Performance of any Otus Zeiss SLR lenses on film/print?

Hello everybody,
The MTF of Leica APO Summicron 50mm Asph(range finder camera lens), was the best MTF I’ve ever seen. Reviews confirmed its supremacy.
No wonder, through the whole history of lens making, the range finder lenses are usually outperform their counterparts from reflex cameras.
This lens is designed APO & Asph corrected.
Until recently when I came across the MTF of the Zeiss Otus 28mm/1.4 ZF.2, a retrofocus(for SLRs) lens that outperform any and all range finder lenses at least theoretically(MTF) at much lower price than the Leicas specially if you have already a decent SLR and no need to pay even much for a Leica M camera.
The MTF of Leica-M 28mm Summicron and Summilux(true wide angle, not retrofocus, from one of the best manufacturers) are not as good as the APO Summicron 50mm Asph, leave alone the retrofocus Zeiss Otus 1.4/28mm.
Appreciate any input about how the Otus(or any Otus) perform on real film and print.
Thanks.


MTF of all Zeiss Otus lenses and best performers from Milvus, has been added in post#19. Added on 3 April 2019.

The Zeiss (Sony) E-mount lenses -- Movar, Batis, Otus etc., are for digital cameras. I am not aware of these electronic lenses being used on analogue (film) bodies e.g. with an adaptor of some sort. It would certainly not have been the design intention of Zeiss to have the lenses used on film bodies -- the mount alone does not allow it.

Poisson Du Jour said:

The Zeiss (Sony) E-mount lenses -- Movar, Batis, Otus etc., are for digital cameras.

Click to expand...

The Zeiss Otus lenses are not available with Sony E mount. They are available with Nikon F (version ZF.2) and Canon EF (version ZE) mount.
https://www.zeiss.de/camera-lenses/fotografie/produkte/otus-objektive/otus-1428.html
They are perfect for using with Nikon F film cameras and Canon EF film cameras. The performance is outstanding with film, especially with highest resolving film ADOX CMS 20 II, and very high resolving films like Agfa Copex Rapid, ADOX HR-50, Kodak T-Max 100, Acros 100, Delta 100, PanF+. And of course with the highest resolving color films: Velvia 50, Velvia 100 and Provia 100F.
These films are not resolution limited by the Nyquist frequency like digital sensors. In my optical testlab all these films have surpassed 50 MP sensor resolution at medium object contrast of 1:4 (two stops) and higher. Film photographers do benefit a lot by all the modern lenses with their excellent performance, which is much improved compared to older lens designs.

Best regards,
Henning

Under absolutely perfect conditions and with perfect technique you should be able to make a very nice 35mm negative.

Of course your average Pentax 645 negative will totally blow it away, to say nothing of Pentax 6x7...

Poisson Du Jour said:

The Zeiss (Sony) E-mount lenses -- Movar, Batis, Otus etc., are for digital cameras. I am not aware of these electronic lenses being used on analogue (film) bodies e.g. with an adaptor of some sort. It would certainly not have been the design intention of Zeiss to have the lenses used on film bodies -- the mount alone does not allow it.

Click to expand...

Batis is for E mount, Sony mirrorless only.

Otus is for F and EF mount. Fully compatible with Canon and Nikon film and digital bodies.

NortheastPhotographic said:

Under absolutely perfect conditions and with perfect technique you should be able to make a very nice 35mm negative.

Click to expand...

You don't need "absolutely perfect conditions" to benefit from the modern lenses as a film shooter. Even with cheaper (compared to Otus) new Zeiss ZF.2/Milvus or Sigma Art lenses I significantly benefit and see much better performance in my daily shooting compared to my older Nikon lenses. The modern better lenses are really worth it (that includes some recent newer Nikkors, too).

NortheastPhotographic said:

Of course your average Pentax 645 negative will totally blow it away, to say nothing of Pentax 6x7...

Click to expand...

I've done lot's of tests in medium format, too. Both in my optical test lab and in my daily shooting routine. With some of the best new 35mm lenses you come relatively close to 4,5 x 6 performance with the old medium format lenses. And e.g. ADOX CMS 20 II in 35mm with these lenses surpasses all conventional films in 6x7.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

You don't need "absolutely perfect conditions" to benefit from the modern lenses as a film shooter. Even with cheaper (compared to Otus) new Zeiss ZF.2/Milvus or Sigma Art lenses I significantly benefit and see much better performance in my daily shooting compared to my older Nikon lenses. The modern better lenses are really worth it (that includes some recent newer Nikkors, too).



I've done lot's of tests in medium format, too. Both in my optical test lab and in my daily shooting routine. With some of the best new 35mm lenses you come relatively close to 4,5 x 6 performance with the old medium format lenses. And e.g. ADOX CMS 20 II in 35mm with these lenses surpasses all conventional films in 6x7.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

Ah a 20 ISO B&W film... I'm throwing out my Hy6!

Re 35mm surpassing 6x7... I assume you also have a bridge to sell me?

NortheastPhotographic said:

Ah a 20 ISO B&W film... I'm throwing out my Hy6!

Re 35mm surpassing 6x7... I assume you also have a bridge to sell me?

Click to expand...

No need to throw out your Hy6 (by the way, I visited the Rollei/Franke&Heidecke factory in 2008 when they started production of the Hy6; the factory is not far away from my home). An excellent camera.
And yes, you can surpass 6x7 with 35mm ADOX CMS 20 II. CMS 20 II is based on microfilm with resolution of up to 800 lp/mm at higher contrasts. At object contrast of 1:4 (two stops) I reached the physical resolution limit = diffraction limit of all my 50mm primes at f5,6: 240 - 260 lp/mm. Zeiss did also tests with this film with their ZM lenses for rangefinders and published the results. They got 400 lp/mm with the 25mm Biogon at f4 (diffraction limit at f4).
Tim Parkin has also got these resolution values with ADOX CMS 20:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
Dominique Ventzke ( http://www.high-end-scans.de/ ) and I also compared 35mm CMS 20 to 4x5" sheet film: CHS 100 (first version) and Acros 100.
35mm CMS 20 II surpassed 4x5" CHS 100 in resolution. We needed Acros in 4x5" to surpass 35mm CMS 20.
CMS 20 II will soon be available in 120 again, by the way. Food for your Hy6 .

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

No need to throw out your Hy6 (by the way, I visited the Rollei/Franke&Heidecke factory in 2008 when they started production of the Hy6; the factory is not far away from my home). An excellent camera.
And yes, you can surpass 6x7 with 35mm ADOX CMS 20 II. CMS 20 II is based on microfilm with resolution of up to 800 lp/mm at higher contrasts. At object contrast of 1:4 (two stops) I reached the physical resolution limit = diffraction limit of all my 50mm primes at f5,6: 240 - 260 lp/mm. Zeiss did also tests with this film with their ZM lenses for rangefinders and published the results. They got 400 lp/mm with the 25mm Biogon at f4 (diffraction limit at f4).
Tim Parkin has also got these resolution values with ADOX CMS 20:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
Dominique Ventzke ( http://www.high-end-scans.de/ ) and I also compared 35mm CMS 20 to 4x5" sheet film: CHS 100 (first version) and Acros 100.
35mm CMS 20 II surpassed 4x5" CHS 100 in resolution. We needed Acros in 4x5" to surpass 35mm CMS 20.
CMS 20 II will soon be available in 120 again, by the way. Food for your Hy6 .

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

Well we agree re the Hy6. Mine is a Mod 2 and last year I acquired the 50/2.8 AFD, and a manual 180.2.8 PQ, along with the 1.4x Longar (in addition to the 80mm AFD Xenotar). I shoot it with the rare 6060 back, and I am amazed at the quality of the images. I frequently shoot Provia with the internal meter and get fabulous exposures. Just yesterday I received one of my inserts back from the factory, it needed repair for stiffness. It's wonderful that they're still in business and I hope they remain so for a long time. I've been able to get most of this second hand for a fraction of the list price. It all seems too good to be true. Even an old AFI II 7 back, which blows my D810 out of the water at low ISO. I just cannot say enough about this camera haha!

I'll have to pick up some of that CMS 20 when it's in 120. Maybe I'll pick up the 90/4 APO Macro to go with it.

NortheastPhotographic said:

Well we agree re the Hy6. Mine is a Mod 2 and last year I acquired the 50/2.8 AFD, and a manual 180.2.8 PQ, along with the 1.4x Longar (in addition to the 80mm AFD Xenotar). I shoot it with the rare 6060 back, and I am amazed at the quality of the images. I frequently shoot Provia with the internal meter and get fabulous exposures. Just yesterday I received one of my inserts back from the factory, it needed repair for stiffness. It's wonderful that they're still in business and I hope they remain so for a long time. I've been able to get most of this second hand for a fraction of the list price. It all seems too good to be true. Even an old AFI II 7 back, which blows my D810 out of the water at low ISO. I just cannot say enough about this camera haha!

I'll have to pick up some of that CMS 20 when it's in 120. Maybe I'll pick up the 90/4 APO Macro to go with it.

Click to expand...

There are lots of excellent lenses out there for the Rollei 6000 system and the Hy6 / Hy6 Mod.2. Maybe you have luck and even find a rare Xenotar 2.0/80 . I've often been tempted in the past to enter this system.......but I really have enough gear meanwhile .
For CMS 20 II I recommend the dedicated Adotech IV developer for best results.

Best regards,
Henning

Just had lunch with my dealer, who also carries the full line of Zeiss lenses. Lovely to look, at but something of an acquired taste to actually hold and assess. Not a lot have been sold in the last 12 months here in Australia, but that is partly due to buyers sticking to higher level marque optics, ahead of the pricier (by a huge margin!) Zeiss babies. There is confusion among prospective buyers with the mounts - - but for hungry stickybeak given the keys to the glass cabinet, nothing three heavy cameras and a spare 40 minute chinwag-and-munch can't fix. I quite enjoyed the distraction!! But I had to give the keys back.

ADOX CMS II - - a beautiful film, will return excellent results with any high quality lens and refined technique. I've used a few rolls (4, I think) with Canon's L-series 17-40 f4 and 70-200 f2.8, printing to 40cm across (every piece of my work is tripod based. But 35mm is not now my preferred or go-to format.

NortheastPhotographic (post #4) is right: 35mm will not surpass ADOX CMS II in medium format e.g. 6x4.5, 6x7 or 4x5: MF ADOX CMS II is a sight to behold printed large e.g. with the SMC-P 67 75mm F2.8AL (literally a firecracker) or its eue-popping SMC-P 400 ED-IF? Would you print to 1 metre+ across in 35mm? Not nursery postcard or 8x10, but max out the printer.

Poisson Du Jour said:

Would you print to 1 metre+ across in 35mm? Not nursery postcard or 8x10, but max out the printer.

Click to expand...

1 meter is absolutely no problem with 35mm CMS 20 II ! You say you have only used about 4 rolls of it so far. I am using this film and its predecessor for more than a decade. I've used countless rolls of it. And I have used Technical Pan before (started with that in 1985).
When I do the resolution tests in my optical test lab (film and photo chemistry manufacturers regularly ask me for an independent scientific test and assessment of their new materials) one part of the evaluation is detail rendition at 100x enlargement factor (2.40 x 3.60 meters for 35mm film; evaluation under a microscope). At this enlargement the grain is still extremely fine and the resolution and sharpness are outstanding with CMS 20 II.
Well, I have even enlarged CMS 20 II to 5 (!) meters (in projection). Even then you can see the finest detail even from very short distances. Not surprising at all for those who have used microfilm and microfiches (I did during my time in the car industry) and know the incredible power of these materials.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

You say you have only used about 4 rolls of it so far.

Click to expand...

Yes. Quite a piddly number by many B&W photographers' standards, but my forte is and always has been in colour, of which I have consumed many thousands of rolls (of Fujifilm, as an account customer) since migrating away from Ektachrome and Kodachrome -- when was that... I think when Nelson lost an eye...!

If we're printing beyond 1 metre (transparency film or B&W), it is a giclee print. There is no provision anywhere here in Australia for wet (darkroom) prints beyond 1 metre (up to 1m in RA-4, but then...), certainly not a professional lab level (we'd have to go back to 1996 to see that). I might take up the challenge of a rainforest shoot with ADOX CMS II in 6x7, and have it printed as wallpaper (looking at the 2013 job from here that one was around 2.4m tall from 6x7 transparency).

I was told that most people admiring the Zeiss line-up of beauties are less concerned (but still interested) about their optical performance, and most concerned about the prices! I don't think there are many people splashing out $7,440 for a matt black plaything that looks, on first passing, like a discarded rocket booster shell, but they are taken up by commercial professionals on leasing agreements (tax benefits for that).

Henning Serger said:

The Zeiss Otus lenses are not available with Sony E mount. They are available with Nikon F (version ZF.2) and Canon EF (version ZE) mount.
Film photographers do benefit a lot by all the modern lenses with their excellent performance, which is much improved compared to older lens designs.

Click to expand...

I long time wondered why such premium lenses are not offered for old mounts as the FD mount too.
I mean, would at such premium prices the extra cost for a small number made in such mounts really be decisive?

Poisson Du Jour said:

a matt black plaything that looks, on first passing, like a discarded rocket booster shell

Click to expand...

What a terrific definition!!!

AgX said:

I long time wondered why such premium lenses are not offered for old mounts as the FD mount too.
I mean, would at such premium prices the extra cost for a small number made in such mounts really be decisive?

Click to expand...

The market for FD is much too small for Zeiss. In current time Canon FD is mainly used by film beginners (starting with the 'legendary' AE-1) and film photographers who are looking for cheap solutions on the used market. These photographers don't go for expensive, highest quality lenses. And the market for EF mount cameras is much bigger. Canon produced more EF mount cameras than FD mount cameras. And the main target market for Zeiss is the digital camera market.
Zeiss first started in 2006 with their new line of lenses for Nikon F, Canon EF and......Pentax K. But even the market for Pentax K - a mount which is current and "alive" in contrast to FD - was too small for Zeiss. Therefore they have stopped offering their lenses in K mount after some years.

Best regards,
Henning

Poisson Du Jour said:

If we're printing beyond 1 metre (transparency film or B&W), it is a giclee print.

Click to expand...

Well, when I started using highest-resolution films in 1985 (Technical Pan) the first what I have done exploiting the incredible potential of that stuff was turning my enlarger at 180° and enlarging down to the floor . No problem to get enlargement to 1m width that way.

Poisson Du Jour said:

I was told that most people admiring the Zeiss line-up of beauties are less concerned (but still interested) about their optical performance, and most concerned about the prices!

Click to expand...

The Otus lenses are of course expensive (but still cheaper than the top Leica M lenses). But the Zeiss Milvus line is much cheaper, often less than half of that, and the performance is only a tiny bit worse (and only measurable, but seldom really visible in the final picture) compared to Otus. Some Milvus lenses like the Apo-Sonnar 2/135 are indeed on the Otus level and made to the same specifications. The Otus line is a demonstration what optically can be realised if the engineers are not limited by weight and cost limitations.

Best regards,
Henning

The Otus 28mm, although a world class performer, is still not as good in absolute optical terms as the other two Otuses, especially the 85mm. If you are talking about the ultimate test of capture medium performance then you should be discussing the latter lens.

I am not aware of any tests performed with it on high resolution films however.

Also I agree with @Henning Serger regarding the Zeiss 2/135 APO Sonnar. The MTF curves for that lens are similarly jaw dropping.

Poisson Du Jour said:

The Zeiss (Sony) E-mount lenses -- Movar, Batis, Otus etc., are for digital cameras. I am not aware of these electronic lenses being used on analogue (film) bodies e.g. with an adaptor of some sort. It would certainly not have been the design intention of Zeiss to have the lenses used on film bodies -- the mount alone does not allow it.

Click to expand...

As other posters kindly clarified, Otus lenses are for SLRs cameras.
Thanks Poisson for your post.

Henning Serger said:

Zeiss first started in 2006 with their new line of lenses for Nikon F, Canon EF and......Pentax K. But even the market for Pentax K - a mount which is current and "alive" in contrast to FD - was too small for Zeiss. Therefore they have stopped offering their lenses in K mount after some years.

Click to expand...

I forgot about them being offered in the K-mount. Interesting thus that they meanwhile cancelled that mount-versions.

Henning, thanks for the good info. Having used Tech Pan a lot in the past (and I am still sitting on a nice stash of it), what's your take on that vs CMS 20 II? Are they equal in sharpness? Sometimes the acutance of Tech Pan grain in Technidol could be a little soft, for lack of a better word. Is CMS 20 II that way in Adotech? Can the contrast of CMS 20 II be tamed to equal the contrast of Tech Pan in Technidol (which I found printed nicely on a grade 1 paper).

-Ed

Henning Serger said:

The Zeiss Otus lenses are not available with Sony E mount. They are available with Nikon F (version ZF.2) and Canon EF (version ZE) mount.
https://www.zeiss.de/camera-lenses/fotografie/produkte/otus-objektive/otus-1428.html
They are perfect for using with Nikon F film cameras and Canon EF film cameras. The performance is outstanding with film, especially with highest resolving film ADOX CMS 20 II, and very high resolving films like Agfa Copex Rapid, ADOX HR-50, Kodak T-Max 100, Acros 100, Delta 100, PanF+. And of course with the highest resolving color films: Velvia 50, Velvia 100 and Provia 100F.
These films are not resolution limited by the Nyquist frequency like digital sensors. In my optical testlab all these films have surpassed 50 MP sensor resolution at medium object contrast of 1:4 (two stops) and higher. Film photographers do benefit a lot by all the modern lenses with their excellent performance, which is much improved compared to older lens designs.
Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

Hello Henning,
Thanks very much sharing your experience in this thread.
I'm concerned that the lenses made in the digital era are optimized for imaging sensors(which at a very early point, do not deal with true optical image any more).
That optimization could in a way(do not know honestly) alter or modify the projected true optical image, in a way that any film may not expect to depict as usual !
We all know even the best film era lenses specially wide angles, do not perform as the newer digital lenses on imaging sensors.
If reversed, could this rule be abolished? I do not exactly know.
And to what extent the difference in MTF could be seen on print(large one of course), between the older high performance lenses(like distagon 35/1.4 ZF.2) and the newer ones like Milvus 35/1.4 ZF.2 .
While you are around, I'm using this privilege/advantage to submit the most specific concerns that I have.
Appreciate your reply Henning.
Regards.

EdSawyer said:

Henning, thanks for the good info. Having used Tech Pan a lot in the past (and I am still sitting on a nice stash of it), what's your take on that vs CMS 20 II? Are they equal in sharpness? Sometimes the acutance of Tech Pan grain in Technidol could be a little soft, for lack of a better word. Is CMS 20 II that way in Adotech? Can the contrast of CMS 20 II be tamed to equal the contrast of Tech Pan in Technidol (which I found printed nicely on a grade 1 paper).

-Ed

Click to expand...

Hello Ed,
you're welcome.
ADOX CMS 20 II has significantly
- higher resolution
- better sharpness
- finer grain
compared to Technical Pan. Another important difference is the spectral sensivity: Technical Pan was a superpanchromatic film (higher sensivity for red), but CMS 20 II is an orthopanchromatic film (lower sensivity for red; red becomes darker in the final print compared to a panchromatic film).
You can tame the contrast of CMS 20 II in Adotech IV very well: At ISO 3/6° you get a normal, linear characteristic curve with excellent tonality and tone separation. At ISO 6/9° its very similar, but with a certain loss in shadow detail. ISO 12/12° and 20/14° is push developement with less shadow detail, but still good tonality (especially ISO 12/12°).
When using a tripod, I go for ISO 3/6° with best tonality. Using handheld I go for ISO 12/12° as a negative film developed in Adotech IV, or for ISO 20/14° as a BW reversal film processed in the Scala reversal process by Photo Studio 13 in Germany (and perhaps by myself in the future with the coming ADOX Scala reversal kit, too).

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

With some of the best new 35mm lenses you come relatively close to 4,5 x 6 performance with the old medium format lenses.

Best regards,
Henning

Click to expand...

That's what I would call a " very daring thesis " Henning - don't let this hear Sirius Glass for example.
But your statement has of course some "VARIABLES" : "old medium format lenses", "relatively close
to 4,5 x 6 performance"!
That all is relative! Regarding 4,5 x 6 it is indeed not the greatest task to superperform from 35mm
(concerning type of film) - we all remember the format relation 35mm/4,5 x 6 = X 2,8xxx !

I have no problem to superperform 6 x 9 with 35mm Pentax SMC 2.0 /50mm b.t.w. !
And this is in regards of THE SAME FILM ! I will add that the mentioned " cheap Pentax SMC "
isn't a real good lens (at f 2.0 )!

But you are not knowing what lenses I am using with 6 x 9 (fastest stop f 7.7...) right ?


So I would agree with what you are stating !

[QUOTE="Henning Serger, post: 2167065
And yes, you can surpass 6x7 with 35mm ADOX CMS 20 II. CMS 20 II is based on microfilm with resolution of up to 800 lp/mm at higher contrasts.[/QUOTE]

That is in comparison to what films (to 6x7) Henning? Would you state : To all other bw films of todays marked ? For sure you would not state - I guess!

But with a lot of bw films I also agree - one can say so (If the workflow with CMS 20 II is good)!

OK - so (restricted for color works) in bw the format barriere is broken!

A simple question (perhaps you know Henning) : Why is the resulting resolution in general a product from the max. ability to performance of the film/ the performance of a lens a.s.o. AS a sum not AS high AS the weakest link in the chain?

Your old Zeiss can show 110 lp for example - your Fuji is able to show 155lp f.e. we forget the rest of parameters - ok!!
Now Fuji have given their technical datas to their yx film at contrast 1:1000 we also will not care about - OK! Regarding the Zeiss we indeed may reach 95lp at "normal contrast" and at this contrast
the Fuji film will show us theoretically 130lp - that is fine for the Fuji!
I was told : The effective resolution you THEN have is a value (product is wrong b.t.w. it would mean
95 x 135 lp....???) NOT as the average between (that would be 115lp here) ?
It is quite clear 115lp can't be a resolution you will get from it because your lens has just performance of 95lp!!! But I was told "theoreticaly" you only can get the possible 95lp (your lens is able to perform) if you film and other parameters have IDENTICAL PERFORMANCE????
SO IF YOUR LENS SHOWS 95lp AND THE FILM HAVE 95Lp = 95Lp ???
If your diferent links of the chain have not the ability of same performance (like it is here from example) the final resolution you can have is. UNDER 95Lp???
That would mean : Lens 95Lp / Film 115Lp = not more than 85Lp in summary!???

Was I told wrong? I never understood! The missing Lp in this case are not comming from poor developer in the chain or other parts (enlarging/scaning for example) it should be a
fundamental rule - so I was told?

with regards

PS : Some say : the resolution with digital is restricted from the sum of sensor elements
(Pixel/Megapixel) the resolution of film is resticted from the details the object/motive you shot - has! Some mean - the more detail you shot (a wood with megadetails of all kind for example) -
the more information your film can show (unrestricted) Some say this - you too Henning ?

PPS : Nice to see you here again Henning!