Lens Test, can you see the difference?

[Mitch Gross]

Designs come about for many technical reasons. Sometimes added benefits or artifacts can come about even if they were not initially part of a design concept. Panavision lenses by their nature are all fairly telecentric because they have a deep flange depth. Zeiss Standards and most 16mm primes have fairly small rear elements that are relatively deep behind the mount, which makes them less telecentric than lenses that have large rear elements near the mount. Pull the rear cap off a few different lenses and you'll see a basic physical shape difference between many of these lenses.

 

[XiaoSu Han]

to add to the comparison, i found a test done by a few students in germany, comparing optimo rouge and zeiss HS...

http://red1test.blogspot.com/

only sharpness, no looks

 

[Alberto Caprioglio]

well, my concern was probably due to language. Since you said the reason for the standards, unlike superspeeds and S4, for showing a porthole effect, was they were not made for sensors but for film, I just guess why there should be a difference from the other two on this aspect. All of them were made for films, so perhaps only Zeiss and Cooke know why they changed design. What did not satisfied me fully was the mere constatation that there was a change in design. This is what you barely said. But it's fine. No problem.
The important thing to know for a user standpoint is simply that the standard tend to porthole, while the super speed and S4 don't.
I have both standards and superspeeds, so I'm quite interested in things about them. Although I didn't notice portholing on the standard, but perhaps it's because I never looked for it. I'll try one day.
Not that a little portholing scares me, though. In the unfortunate cases where it is visible and annoying, a mask can solve it easily. The overall quality is extremely high.