the Zeiss one when they can get it in focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_jones4 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 BTW, the images from the zm do not look like colour equivalents of the (very promising) b+w image that Lutz Konermann kindly posted from a ZM 50 - one of these lenses, therefore, may be a deviant! (or perhaps Zeiss/Cosina have instituted a randomized quality control procedure to keep punters on their toes... or perhaps this is a lens that only gives nice bokeh when used in conjunction with certain silver halide emulsions) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hull Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Wow, and all this inferred from a scanned picture on the internet. I wish I had this keen sense to analyse the faults of a lens from a internet picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidv1 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Can someone translate the Japanese text? Maybe just summarize the results? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_mcloughlin Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 At F2, comparing the Planar and Nokton 50, the latter almost looks like it's slightly out of focus. An the Nokton is no slouch, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich815 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 David, see here:<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AaKS">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AaKS</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_jones4 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Andrew - why so upset? Have a look again and see if they're scanned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hull Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Not angry, just grumpy;-) Just tired of all the people taking shots at stuff they know nothing about. You're right, their digital. Still tough to tell quality online, wouldn't you think? I stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_jones4 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Fair enough - I'm just a bit "over-excited" at the prospect of being able to get the kind of flattering portraits that I used to snap up with my Contax 85 and 50 Planars, except this time with the focusing-ease of an M body. It's probably all a red-herring. Ho hum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hull Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Stephen, I wasn't disparaging the lenses. I know not how well they will do. I fhtey are anything like the ones I have used, I have no doubt they will perform impeccably, as well as Leica glass. My issue is with the supposed infallability of Leica no matter what. Leica are sharper, and then if something is sharper, then the other lens doesn't have the glow, which in and of itself isn't definable, and therefor cannot be refuted. I am looking forwarded to more lenses in M mount, it cannot be a bad thing. And the camera has potential too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_marshall1 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Andrew, so true. So true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_elek Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 I can't make heads or tails of this site. My ability to decipher Asian languages is practically nil.<P> Anyway, much like they did with Photokina, Zeiss is beginning to release little bits of information. For example, this month, (under the "News" heading on the official <a href=http://www.zeissikon.com target=_new>Zeiss Ikon site</a>), there is a link to a short piece about why this camera was conceived.<P> May is still five months away, so it's a smart idea to do this in order to maintain some interest in the camera. By the way, the site mentions Sony as a "famous camera maker."<P> More information is expected at the end of January.<P> The one thing I noticed, and Bill might be able to confirm this, is that the photos on the site and on the PDF bear little resemblance to the photos in the actual brochure -- the kind you hold in your hands and not view on a computer screen. The photos in the brochure are very good, while they look like crap on the computer screen.<P> In the same manner, I don't think you can adequately judge the performance of a lens with an Internet photo.<P> By the way, Carl Zeiss AG has said for some time that the Planar is the most plagiarized lens design ever created.<P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_marshall1 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Yes, Mike the difference between the photos in the printed Zeiss Ikon brochure from Hasselblad & those on the pdf brochure that can be downloaded from the Zeiss Ikon website are strikingly different in quality. The pictures in the print brochure are stunning - sharp with brilliant color rendition. The same pictures in pdf seem drab & even fuzzy - just like the print in the pdf brochure which is fuzzy & a little hard to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Who cares? Either you have a Leica-M and Leica lenses or you have nothing.You bought the best, why settle for less.I recently added a 35-Summaron-f2.8 well used rather than a new VC lens.I want the 'special' look of Leica.I use Nikkors on my Nikon-F. All the other non-brand lenses, Sigma, Vivitar in my ownership and testing by usage are plain lousy.Zeiss is weird! What is to happen to the Contaxes, the SLR and G models by Yashica?I saw the Zeiss-site and new camera.Empty promises so far.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_hull Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Jason: Thanks for exceeding my already absurdly high expectations for snobbery on the Leica board. Ironic that you point to a Leica "look", care to define it? We'll have to tell all hte professional photograhpers out there using Nikon, Canon, Contax to come and see what a real camera can do. Apparently they all use "nothing". What load of carp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_marshall1 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Jason, ROTFLMAO. Thanks for the comic relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton2 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I HOPE he's joking. But, i doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewlamb Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 "Either you have a Leica-M and Leica lenses or you have nothing." So when Cartier-Bresson used a Sonnar on his Leica his photos were nothing? If only he was still around to learn what he'd been doing wrong all those years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul t Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Hahaha. You're obviously a connoisseur, Jason. Not like that ignoramus Robert Capa, who namechecks his frankly inferior Zeiss Contax twice, during his description of that photographic cakewalk, Omaha Beach on D-Day, in the rather excellent Phaidon book, Magnum Stories (thanks, santa). 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