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

[alentine]

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...

Thanks for your post Northeast,
You may find a great debate about the subject here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...hoto-compare-to-a-finely-grained-35mm.162187/
My posting started at post#22.
The margins between format sizes could be canceled if, super fine grained film or super high quality lens are used for the smaller format size of film BUT not for the larger format size.
Please read post#22 first then go through the debate.

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.

Thanks NortheastPhotographic.

 

[Henning Serger]

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.

Don't worry, because you cannot only use these modern lenses with film, in most cases you will have really a significant improved performance on film compared to older lens designs!
Improved especially concerning these parameters:
- better performance at full open aperture
- improved contrast
- improved resolution
- less CAs (not so important on film as film is not so sensible to that problem as digital sensors are)
- better coating technology (less flares; digital sensors are much more sensible to that problem than film)
- more even performance on the whole picture area (better sharpness and contrast towards the edges): Most modern lens design for 35mm (sensors) have a bigger "Bildkreisdurchmesser" (bigger image circle)
- often better bokeh.
In some rare cases certain modern lenses optimised for digital sensors have compromises made with vignetting and distortion. Because these two problems can be decreased to a certain degree in post processing.
But overall you get really significant improvements as a film shooter with the modern lenses. This is especially the case with the Zeiss Milvus and Otus lenses, the Sigma Art lens line, the new lenses for M rangefinders from Leica, Zeiss and Voigtländer, the new Tamron SP lenses, and several new lenses from Nikon, Canon and Pentax.

Lens design has made much progress in the last decades. Example: When I compare my Nikkor 2.5/105 (design from the 70ies), to my AF-D Nikkor 1.8/85 (design from 1988) and to my Nikkor AF-D 2/105 DC (design from 1993), than the later/younger lens design, the better the performance.
And when I compare my Zeiss ZF 2/50 Makro-Planar to my old Nikkor AI-S 1.8/50 (design from the 70ies), then the Zeiss significantly outperformed the Nikkor in all parameters but vignetting (the Zeiss has a bit more vignetting at f2 than the Nikkor). I often see the differences already when I have the slides from both films together on the light table, without using a loupe!
I will add more modern lenses to my lens portfolio in the future .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[GLS]

Yes the Zeiss 2/50 Makro-Planar is a gem. Very versatile as a normal lens, as not only is it razor sharp but it will focus down to 1:2 when you need it. Also, it maintains excellent performance at infinity, unlike many macro lenses.

 

[Henning Serger]

That's what I would call a " very daring thesis " Henning

No, it is not a thesis. It is based on thousands of tests I've made in the last decades. I am running (as one of my projects) an independent optical test lab. Concerning the resolution tests I have more than 10,000 test shots in my archive. If you are interested to see, just join one of the film photographer meetings I organise in Hanover. I've regularly shown examples there.

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!???

There is a "rule of thumb" (based on the 'Fehlerfortpflanzungsgesetz'): 1/system resolution = 1/lens resolution + 1/ film/sensor resolution. That is not an exact formula to calcute resolution very precisely to 5 - 10 lp/mm level, but it works well in general.
The mistake most photographers do (you included) is that they most often use already the system resolution as value for lens and / or film resolution. And then they mostly get too low values. You have to use the aerial resolution values for the lenses, and they are much much higher. A very good, modern lens is diffraction limited, so the aerial resolution is e.g. about 400 lp/mm at f4, and about 250 lp/mm at f5.6. Another factor which has to be considered is the object contrast of the detail you are photographing. Resolution is depending on the object contrast of the detail. I use for my standard resolution tests an object contrast of 1:4 = two stops. That is an object contrast which can be found in almost all scenes with several details, so it gives a relevant data/value for daily photography.

The whole topic is of course a very big one. Please let's do not destroy this thread by unneccesary discussion of tiny details (I also don't have the time for that). The message to the OP I can give from all my tests is - as said above - that you really can benefit from modern 35mm lenses as a film shooter. That is important to know.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Yes the Zeiss 2/50 Makro-Planar is a gem. Very versatile as a normal lens, as not only is it razor sharp but it will focus down to 1:2 when you need it. Also, it maintains excellent performance at infinity, unlike many macro lenses.

Exactly. Therefore it has become one of my most used lenses at my Nikons. Excellent all-round lens.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[trendland]

No, it is not a thesis. It is based on thousands of tests I've made in the last decades. I am running (as one of my projects) an independent optical test lab. Concerning the resolution tests I have more than 10,000 test shots in my archive. If you are interested to see, just join one of the film photographer meetings I organise in Hanover. I've regularly shown examples there.



There is a "rule of thumb" (based on the 'Fehlerfortpflanzungsgesetz'): 1/system resolution = 1/lens resolution + 1/ film/sensor resolution. That is not an exact formula to calcute resolution very precisely to 5 - 10 lp/mm level, but it works well in general.
The mistake most photographers do (you included) is that they most often use already the system resolution as value for lens and / or film resolution. And then they mostly get too low values. You have to use the aerial resolution values for the lenses, and they are much much higher. A very good, modern lens is diffraction limited, so the aerial resolution is e.g. about 400 lp/mm at f4, and about 250 lp/mm at f5.6. Another factor which has to be considered is the object contrast of the detail you are photographing. Resolution is depending on the object contrast of the detail. I use for my standard resolution tests an object contrast of 1:4 = two stops. That is an object contrast which can be found in almost all scenes with several details, so it gives a relevant data/value for daily photography.

The whole topic is of course a very big one. Please let's do not destroy this thread by unneccesary discussion of tiny details (I also don't have the time for that). The message to the OP I can give from all my tests is - as said above - that you really can benefit from modern 35mm lenses as a film shooter. That is important to know.

Best regards,
Henning

Thanks Henning "rule of thumb" COULD be that missing link because I wasn't able to understand!
I have to think about!

with regards

 

[trendland]

No, it is not a thesis. It is based on thousands of tests I've made in the last decades. I am running (as one of my projects) an independent optical test lab. Concerning the resolution tests I have more than 10,000 test shots in my archive. If you are interested to see, just join one of the film photographer meetings I organise in Hanover. I've regularly shown examples there.



There is a "rule of thumb" (based on the 'Fehlerfortpflanzungsgesetz'): 1/system resolution = 1/lens resolution + 1/ film/sensor resolution. That is not an exact formula to calcute resolution very precisely to 5 - 10 lp/mm level, but it works well in general.
The mistake most photographers do (you included) is that they most often use already the system resolution as value for lens and / or film resolution. And then they mostly get too low values. You have to use the aerial resolution values for the lenses, and they are much much higher. A very good, modern lens is diffraction limited, so the aerial resolution is e.g. about 400 lp/mm at f4, and about 250 lp/mm at f5.6. Another factor which has to be considered is the object contrast of the detail you are photographing. Resolution is depending on the object contrast of the detail. I use for my standard resolution tests an object contrast of 1:4 = two stops. That is an object contrast which can be found in almost all scenes with several details, so it gives a relevant data/value for daily photography.

The whole topic is of course a very big one. Please let's do not destroy this thread by unneccesary discussion of tiny details (I also don't have the time for that). The message to the OP I can give from all my tests is - as said above - that you really can benefit from modern 35mm lenses as a film shooter. That is important to know.

Best regards,
Henning

Ähmm sorry to ASK again - just in short : Sweetspot more in direction of f4 than near 5.6?

with regards

PS : Sweetspot isn't much correct but you know what I mean! Or do you just mixed it?
(400lp/5,6....250lp/4.0). at f 11 I would not wonder about 250lp [ I just found the right Diagramm - to avoid missunderstanding from grammar.... so this has changed due to correction ASPH/APO?:

with regards

 

[Henning Serger]

Ähmm sorry to ASK again - just in short : Sweetspot more in direction of f4 than near 5.6?

It depends on the (35mm) lens: Some excellent lenses - especially some of the modern lenses with max. apertures of 1.2 or 1.4 - have their "sweet spot" = best performance already at f4.
But most prime lenses (and high quality zooms with max. aperture of f2.8) have their "sweet spot" at f5.6.
Most excellent primes have decreasing performance from f8 onwards (including f8) because of diffraction.
Amateur zooms with max. aperture of 3.5 / 4.5 often have their sweet spot at f8 (but on a lower level compared to primes).

All the medium format lenses with max. aperture of 2.8 I've tested so far have their sweet spot also at f5.6. One (Mamiya Sekor C 2.8/55) has equal performance at f5.6 and f8.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[trendland]

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

K-mount - yes that was in the past!

with regards

PS : Guess after Ricoh Imaging highjacked Pentax - they lost soo much reputation!
So there is no Zeiss for K-mount any more......!

 

[trendland]

It depends on the (35mm) lens: Some excellent lenses - especially some of the modern lenses with max. apertures of 1.2 or 1.4 - have their "sweet spot" = best performance already at f4.
But most prime lenses (and high quality zooms with max. aperture of f2.8) have their "sweet spot" at f5.6.
Most excellent primes have decreasing performance from f8 onwards (including f8) because of diffraction.
Amateur zooms with max. aperture of 3.5 / 4.5 often have their sweet spot at f8 (but on a lower level compared to primes).

All the medium format lenses with max. aperture of 2.8 I've tested so far have their sweet spot also at f5.6. One (Mamiya Sekor C 2.8/55) has equal performance at f5.6 and f8.

Best regards,
Henning

Much thanks for clarifying it (my thoughts were in simular direction) - but I wasn't sure about!

B.T.W : " A very daring thesis " - you missunderstood .... (normaly such statements are from
character of a thesis) ........that's not the case if you state of course!

with regards

PS : You are the fellow from Hannover? I remember something about Heidelberg scanning workflow!
Guess that was from you!
PPS : If I find the time I perhaps come to visit you! (Let make some highest resoluted scans)
Expensive stuff that Heidelberg machines - but total worthless without experienced operator!

Don't missunderstood it twice! Have a nice day Henning!

 

[Henning Serger]

I remember something about Heidelberg scanning workflow!
Guess that was from you!
!

No, that was most probably from a very good friend of mine - Sebastian - who is using a Heidelberg Tango scanner .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

All this obsession with MTF in expensive and bulky lenses .... I guess if you want optimal video output from a digital 35mm camera at the expense of convenient handholding ability it might make sense. Just look at the weight. If it's not on a tripod, you're going to give up all that precision anyway by either via shake or needing a faster film with bigger grain that makes all the extra MTF irrelevant anyway. In terms of still images, any modern MF system should skunk it without even needing to catch its breath. There is simply no substitute for more square inches or centimeters of film if detail and texture is what you're after. Large format, even better. A calculator can't fake that. And there's the whole questions of intangibles ... the "look" certain older lenses give that overtly clinical modern ones don't. I tend to find some them excessively contrasty. But if you can afford one of these - or at least arrange to borrow or rent such lenses relative to your own expectations, prior to potential purchase, that would be the way to go. What is you're philosophy about 35mm anyway? To each his own; bit I use it for sake of handheld ease with fast films and poetic little prints, not for attempting to bag big detailed and hue-rich enlargements, which bigger cameras not only do far far better, but more cost-effectively too.

 

[Oren Grad]

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

They were offered also in M42 mount - the original categories were ZF, ZE, ZK and ZS. ZS would be a more appropriate analog to Canon FD, as it is a discontinued mount. In any case, ZS was quickly discontinued as well.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... Having used Tech Pan a lot in the past ... what's your take on that vs CMS 20 II?

...
ADOX CMS 20 II has significantly
- higher resolution
- better sharpness
- finer grain
compared to Technical Pan. Another important difference is the spectral sensivity...

Thank you for the detailed answer to Ed's question; I have wondered the same thing about these two films as well.

... "sweet spot" ...

Thank you for the answer to this question as well.

 

[GLS]

All this obsession with MTF in expensive and bulky lenses .... I guess if you want optimal video output from a digital 35mm camera at the expense of convenient handholding ability it might make sense. Just look at the weight. If it's not on a tripod, you're going to give up all that precision anyway by either via shake or needing a faster film with bigger grain that makes all the extra MTF irrelevant anyway. In terms of still images, any modern MF system should skunk it without even needing to catch its breath. There is simply no substitute for more square inches or centimeters of film if detail and texture is what you're after. Large format, even better. A calculator can't fake that. And there's the whole questions of intangibles ... the "look" certain older lenses give that overtly clinical modern ones don't. I tend to find some them excessively contrasty. But if you can afford one of these - or at least arrange to borrow or rent such lenses relative to your own expectations, prior to potential purchase, that would be the way to go. What is you're philosophy about 35mm anyway? To each his own; bit I use it for sake of handheld ease with fast films and poetic little prints, not for attempting to bag big detailed and hue-rich enlargements, which bigger cameras not only do far far better, but more cost-effectively too.

It isn't all about peak MTF performance. They excel in virtually all lens attributes.

In my mind though the greatest advantage and achievement of the Otus lenses is their wide open performance, which is unmatched by anything outside of cine lenses costing tens of thousands. At f1.4 they outperform most other lenses at f4! This wide-open performance is also retained at infinity without getting at all mushy, which is truly remarkable. Here's an example of the Otus 85mm shot at f1.4:

Show me another lens which can do this!

Anyway, your point about lens rendering quality is well made. However, lenses with extremely high technical performance also have their place; it just depends what the goals are.

 

[Henning Serger]

If it's not on a tripod, you're going to give up all that precision anyway by either via shake or needing a faster film with bigger grain that makes all the extra MTF irrelevant anyway.

Fortunately , that is completely wrong. Most of my work with my modern high-quality lenses is handheld. And also handheld the significantly better image quality with these lenses is clearly visible. If they would not deliver that clear advantage I would not use them. Period. I am not a masochist. And not rich either. If I spend more money on equipment I must have very clear and obvious benefits. With my modern lenses I have exactly that.
And no, I don't need faster film to use them. Just the opposite: Because these lenses give excellent performance already at max. open aperture and one stop stopped down (much better performance than the old lens designs), I can often use slower speed films with finer grain and higher resolution. I often use ADOX CMS 20 II handheld with my Zeiss'. Works perfectly. Films like ADOX HR-50, Velvia 50 or PanF+ are a real joy in combination with these lenses handheld.
Your comment shows that you have not used one of these lenses by yourself. Those who are using them regularly will tell you that you get better image quality in lots of different shooting situations.

And there's the whole questions of intangibles ... the "look" certain older lenses give that overtly clinical modern ones don't.

That all of the modern lens designs have a "overtly clinical look" is a prejudice. At least I can say for all of my modern lenses that they don't have that "clinical" look. Just the opposite: For example all of these lenses have a much better bokeh and nicer in-focus to out-focus transition than all of my older lenses. And often (e.g. Zeiss) a better 3D impression.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

It isn't all about peak MTF performance. They excel in virtually all lens attributes.

Exactly. That is the experience after thousands of photographs I've made over the years with my modern design lenses. And friends of mine also using such lenses have made the same experience.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[EdSawyer]

hi Henning -

Thanks for the info. I will give CMS 20 II a try at some point. It sounds like a good alternative to TP, with some differences.

thanks!
-Ed

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I knew I was throwing a rock at a hornet's nest. Doesn't invalidate my own opinion. You can go out and buy a Lamborghini or Ferari that goes 90mph in second gear; but finding a road that allows you to go even that fast without getting into a wreck or getting a ticket is another story. I can walk out the door with a 6X9 rangefinder and more easily handhold it than what you're describing, that will deliver image content ridiculously better. And it cost a fraction as much. And all this talk about ultra-fine-grained films to match? Who ya kidding? Every tiny zit on those squirrely emulsions ends up the size of a blimp on significant enlargement. And what about tonality? There's a huge penalty to that too. I've got a stockpile of even
8X10 sheets of Tech Pan, know about the newer stuff too. I wouldn't term any of it ideal for general photographic usage; too much of a tradeoff to get that ultrafine grain in the first place. I'm not trying to start a format war. And I applaud advances in lens engineering, especially when it's cross-compatible with film usage. But you are paying a helluva price for a relative small increment of technical improvement. Posting "web evidence" doesn't impress me. That like trying to saw down an oak tree using a fingernail file. I'm seen plenty of big prints using from just about every kind of 35mm gear conceivable. They're all mush. If you want crisp big prints, get a bigger camera that takes a bigger piece of film. Some people legitimately need these
newest 35mm lenses and have logical reasons for sticking to 35mm itself (which, I admit, is in fact the parameter of this thread). But I think that many are just coveting the idea that if they own something expensive enough they'll make better pictures, which is make-believe if they can't do it already.

 

[trendland]

Well, I knew I was throwing a rock at a hornet's nest. Doesn't invalidate my own opinion. You can go out and buy a Lamborghini or Ferari that goes 90mph in second gear; but finding a road that allows you to go even that fast without getting into a wreck or getting a ticket is another story. I can walk out the door with a 6X9 rangefinder and more easily handhold it than what you're describing, that will deliver image content ridiculously better. And it cost a fraction as much. And all this talk about ultra-fine-grained films to match? Who ya kidding? Every tiny zit on those squirrely emulsions ends up the size of a blimp on significant enlargement. And what about tonality? There's a huge penalty to that too. I' not trying to start a format war. And I applaud advances in lens engineering, especially when it's cross-compatible with film usage. But you are paying a helluva price for a relative small increment of technical improvement. Some people legitimately need that, and have logical reasons for sticking to 35mm (which, I admit, is in fact the parameter of this thread). But I think that many are just coveting the idea that if they own something expensive enough they'll make better pictures, which tends to be make-believe if they can't do it already.

What is the max. format you are printing with 8x10 - with what lens and at what aperture
BTW ?

with regards

PS : Rodenstock lens ?

 

[DREW WILEY]

The nice thing about 8x10 is that, even far more than with 4x5, you can largely ignore the grain issue and choose films for other characteristics. Any decent lens will deliver overkill; and there too, its the particular rendering and covering characteristics that tend to define the topic, and not necessarily MTF. A set of lenses chosen for portraiture, for example, might be completely different from those intended for crisp landscape work. Most of my lenses are now Fuji, but I have quite a bit of experience with German lenses, and still use certain of those too, but no Rodenstock. I do have a few Rodenstock enlarging lenses, among other types. 8x10 also allows you to visualize detail rather remarkably during composition. But I try to limit myself to 4X magnification, which means around a 30x40 inch max print size. Ideal apertures with 8x10 tend to run f/32 to f/64, unless contact printing, where diffraction setting in from tiny apertures is a non-issue. I realize that this is the era of people trying to make prints as big as they possibly can; and 8x10 is certainly the real ticket to that. But why?? It's just a fad as far as I'm concerned. My darkroom setup is exceptionally precise, and I cut my teeth on Cibachromes. So I think the whole mantra of "normal viewing distance" is utter nonsense. If the detail is actually there, people will indeed put their noses or reading glasses right up to it. So there's that side of me. But I also have an alter-ego that loves 35mm work for the opposite reason. I want poetic little grainy prints that suggest rather than emphatically detail the message. About the only lens I use anymore, at least in the field, is a traditional 85/1.4 Ais on a fully mechanical later FM series. Spending more money on a lens wouldn't make a whit of difference, even wide open. In a drawer somewhere I have an old single-coated 55 mm Pentax lens for an early H1 SLR that wore out long ago. I'd like to find another body for it because I absolutely loved its color rendering, less contrasty than current lenses. But I rarely print 35mm in color anymore - almost never, due to the priority my larger film work takes in this category. So I'll probably never use that lens again. Medium format roll film has taken over the small "stealth" color niche for me anyway, and is obviously way more affordable than 8x10 film. I have 3 big 8x10 enlargers, but do smaller film sizes using a 5x7 Durst. It's all good. I enjoy every format. The one you've got in your hands at the moment is always the best! But at a certain point, all this obsession with trying to squeeze as much blood as you can out of a small tomato gets redundant. It reminds me of obsessive pixel-peepers. Get a bigger tomato!