New Zeiss Ikon camera system

Christoph Breitkopf wrote:

TP writes:
Gordon Moat wrote:
With Nikon, one really needs to carefully pick and choose to get lenses that
give pleasing results wide open. I have a fairly good selection now, but
difficulties like going through four 50 mm f1.4 lenses to find one good one are
examples of variation. However, I would doubt any other 35 mm manufacturer
outside of Leica does not offer similar difficulties, and even in the case of
Leica, there have been some not so great lenses.

Carl Zeiss and Pentax have few such difficulties.

Carl Zeiss lenses for Contax 35mm SLRs are consistently excellent
performers with superb bokeh.

I really can't see a difference between the Contax 1.4/50 and
the Nikkor AI-S:
http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images....at=5.6&l=10,53

Of course, there's more to bokeh than those image show, but
still...

Regards,
Chris

I think that your experiences show what can happen with sample variation. In fact,
the only company I know of that might not be subject to problems from sample
variation is Linhof, but they do not make 35 mm gear. When someone claims that Zeiss
and Pentax have few sample variation difficulties, it could just be from a lack of
exposure to a large enough sample, or just show that they were quite fortunate to get
good samples.

With the 50 mm f1.4 from any company, these designs are somewhat a compromise, and
some of the same company slower 50 mm lenses can often be better performers. My going
through four 50 mm f1.4 Nikon lenses to find one with results I liked, could just be
my bad luck, or lens abuse for the two that were used.

Just one comment on your examples, I rarely ever photograph into light sources. I
understand that many photographers do that, but I think it shows an extreme of
defocus rendition. I have two similar examples from the same lens that indicate how
much performance can vary, depending upon defocus area light sources:

http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery/personal/trolley_stone.jpg Neither of these is
scientific, nor controlled conditions, but there is still a comparison that can be
made. This is on AGFA APX100, and the light source is the headlights of an oncoming
trolley car.

http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery/SFX/trolley-stone_SFX.jpg Same location, same
time of day, though on Ilford SFX; like I stated, not controlled conditions. Anyway,
the shot involves no trolley car, so no light sources in the defocus areas.

High contrast can also show defocus area distractions from some lenses, and might be
more common in photography conditions than shooting into light sources. Your tests do
provide one aspect of comparison, and should be useful for many photographers. Thanks
for providing that resource.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

(Uranium Committee) wrote in message . com...
(Jonesy) wrote in message om...

Leica makes some fantastic gear, but in my opinion it is still
RIDICULOUSLY overpriced, even given the amount of workmanship that
goes into their products. Leica is photographic jewelery, and like
one former owner I know who said - many Leica owners aren't interested
in photography per se.

Not true at all. I have 30 year-old Leiacflex stuff that is almost like new.

Nothing that I said above condradicts the fact that your 30 year old
stuff is almost like new. What I said above is that I think it's
ridiculously overpriced, that I think it's photograpic jewelery, and
that one photographic friend famously told me that many Leica owners
aren't interested in photography per se.

I never talked about the long term durability of the equipment, and
I imagine that you've probably taken very good care of your stuff if
it's really "like new" 30 years later.

"Jeremy" wrote in message link.net...
"Chris Brown"
Reading between the lines, Zeiss are aiming at digital, and their 35mm
rangefinder is just a stopgap measure.

Not sure I understand your reasoning--those 35mm photographers that are into
maximum image quality are likely to stick with film.

I totally agree. When convenience is not a factor I totally prefer
film. I can generally spot when an image is a film photograph or a
digital capture. Film photographs, in my personal preference, are far
more pleasing and beautiful, they just feel 'alive' in their rendition
of color and detail.

"Jonesy" wrote in message
om...
(Uranium Committee) wrote in message
. com...
(Jonesy) wrote in message
om...

Leica makes some fantastic gear, but in my opinion it is still
RIDICULOUSLY overpriced, even given the amount of workmanship that
goes into their products. Leica is photographic jewelery, and like
one former owner I know who said - many Leica owners aren't interested
in photography per se.

Not true at all. I have 30 year-old Leiacflex stuff that is almost like
new.

Nothing that I said above condradicts the fact that your 30 year old
stuff is almost like new. What I said above is that I think it's
ridiculously overpriced, that I think it's photograpic jewelery, and
that one photographic friend famously told me that many Leica owners
aren't interested in photography per se.

I never talked about the long term durability of the equipment, and
I imagine that you've probably taken very good care of your stuff if
it's really "like new" 30 years later.

Or, maybe it's like brand new because it hasn't been used during the last 30
years........