If your handle is not EDZ please read.

[Claire Senft]

Go to this link: Dead Link Removed

If the link does not work because of a typo please go to carlzeiss.de and click on photography and the Camera and lens news.

Please Mr EDZ do not read this as it will only upset you and we will be forced to listen to a rant.

 

[jd callow]

Claire, maybe you could post the title of the news link.

 

[BrianShaw]

Interesting! That is, if I got to the correct page... the path was a bit convoluted.

 

[Aggie]

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/?Open

 

[roteague]

What are we supposed to be looking at?

 

[Flotsam]

Many years ago when I decided to embark on a new 35mm system, I tortured myself deciding between Contax and Nikon. I didn't like the Yashica bodies but I wanted the Zeiss glass. The dream solution would have been to be able to hang a Zeiss lens on the Nikon bodies. This comes about 20 years too late for me. I hope that someone comes out with a new decent body with a C/Y mount.

 

[Dave Parker]

What are we supposed to be looking at?

I am confused as well, I went there, but did not understand what your looking at?

Dave

 

[Flotsam]

Go to Aggie's link and click on the banner that say Zeiss lenses in Nikon mount

 

[Dave Parker]

Go to Aggie's link and click on the banner that say Zeiss lenses in Nikon mount

Okay, I must be missing the point? I thought we all heard about this weeks ago, is there something that I am not reading correctly?

Dave

 

[jd callow]

Maybe EDZ will chime in and enlighten us all.

 

[Flotsam]

I think that it is just additional information that is being confirmed by Zeiss.
I found it interesting.

 

[roteague]

Go to Aggie's link and click on the banner that say Zeiss lenses in Nikon mount

They are fine lenses, the specs look good. But, they are not autofocus and not 'D' lenses, so while some may find them of value, I don't.

 

[joeyk49]

Its a very nice looking camera...modern Zeiss glass on a solid rangefinder would be fun to own.

I suspect, though, that this will be prohibitively expensive for the average shutterbug and attractive to a very small market. The hurdle that they must get over will be the "What do I do with the $1000.00 that I have to spend on a new camera?" that would be the upper end of an "average" amateur would be willing to splurge on a new system.

(Don't beat me up on the budget issue. I am being fairly arbitrary here...and interjecting my own subjective viewpoint. But think about who and how many buy 35mm film systems over $1000.00 and who doesn't and you begin to see what I mean...)

I would love to have one...but won't be willing to spend more than about $500-800.00 on it. jmho

 

[Soeren]

They are fine lenses, the specs look good. But, they are not autofocus and not 'D' lenses, so while some may find them of value, I don't.

I agree with you on this one, Robert.
No more third party lenses on my Nikons
Cheers Søren

 

[Claire Senft]

Well firstly I am sorry to confuse the issue by the way I wrote the link. My intellectual glue pot is empty and my mental scissors too dull to know how to cut and paste. I thought that the readers of this article would enjoy the comments made by Zeiss about the superiority of film. The material posted on Imagelink HQ and Spur developers were also interesting thought I. That Zeiss has chosen to rease a photomicrograph of an actual 400lpm result made me chuckle. I do not believe that 400lpm is any necessity. Happy would I be to get 200lpm. 200lpm I beleive is capable of producing more detail in a 4x6 print than I can appreciate..in fact it might possibly make a satisfactory 5x7. Of course I was concerned that a certain gentleman, who I will not identify, not see this materail. Too dear to me by far is he and I would hate to see him have a cererbral hemmoroid of a fit of catonia.

 

[roteague]

Thanks Claire,

I think this is the link you wanted: http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9?Open

"The new ZEISS ZF lenses went to test for resolving power recently. Attached to a Nikon F6, which was mounted on a Sachtler heavy duty tripod, we exposed our Eastman resolution test chart onto Kodak Imagelink HQ film. The best we had ever achieved before with any SLR lenses was 250 lp/mm.

The new Planar T* 1.4/85 ZF achieved that same resolution at f/5.6, and even down to f/2.

The new Planar T* 1,4/50 ZF went even further: It reached 320 lp/mm in the aperture range from f/5.6 to f/2.8, and 250 lp/mm at f/2."

 

[roteague]

And,

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58...7c125711c006fc2c2?opendocument&highlight=spur

"Resolving Power Record with ZEISS Biogon T* 2,8/25 ZM

When Hasselblad staff photographer Jens Karlsson took demo photos for the first Zeiss Ikon brochure in 2004, his photo of the carousel, taken with the ZM-Biogon 25 stood out for its enormous detail and clarity. So we used a ZM-Biogon 25 in a recent test to determine maximum resolving power. The high resolution film of choice was the SPUR Orthopan UR supplied and processed by SPUR.

The result was a whopping 400 lp/mm on film, recorded with the Biogon 25 at f/4 in the center of the image. This value, 400 lp/mm, corresponds to the maximum resolution theoretically possible at f/4; in other words it represents the calculated "diffraction limited" performance at this aperture. It is noteworthy that this test was conducted with a production lens on a production camera, indicating that the film was precisely positioned and flat.

Let's just say that this test is relevant to everyday photography the same way the top speed of a Formula 1 race car relates to everyday personal transportation. Of course, many people enjoy watching Formula 1 races ..."

 

[mawz]

Its a very nice looking camera...modern Zeiss glass on a solid rangefinder would be fun to own.

I suspect, though, that this will be prohibitively expensive for the average shutterbug and attractive to a very small market. The hurdle that they must get over will be the "What do I do with the $1000.00 that I have to spend on a new camera?" that would be the upper end of an "average" amateur would be willing to splurge on a new system.

(Don't beat me up on the budget issue. I am being fairly arbitrary here...and interjecting my own subjective viewpoint. But think about who and how many buy 35mm film systems over $1000.00 and who doesn't and you begin to see what I mean...)

I would love to have one...but won't be willing to spend more than about $500-800.00 on it. jmho

First off, Zeiss is currently selling ZM lenses for Leica M mount, so you can get them for rangefinders.

The 50 f1.4 is well within your price range for the ZF and ZS versions ($499USD), but the 85 is around $1000, of course that is what new AF 85's go for (The Nikkor is about the same price, the Canon EF 85 f1.2L mk II is $2500USD).

These are priced reasonably. Better than some equivalents as a matter of fact.

 

[Lee L]

I do not believe that 400lpm is any necessity. Happy would I be to get 200lpm.

I find that if I write compactly and neatly, I can easily get 200 lines per meter. Claire is correct in thinking that any handwriting smaller than that is so small as to be useless for the typical reader.

Lee

 

[Alan Johnson]

An article attribted to Ctein in Mar/Apr 02 Photo Techniques is reported to say "We see more than line pair resolution....That little discontinuity where one line butts up against another really jumps out at you when the lines aren't perfectly matched.This is called vernier acuity."
I mislaid his article but IIRC, Roger Hicks put the lpm resolution on a print viewed from 10ins as 8 lppm and the vernier acuity at 30 lppm.

 

[joeyk49]

These are priced reasonably. Better than some equivalents as a matter of fact.

Then they just might sell a few....

I would hate to see a good effort, like this, fall on its face because not enough people would buty the product.

 

[edz]

Well firstly I am sorry to confuse the issue by the way I wrote the link. My intellectual glue pot is empty and my mental scissors too dull.

Well young missy Claire... still don't smell the coffee do ya? Too dull to get the cut? Sorry.. SPUR Orthopan UR can't and won't (and I won't either tell you what emulusion it is as that would ruin the marketing fun) resolve 400+ lp/mm in pictorial contrast..
And... yes.. if you still can't add... I know Schain.... as Gomer would say.. Surprize Surprize Surprize...

 

[BrianShaw]

Well young missy Claire... (snip) Surprize Surprize Surprize...

I am laughing; Laughing, I am. This is one of the funnier posts I've ever read here on APUG!

If you look in the mirror... you, too, should be laughing!

 

[Lee L]

Please Mr EDZ do not read this as it will only upset you and we will be forced to listen to a rant.

Or perhaps to a seriously funny misprision.

Young? Missy?

Claire, did you go on one of those TV makeover shows and have the good doctors confuse you with someone else? I'm trying to picture you as a very sober 19 year old female with no sense of humor and no appreciation for language, but hard as I try, I'm not getting there.

Lee

 

[edz]

Resolution is not super-additive

The issue is quite simple. Doing a "ideal" contact print and developing to continuous tone of SPUR Orthopan UR film material won't and can't deliver 400 lp/mm. It can't deliver 350 lp/mm either--- the maker of the film puts the figure much lower. All the self-proclaimed optical tzadiks at Zeiss can't change this and make a camera and lens based optical system deliver 400 lp/mm in continuous tone (pictorial contrast) using a film that can deliver, at best, a signifcantly lower resolution in ideal contract prints. What Zeiss might be able to design (and I trust they could) is a system to deliver 400 lp/mm at high contrast--- the said film can deliver significantly more than 400 lp/mm in ideal contract prints at, for instance, 1:1000. For document copy systems this is cool and a milestone but totally irrelevant to the said SPUR developers and OEMed microfilms. It, however, makes good misleading copy. Zeiss wants to sell objectives to techie-twits and this is the kind of specifications that get them all stiff. The realities that the differences in the final print in real continuous tone pictorial photographic systems (the whole process chain from capture to print) between the new Zeiss wunderglass and a well crafted photograph using fine grained film in a 1940 camera in standard enlargement ratios (even up to 12x16" prints from 35mm negatives) using standard enlargers and paper is less than spectacular is aside the marketing point......

Where the microfilm approach, however, does really show-off is in large enlargement ratios which are not as uncommon in subminiature photographic praxis. In MINOX systems (which includes a camera with high resolution objective, loads of depth-of-field and flat film which then get enlarged using modified point-source enlargers) we have gotten some quite amazing results...