Arsat-Kiev/Zeiss-Rollei side-by-side fisheye photos

Jim Hemenway wrote:
Hi Nick:

There's no printing here at all, at least in the physical sense.

I shot these photos side-by-side within minutes of each other and what
you see is what the chromes look like on the light table.


So does that mean the exposure is a little different then? Could the lens
aperture be off a little or maybe the shutter a little slow? At least on my
monitor it really looks like it's off just a bit. I don't know how that
might effect the slide colours. Or it could be my monitor-)

Nick

Jim Hemenway wrote:

Hi John:

I just now inspected the interiors of both the Kiev60 and the Rollei
6008i... neither have any flocking, both are dull, flat black inside. If
internal camera reflection/flare was the problem, wouldn't that be
apparent with both cameras?

Not really, depends on where the baffles are and the angle they are at. The
K-60 is notorious for having problem with flare if not flocked, especially
the lower part of the mirror box.



--

Stacey

Neil Gould wrote:

Recently, Stacey posted:

Jim Hemenway wrote:


http://www.hemenway.com/ArsatDistagon

For the price, (compared to the F-Distagon) I think that the Arsat
is a very good value.


Thanx for posting these, I sure don't see much if -any- difference!

Frankly, Stacey, this comment surprises me! Perhaps it's your monitor?

The Arsat clearly shows color aberations if you look at the lighthouse
enlargements. This is apparent in the full image in the overall sharpness;
the Zeiss wins hands-down there and in all of the photos.

All I see is slightly lower contrast in some, higher in others, probably
from using an unflocked K-60 body. Obviously you see some defects I don't!
The "lighthouse" detail you're talking about is how many X mag and do you
think it would be possible to even see that "problem" in a print? I don't.

Both examples look to have the same resolution of the details but yes there
is a slight red fringe on the white part of the lighthouse. I've never
seen any "color aberations" in any of the shots done with my arsat 30mm up
to 16X20's, nothing like 99% of the digicams have which can easily be seen
in a 5X7 print with the naked eye! Maybe I need to take a loupe to a 16X20
print to see what you're talking about here? G

I think the "sharpness" you're talking about is a contrast issue with the
camera body not being flocked which is a common problem with a K-60 and a
wide lens. All the lens tests I've seen on this lenses shows resolution
around 70 lpmm which is plenty shart for a med format lens of any type.
Also remember this is comparing a $220 lens with a $7000+ lens, I think I
can live with not being about to look at 16X20 prints with a loupe for
that. :-)

--

Stacey

Hi Stacey,

Recently, Stacey posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

The Arsat clearly shows color aberations if you look at the
lighthouse enlargements. This is apparent in the full image in the
overall sharpness; the Zeiss wins hands-down there and in all of the
photos.

All I see is slightly lower contrast in some, higher in others,
probably from using an unflocked K-60 body. Obviously you see some
defects I don't! The "lighthouse" detail you're talking about is how
many X mag and do you think it would be possible to even see that
"problem" in a print? I don't.

I can see the difference in sharpness and color balance on my monitor,
even in the relatively small images on Jim's page. Look at the grassy area
in the "Boston to Hull" images, or at the Milkbottle, or at the buildings
in the rails shots. I suspect that a 16x20 print would exaggerate the
differences in quality between these lenses.

Both examples look to have the same resolution of the details but
yes there is a slight red fringe on the white part of the lighthouse.
I've never seen any "color aberations" in any of the shots done with
my arsat 30mm up to 16X20's, nothing like 99% of the digicams have
which can easily be seen in a 5X7 print with the naked eye! Maybe I
need to take a loupe to a 16X20 print to see what you're talking
about here? G

The differences are apparent in the side-by-side images, but if all one
has to look at is the Arsat, then it would be difficult to complain about
the quality of its images.

I think the "sharpness" you're talking about is a contrast issue
with the camera body not being flocked which is a common problem with
a K-60 and a wide lens.

Not really, as even the shots where the Arsat version is more contrasty,
e.g. the Bridge shot, the Distagon is sharper and more balanced. Now,
whether it's worth an extra $6,500 to get the Distagon's additional image
quality is a completely different matter! ;-)

Neil

from: Sam Sherman ) 4-28-04

Hi Jim,

What a really nice job was your comparison of the
two fisheye lenses, and really nice photography and
subjects. The 30MM Arsat is an incredible bargain
probably subsidized years ago by the soviet military for some special purpose
to the tune of (the equivalent of) millions of dollars in R & D and
original manufacturing setup. Carl Zeiss, on the
other hand, had to pay for their lenses for normal uses.I have had the Arsat
Equivalent - 30MM Zodiak for
about 10 years and used it on a variety of cameras including a well-flocked
Kiev 88CM and have gotten very high contrast images from it, even though it is
the apprently single-coated version. There is no doubt that Carl Zeiss makes
superb optics. However,
for the few times a fisheye effect is needed, the Arsat/Zodiak can more than
fill the bill. Photographers should not be afraid of these lenses
just because they are from the Ukraine (former soviet union) and are low
priced. They can be purchased with
mounts for Kiev 88/Hasselblad 1000F, Pentacon 6 etc.
Pentax 645, Mamiya 645, Contax 645 and possibly others.

- Sam Sherman

Neil Gould wrote:

Hi Stacey,

Recently, Stacey posted:

All I see is slightly lower contrast in some, higher in others,
probably from using an unflocked K-60 body. Obviously you see some
defects I don't! The "lighthouse" detail you're talking about is how
many X mag and do you think it would be possible to even see that
"problem" in a print? I don't.

I can see the difference in sharpness and color balance on my monitor,
even in the relatively small images on Jim's page.

You got better eyes than I have. :-)

I can't see -anything- (other than in the super magnified shots a very
slight color fringing) other than lower contrast which as I said is
probably because of the camera body flare a K-60 is going to have until it
is flocked. Flocking the inside of the mirror box is a night and day
difference in those camera bodies.

The shot you said that the arsat has more contrast looks like it has less to
me. Look at the details in the massively magnified "lighthouse", they both
are resolving the same amount of information from a tiny crop. And look at
the blown up part of "the milk bottle", to me the grassy part of the label
next to the cows face looks sharper with the arsat than with the distagon.
What makes the zeiss look sharper on the awning is the contrast. Then look
at the crane shot and check out the fencing where it is black behind it on
the lower left, again the arsat looks slightly sharper and has more
contrast. In that shot I can't see enough difference to say one is any
better than the other and would be shocked if you or anyone could pick out
"which is Zeiss" without knowing..


I wish he had posted these without saying which was the $7000 lens and which
was the $220 lens and see if people could guess which was which. Too late
now...
--

Stacey

Jim Hemenway wrote:

Hi Stacey:

BTW was your arsat the latest MC version? Just curious as my MC
version seems to have slightly better contrast compared to my single
coated one.

Yes as far as I know. I bought it new from the dealer several weeks ago.



It will either have MC on the lens, have MC on the styrofoam box label and
also will have a page added to the instructions stating that it has been
multicoated if it is. The MC lenses have a deep burgandy look to the front
element, the single coated ones look blueish/clear.

They just started doing this in the last year or so and they are a bunch of
the older single coated lenses dealers still have in stock. Also the first
2 digits of the serial number are the year it was made just FYI. "New"
doesn't mean much in FSU gear! The last "new" camera body I bought was a
1994 model. :-)

--

Stacey

Recently, Stacey posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Hi Stacey,

Recently, Stacey posted:

All I see is slightly lower contrast in some, higher in others,
probably from using an unflocked K-60 body. Obviously you see some
defects I don't! The "lighthouse" detail you're talking about is how
many X mag and do you think it would be possible to even see that
"problem" in a print? I don't.

I can see the difference in sharpness and color balance on my
monitor, even in the relatively small images on Jim's page.

You got better eyes than I have. :-)

Or, perhaps we're just reviewing the differences in our monitor and
browsers' ability to present these images! ;-)

I think web-ified images are good for looking at composition, but rather
poor at showing details.

The shot you said that the arsat has more contrast looks like it has
less to me. Look at the details in the massively magnified
"lighthouse", they both are resolving the same amount of information
from a tiny crop.

The example shot that I said had more contrast was the one from under the
bridge, not the one with the lighthouse. As for the resolution of the
image, while there is information on the film in both cases, the effect of
the chromatic aberation of the Arsat actually reduces the resolution.

And look at the blown up part of "the milk bottle",
to me the grassy part of the label next to the cows face looks
sharper with the arsat than with the distagon. What makes the zeiss
look sharper on the awning is the contrast.

On my monitor (or because of my browser), there is too much of an odd
pixelation in the milk bottle shot to make the small details useful. For
example, Jim's signature appears to have a ghost, and the blow-ups are
heavily pixelated. That's why I only commented on the color of the bricks
in that shot.

Then look at the crane
shot and check out the fencing where it is black behind it on the
lower left, again the arsat looks slightly sharper and has more
contrast. In that shot I can't see enough difference to say one is
any better than the other and would be shocked if you or anyone could
pick out "which is Zeiss" without knowing..

These differences in our opinion about this one are fascinating! To me,
the Distagon clearly shows the cables attached to the cranes, whereas the
Arsat starts to lose it on the lower crane. The effect of the chroma
spreading is apparent on the Arsat's rendering of the foreground cables
attached to the ship (the lowest pair that dips down). The Distagon
version appears to be much sharper. Also, the number "139" has better
definition in the Distagon version. So, I'd say that overall, the Arsat is
"softer".

The difficulty with your blind test suggestion is that, while I can easily
see these differences, I don't know that I could assign a brand name to
them. But, if asked "which image is sharper?" or "which image has the
better color balance?", I think I could fair pretty well. ;-)

I wish he had posted these without saying which was the $7000 lens
and which was the $220 lens and see if people could guess which was
which. Too late now...

I agree that there may be less than a $6,500 difference in image quality
for many uses. That doesn't mean it isn't there!

Regards,

Neil

"Stacey" wrote in message
...

All I see is slightly lower contrast in some, higher in others, probably
from using an unflocked K-60 body. Obviously you see some defects I don't!
[...]

Let's all chip in and buy Stacey a new monitor and video card.

"jjs" wrote:
"Stacey" wrote:

All I see is slightly lower contrast in some, higher in others, probably
from using an unflocked K-60 body. Obviously you see some defects I
don't!
[...]

Let's all chip in and buy Stacey a new monitor and video card.

That would make things much less fun...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan