Hassy 80mm CFE: disappointment

[Jean Noire]

Maybe you meant cm isteand of mm?

56cm square would be quite a large negative.
regards,
John

 

[André E.C.]

56cm square would be quite a large negative.
regards,
John

A dream come true, unfortunately and for the time being, with need to work with the 56mm or 5,6 cm square.


Cheers


André

 

[david b]

Also keep in mind, that the 50mm lenses are crap, as is the 40mm. Way too much distortion.

The 903 SWC is quite good. So is the 60mm.

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

56cm square would be quite a large negative.
regards,
John

56mm is the side... 3.8cm or so is half the diagonal... follow the posts before making fun of...

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

I agree with Kris that it looks like there's some barrel distortion in the original photo, and I also agree with DF Cardwell that what I'd do upon noticing that is a more careful test, and I'd also bear in mind the fact that barrel/pincushion distortion can vary with subject distance, and floating element designs can make testing even more complicated.

My solution: if this really drives you nuts as it does me, then shoot large format. Most LF lenses are designed to have very low distortion, and in situations where it really matters--copy work, architecture, and some still life--the slower practice of using a view camera is not a disadvantage, because with any camera you'll want to work carefully and deliberately in these situations, and the view camera gives you more control.

An SLR excels with portraits and dynamic subjects, where 1.5% barrel distortion isn't usually a big concern.

I use large format when I can and love it! But for fashion it is sometimes slow to use but for certain shots I manage, actually, clients are amazed by 4x5 transparencies but are cooled down by the price, I still manage to convince some to use it and they never regret it! I am quite lucky to manage to shoot analog for commercial stuff and once they see the results they understand why I am not digital and love it!

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

Kristopher - if this mild of a distortion bothers you, I would suggest that the parallax error in a Rolleiflex would drive you insane.

You really should consider a large format camera as I and others have suggested - it is the only way to achieve the type of perfections you seem to desire.

Actually parallax never bothered me that much when using a rollei or even the not so accurate framelines of a Leica, I can manage that by having a little less tight composition (on top or bottom for the rollei) and crop a little later.

 

[Q.G.]

Parallax is not only a matter of framing. Perspective is also different.
Not a problem at long range, but quite noticeable at close range.

Unless, of course, you are completely unsensitive to parallax.
(Just kidding!)


Kris, you were suggesting that as far as mentioning that the 80 mm lens is in fact not bad, but quite good (it is indeed a highly corrected lens, André. There indeed are few lenses that perform better, in one respect. But that does not mean that the 80 mm is bad. It really isn't) is concerned, it is rather a matter of not wanting to hear bad things said about Zeiss.

That still is nonsense. More an expression of how you do not want to hear opinions contrary to the one you have formed.
Remember that we are comparing Zeiss lenses to Zeiss lenses? So how could it even be???

It is nonsense, like the thing about having to look at pictures on the internet, and not at what the Planars we have produce, to be able to form an informed opinion.
(And besides hadn't people commented on a picture on the internet, produced by the 80 mm, to begin with ... ? )

 

[Jean Noire]

56mm is the side... 3.8cm or so is half the diagonal... follow the posts before making fun of...

Followed the posts. Please read post #47 above.
regards
John.

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

Followed the posts. Please read post #47 above.
regards
John.

No you have not, read: 19, 22, 36 38. Thats where he meant cm instead of mm and he aknowleged his mistake.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Kris:

I can barely make out the barrel distortion you speak of, but it appears more a function of the close focus and camera angle than it does lens defects.

The black line above the books does have an ever-so-slight upward arc in the center but it's the only place the distortion is evident - that's why I say it's more a function of camera angle.

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

Parallax is not only a matter of framing. Perspective is also different.
Not a problem at long range, but quite noticeable at close range.

Unless, of course, you are completely unsensitive to parallax.
(Just kidding!)


Kris, you were suggesting that as far as mentioning that the 80 mm lens is in fact not bad, but quite good (it is indeed a highly corrected lens, André. There indeed are few lenses that perform better, in one respect. But that does not mean that the 80 mm is bad. It really isn't) is concerned, it is rather a matter of not wanting to hear bad things said about Zeiss.

That still is nonsense. More an expression of how you do not want to hear opinions contrary to the one you have formed.
Remember that we are comparing Zeiss lenses to Zeiss lenses? So how could it even be???

It is nonsense, like the thing about having to look at pictures on the internet, and not at what the Planars we have produce, to be able to form an informed opinion.
(And besides hadn't people commented on a picture on the internet, produced by the 80 mm, to begin with ... ? )

QG,

You know exacly what I mean when I say that some people don't see, or want to see something because of their brand-loyalty. I already said that it was a bad argument of my part because, its true, and ad hominem agument is a fallacy BUT there is the sociological reality of perception we call this constructionnism and (brand-loyalty is one of them). It doesn't mean that we a facing this phenomena, but it is still a possibility.

Now you say there is noting to worry about the distorsion of this lens, I say yes what are we going to do about this? By the way, there as been comments on both sides relative to this. I am the one responsible to provide a proof or you are? Actually, reading the Zeiss datasheet, it seems that I am true, there is distorsion. Now why do I see it, and you don't, so I guess you have to prove that Zeiss is wrong on their datasheet.

Yes, I should have had a look at the datasheet before buying the lens, but at 2500$ for a prime lens, and not any lens a Zeiss lens, I thought that one could expect it to be free of errors. See, I kind of buyed it from a brand loyalty aspect myself but now it doesn't prevent me of being critical.

Finally, I feel like I am teaching a course and there is this student that is trying more to prove that I am wrong, than to prove he's right.

So are we agreeing to disagree or you are going to push this debate further in an intention trial?

 

[JRJacobs]

I am starting to think this is nothing but a troll post, and we all fell for it.

Really, if it were me and I had a lens I was unhappy with, I would simply return it for another one that suited my needs, as would most people.

I am not sure of the point of publicly complaining about said lens for days - other than to argue and to get attention. Did you get enough attention yet Kristopher?

Time to let this thread die.

 

[kristopher_lawrence]

I agree kill this thread, like many other thread it fell in bashing and I aknowledge my part of the responsability. Some people wrote me politely in my private message trying to help for real, guess why they did it privately??? Like many threads, people don't read the question and feel offended for nothing Add this to the bandwagon effect of giving hits to someone that has a marginal opinion and there you go.

Thanks for those who tried to help.

MODERATORS PLEASE KILL THIS THREAT (oups thread)

I am serious, put it down I've learned not much.

That should be my last answer, I will gladly continue to browse APUG as a did since I joined, but will restrain myselft of asking questions.

 

[Q.G.]

Now you say there is noting to worry about the distorsion of this lens, I say yes what are we going to do about this? By the way, there as been comments on both sides relative to this. I am the one responsible to provide a proof or you are? Actually, reading the Zeiss datasheet, it seems that I am true, there is distorsion. Now why do I see it, and you don't, so I guess you have to prove that Zeiss is wrong on their datasheet.

Why?
I never said the lens was free of distortion, i.e. never said that Zeiss was wrong. (And you talk about people not reading properly? )

What was put into question as soon as you posted your post, was your perception. Nothing else.

We have been over the way you countered that, and there's no need to do that again.
All that i would like to say is that what you are 'fighting' here are the demons you - nobody else - conjured up doing that the way you did.

If you do not want to hear any opinion but the ones that confirm yours, better not ask.
You are behaving, not like a teacher teaching a course, but like a first year student who is convinced that he knows more than the teacher. Why would he attend class? Why would you ask for opinions, if you do not want to hear them?

So are we agreeing to disagree or you are going to push this debate further in an intention trial?

I am quite willing to agree that you are rather clumsy in the way you deal with other people and their opinions. (But seriously)