Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Lensing and the Future - A great interview with Zeiss

C

Clayton Burkhart

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
723
Reaction score
1
Points
0
This is not just an interview, it's an education.

Why choosing the right lens for the right camera matters.

 
Great interview - thanks for sharing Clayton!
 
This is a good interview. However I would say that lens choice is project specific, and that lens resolution is only one aspect influencing that decision.

For many cameras with high res sensors, you don't always want the lens that enables you to see every hair follicle on your talent. I do admire what Zeiss do though, and when you want high contrast sharp lenses with minimal distortion etc etc then they are fantastic. I quite often use low contrast softer lenses, with design optimised for beautiful bokeh over sharpness, though.

Sometimes I look at a shot with a Zeiss lens, and think "yes the subject is sharp with high contrast, but because of the particular distance (with respect to focal length) to the background in that set-up, and the light on the back ground, the out of focus elements are a little unattractive.

I think there is a danger that lens designers when told to optimise sharpness and contrast at all costs, so as to keep up with increasing sensor resolving capability, will have to compromise other aspects of lens design. If care is not taken, that could result in compromises to the overall image.

Having said this, I own a set of Zeiss!
 
They probably chose the 55 first because the current 50 f1.4 is such a POS- shame really to put "Zeiss" on it.
I actually disagree with their approach- there are other improvements that would benefit the users (more) than creating the "heaviest, most expensive" (his words)55mm lens.
I expected a little more intelligent approach from the masters...
 
I agree with Jacek as to why they are starting with the 55mm, but I also think it's a good place to start with these new lenses.

When it comes to pricing and quality on these lenses the new design creates many questions towards some of the other glass that Zeiss offers.

At the end of the day, these new designs will end up in a set that we'd likely all want. However, that could be two maybe three years for a full cinema-minded set is on the market. When I was speaking to Rich he acknowledged that Zeiss knows that's the direction these are going and they are doing their best to keep some of the more still minded design away from the new design of the 55mm f/1.4.

I spoke to Helmut Lenhof, and damn I wish I had that entire conversation on camera because it's a memory I want, but the 28-80mm and 70-200mm seem to adhere to the same or similar mindset. I shot a few stills with the 28-80mm on the floor and it looks very good.

How good? This good:


* click to open in new window, because the image is scaled down.


Zeiss is certainly designing some forward thinking optics. They'll take a while to design and deliver, but when they arrive they're going to be beasts.
 
Phil Holland said:
I agree with Jacek as to why they are starting with the 55mm, but I also think it's a good place to start with these new lenses.

When it comes to pricing and quality on these lenses the new design creates many questions towards some of the other glass that Zeiss offers.

At the end of the day, these new designs will end up in a set that we'd likely all want. However, that could be two maybe three years for a full cinema-minded set is on the market. When I was speaking to Rich he acknowledged that Zeiss knows that's the direction these are going and they are doing their best to keep some of the more still minded design away from the new design of the 55mm f/1.4.

I spoke to Helmut Lenhof, and damn I wish I had that entire conversation on camera because it's a memory I want, but the 28-80mm and 70-200mm seem to adhere to the same or similar mindset. I shot a few stills with the 28-80mm on the floor and it looks very good.

How good? This good:


* click to open in new window, because the image is scaled down.


Zeiss is certainly designing some forward thinking optics. They'll take a while to design and deliver, but when they arrive they're going to be beasts.
Click to expand...

Strange that they are "trying to keep it away from the still minded designs" and yet it is presented as a stills lens.
Lets be honest here, they are testing the ground for the cinema community. At this price point, this is not for the photo guys, it's for us.
They just can't make an investment in the development of a whole set yet.

Bit of a quandry here. This is clearly the kind of set I would like to invest in, but that is several years away.
Schneider will present 3 lenses at the end of this year, who knows when the wider angles will show up.
Canon is missing the 24mm and their wide lens is far too slow.

At the end of the day, a guy like myself ends up having to go for CP.2's if one needs a complete set for the near future.
Sigh.
 
Clayton Burkhart said:
Strange that they are "trying to keep it away from the still minded designs" and yet it is presented as a stills lens.
Canon is missing the 24mm and their wide lens is far too slow.
Click to expand...

Well specifically they are looking to avoid breathing and image shift.

Canon's missing that 35mm T1.3. If you are looking for something in that 14mm/15mm range the 15mm CP.2 is pretty hard to beat and is "flatter" than the Canon 14mm. Both good, one's a bit better though.

Just a matter of time. I hope Schneider can flesh out that Xenon FF-Prime set.

The glass market has exploded and competition is rampant. Sadly, it just take a good long while to create and test quality glass.
 
nice
 
There are so many technologies that lenses could benefit from but, unfortunately, Zeiss is not in the fore front of these so they want to pursue the traditional path.
I don't think that's enough today...
The CP's are a success because they had no competition for a while.
It's a different story now.
I don't think big $4000 manual still prime lenses are the answer....
We all know how it ended for Red...
 
Phil Holland said:
Well specifically they are looking to avoid breathing and image shift.

Canon's missing that 35mm T1.3. If you are looking for something in that 14mm/15mm range the 15mm CP.2 is pretty hard to beat and is "flatter" than the Canon 14mm. Both good, one's a bit better though.

Just a matter of time. I hope Schneider can flesh out that Xenon FF-Prime set.

The glass market has exploded and competition is rampant. Sadly, it just take a good long while to create and test quality glass.
Click to expand...

sorry, I meant to say that 35mm is missing. But you are right that 15mm from Zeiss is pretty great.
My greatest problem with the CP.2's though, is that their tolerances are not good enough for the EF mount.
Image shift because of wiggle in the mount is a big no-no.
It sounds like Schneider was able to get that right.
 
Clayton Burkhart said:
sorry, I meant to say that 35mm is missing. But you are right that 15mm from Zeiss is pretty great.
My greatest problem with the CP.2's though, is that their tolerances are not good enough for the EF mount.
Image shift because of wiggle in the mount is a big no-no.
It sounds like Schneider was able to get that right.
Click to expand...

I think the use of a simple bayonet mount like EF is more to blame on that front. Locking mounts like PL really are important for motion acquisition where lens movement matters (which it doesn't in stills photography).
 
Mark K. said:
I think the use of a simple bayonet mount like EF is more to blame on that front. Locking mounts like PL really are important for motion acquisition where lens movement matters (which it doesn't in stills photography).
Click to expand...

Not really. It is entirely possible to make an EF mount that doesn't have wiggle.
Phil has confirmed this on the Schneiders and I have used plenty of big primes converted to Leitax mounts that have no issue.
Zeiss charges four times more for their EF mount and it's not as good in terms of it's tolerances.
 
Clayton Burkhart said:
Not really. It is entirely possible to make an EF mount that doesn't have wiggle.
Click to expand...

It's a combination of several things from what I can observe. Generally speaking the EF mount is "thin". That's just a design property of what it is. It was designed to be extremely lightweight and compact. Any pressure put on the lens can effect the image. Lenses that provide a bit of a stiff focus (or zoom) action via the follow focus sometimes can produce movement within the picture. It almost looks like you are pushing up or down on the lens as you're pulling. A few things can help improve that though.

- Adding lens support brackets.
- Using steel rods over carbon fiber.
- Using 19mm instead of 15mm rods.

Red's already added one important tool to battle any play you get out of EF mount glass and that the "collar lock" on the mount. Otherwise you'd see the left right play that can produce what looks like image shift sometimes, but you can certainly notice it on DSLRs that utilize the traditional Canon design.


In contrast, PL was designed out of the need to mount big, heavy, long lenses. So it's super thick. It's locking "pedals" tell you the story.


Additionally, quality cinema glass seems to have focus actions somewhere between "ice skating smooth", which is likely due to super viscous grease and the cam design within the lens, or they tend to have a slight push back to your focus pull, a property of different cam design and grease with a little more attitude. Arri/Zeiss Master Primes fall into the "ice skating smooth" category for instance while Leica Summilux-C Primes have a bit of a push to them. The ice skating design tends to lead to a more quick pull where you land on your mark or follow your subject with a bit of snap. I find the push provides the slightest amount of counter force that helps dampen your move sometimes ramping your acceleration/deceleration.

Just two different flavors of good tasting ice cream. However, too stiff is no good. Stiffness is also why some still lenses when cine-modded or "cinevised" don't provide more of that cinematic mechanic feel.


Adding FIZ motors into the mix helps a few things sometimes and they usually add some additional "flavor" to the pull. Actually attaching the motors (or even follow focus) to the lens can solve a lot of the weirdness of stiffer lenses as well.
 
Mark K. said:
I think the use of a simple bayonet mount like EF is more to blame on that front. Locking mounts like PL really are important for motion acquisition where lens movement matters (which it doesn't in stills photography).
Click to expand...
I agree with Mark:
The fault is not in the lens mount but in the camera side.
No mount based on spring loaded tension lock will work well with motion cameras.
That's why I built the Nikon ProLock way back when for the R1.
It instantly cured the mount shift.
On any lens, new or old, original or after market.
It doesn't matter- the lens slop is gone.
I have 4 years of field feedback (from many many users) to prove it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top