New 'X' Panasonic lenses

[kwalsh]

it looks like Leica does not allow Panasonic to label the lens accordingly w/o designing it properly

Snore, sorry old debate. Software corrections have nothing to do with "properly" designing a lens.

And Leica applies software corrections to their own lenses on their own bodies. Not geometric distortion, but both vignetting and color errors across the frame.

But yes, exactly as you say, the 45/2.8 doesn't use software based geometric distortion correction.

Ken

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I was a die-hard opponent to in-camera lens corrections, or at least I thought so. Then I bought the Pany 7-14

If Panasonic can bring out a premium quality 14-35mm f/2.0 at the size indicated in the photos, there's bound to be in camera lens corrections. Bring it on, says I :lecture:

 

[deejjjaaaa]

Software corrections have nothing to do with "properly" designing a lens.

it has, properly designed lenses do not have such huge distortions... and as a result they do not have noise banding as a result of software corrections

And Leica applies software corrections to their own lenses on their own bodies. Not geometric distortion, but both vignetting and color errors across the frame.

we are talking about geometric distortions here

 

[pellicle]

. and as a result they do not have noise banding as a result of software corrections

do you have any references supporting that? I've never seen that in my images ... and I often use dcraw to do my demosiac and then compare to the JPG

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Digital photography has always, and probably always will, be dependent on different kinds of optical corrections. Optical distortion is only a piece of that cakes. There's also CA, purple fringing, microlenses on the sensor not to speak about all the interesting things Leica is doing to get that "natural" Leica look with their digital Ms. If you want uncorrected, optically correct photos, shoot film.

 

[ptomsu]

Digital photography has always, and probably always will, be dependent on different kinds of optical corrections. Optical distortion is only a piece of that cakes. There's also CA, purple fringing, microlenses on the sensor not to speak about all the interesting things Leica is doing to get that "natural" Leica look with their digital Ms. If you want uncorrected, optically correct photos, shoot film.

Jorgen,

sorry, but this statement is so wrong!

You have the same optical flaws with film as you have with digital, only issue is that you will not see most of them because of the weaknesses of film and some will not even appear because of the forgivingness of film!

But in general optics became much better since the introduction of film, they had to. In fact Leica M lenses have always been above normal standards, but even there you can see a number of improvements with the latest calculations for digital M.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Jorgen,

sorry, but this statement is so wrong!

You have the same optical flaws with film as you have with digital, only issue is that you will not see most of them because of the weaknesses of film and some will not even appear because of the forgivingness of film!

But in general optics became much better since the introduction of film, they had to. In fact Leica M lenses have always been above normal standards, but even there you can see a number of improvements with the latest calculations for digital M.

So there's no vignetting correction in Leica firmware, no correction of cyan corners, and the IR-cut filters was something the handed out instead of party hats?

Most Nikon WA primes, 20, 24 and 28mm f/2.8, worked well with film, not because film was more forgiving, but because they were good lenses. On a digital sensor, you get vignetting, soft corners and massive CA, simply due to the fact that these lenses were not designed to work with a strongly reflective medium that is not even flat. The corner softness obviously can't be corrected in firmware, but vignetting and CA can, at least to a certain degree. What Nikon has done, is giving us new lenses designed for digital cameras. They are rather large, but they work well. That's the same approach that Olympus chose for the original 4/3 lenses btw. Things change.

 

[pellicle]

If you want uncorrected, optically correct photos, shoot film.

this really needs a like button

:thumbup:

or better yet, expose emulsion coated glass plates!

 

[ptomsu]

So there's no vignetting correction in Leica firmware, no correction of cyan corners, and the IR-cut filters was something the handed out instead of party hats?

There is all sort of corrections, right? And this gives you better images from the ground up.

But if you - what you obviously like - take old lenses designed for analog and use them on digital sensors, then you will see all these flaws even much more than you could see them on film. BUT - on film they were also there!

So stating that taking old glass on film gives better results because you do not have any flaws to correct is simply wrong.

And yes, many of the new lenses designed for digital are larger, they need to be, in order to accomplish the much higher corrections needed for digital. But if you would use the same digitally optimized lenses on film, you would get better results too.

BTW 1 - try going back to film - wish you good luck WRT workflow, IQ etc. Digital, even cheap digital, meanwhile easily outperforms film!

BTW 2 - a bit off topic, did you finally get the E5?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

BTW 1 - try going back to film - wish you good luck WRT workflow, IQ etc. Digital, even cheap digital, meanwhile easily outperforms film!

BTW 2 - a bit off topic, did you finally get the E5?

I have done much more on film lately than previously, and I enjoy it a lot, even the workflow. It slows me down and makes me think, but that's me

E-5, not yet. I've ordered a couple of lenses for starters (Panaleica 14-50 and Sigma 50/1.4). They will hopefully arrive here next week. I need to do this step-by-step. Monies are only available in small piles, so I buy new gear as old bodies are wearing out.

 

[ptomsu]

I have done much more on film lately than previously, and I enjoy it a lot, even the workflow. It slows me down and makes me think, but that's me

E-5, not yet. I've ordered a couple of lenses for starters (Panaleica 14-50 and Sigma 50/1.4). They will hopefully arrive here next week. I need to do this step-by-step. Monies are only available in small piles, so I buy new gear as old bodies are wearing out.

I completely stopped film some 3 years ago. My last activities were to scan some of my old MF films from my Hasselblad days - gave excellent results but took too much time, especially removing dust. As long as you do not digitize, film is great, otherwise it is too much workload required - at lest for me.

You will enjoy the E5 - great camera, great lenses! Only issue is that I am no longer sure about the future of the E system, so I really would consider taking that step now or in the future, as M43 seems to become a decent replacement for the E system, especially with the new X lenses and the M43 pro bodies.

Issue for me is that all the best EVFs today are still lightyears away from pro like OVFs as you get in an E5. Not sure when these will become equally good.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Issue for me is that all the best EVFs today are still lightyears away from pro like OVFs as you get in an E5. Not sure when these will become equally good.

Maybe they will never look the same, which is still the case for b&w film compared to digital. I don't worry about that, and I don't worry that my gear will be discontinued. I'm sure there will be enough of it around to last the rest of my life. I've bought two new-in-box OM lenses the last year.

Oh, and I do scan film btw.:

OM-2 with Zuiko 28mm f/2.8 and Delta 100

 

[ptomsu]

Maybe they will never look the same, which is still the case for b&w film compared to digital. I don't worry about that, and I don't worry that my gear will be discontinued. I'm sure there will be enough of it around to last the rest of my life. I've bought two new-in-box OM lenses the last year.

Oh, and I do scan film btw.:

Obviously very different approaches, but ok, enjoy then!

 

[henningw]

it has, properly designed lenses do not have such huge distortions... and as a result they do not have noise banding as a result of software corrections

we are talking about geometric distortions here

Properly designed lenses are those that produce optimal results in the system they are designed for. Period.

Before digital photography geometric distortion HAD to be corrected in the lens, as later correction was impractical. If astigmatism and coma suffered to a degree as a result, and the corners became softer, so be it because severe geometric distortion was a lot more painful visually. Now designers are not bound by that, and can address various corrections, as well as reduce the size of the lenses by letting geometric distortion and lateral chromatic aberration 'float' and correcting it in software, giving us optimal image quality by 'properly' designing lenses.

Henning

 

[kwalsh]

it has, properly designed lenses do not have such huge distortions...

No, a properly designed lens minimizes all aberrations in the output image to the greatest degree possible. This is why leaving distortion and lateral CA for software is in fact more proper. Requiring no distortion constrains the stop location from its optimal location for image sharpness. By removing that constraint and performing the correction in software better overall image quality is obtained.

See this figure:

Notice, when field curvature and coma (not correctable in software) are minimum there is plenty of residual lateral CA and distortion (which are trivially corrected in software).

If we follow your advice and instead design for no distortion we will have more coma and field curvature and a lower quality image in the end.

As for the noise banding, I remember your example. I tried desperately to recreate it using very high ISOs and extreme contrast profiles with the 20/1.7 and was never able to reproduce it (using both a G1 and a GH2 and LR3). If you've got a consistent method of producing it I'd love to try again, it sounds like an interesting problem to investigate.

Ken

P.S. - Hasselblad, complete pantywaists in the image quality department by your logic, had this to say about their approach to lens design and software corrections:

For example, in the case of our new HC series 28mm lens, the only way we can get the lens to produce images of Hasselblad quality is by having an integrated system and utilizing our knowledge of our optics, our cameras, and our digital magazines, having them communicate with each other, and applying software within the system to compensate for issues that arise (such as lens distortion) and optimize the image.

 

[deejjjaaaa]

If we follow your advice and instead design for no distortion we will have more coma and field curvature and a lower quality image in the end.

there is a difference between overcorrecting trying to achieve 0% distortion and intentionally designing the lens w/ 5-7% distortions to make the lens cheaper...

As for the noise banding, I remember your example. I tried desperately to recreate it using very high ISOs and extreme contrast profiles with the 20/1.7 and was never able to reproduce it (using both a G1 and a GH2 and LR3). If you've got a consistent method of producing it I'd love to try again, it sounds like an interesting problem to investigate.

I can refer you to the topic in Adobe forums where this (noise banding as a result of optics correction by software, because you can't get rid of it) was acknowledged by Eric Chan of Adobe Labs

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/798576

PS: I agree that you see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil... but I do, may be I have a better eyesight ? in any case I hope that PL25/1.4 will not be designed as P20/1.7 and I can replace it.

 

[deejjjaaaa]

See this figure:

says "simple lens"... how simple it is ? couple of of elements for educational purposes ?

 

[deejjjaaaa]

Before digital photography

I think you wanted to say before Panasonic decided to save some $$$...

because there were and are lenses designed for digital sensors before and now, w/o that huge amount of geometric distortion... take LX3 P&S for example - Samsung did a better job w/ lens (and faster and longer) in EX1/TL500 w/o that...

giving us optimal image quality by 'properly' designing lenses.

it is not that optimal... cheaper - yes.

 

[henningw]

I think you wanted to say before Panasonic decided to save some $$$...

because there were and are lenses designed for digital sensors before and now, w/o that huge amount of geometric distortion... take LX3 P&S for example - Samsung did a better job w/ lens (and faster and longer) in EX1/TL500 w/o that...

it is not that optimal... cheaper - yes.

Please. I know what I want to say, and that certainly isn't it.

With respect to the LX3 lens: it has corrections applied; and w.r.t. the LX3 and Samsung EX1 - these are P&S cameras with rather different design and performance parameters than the lenses for the G series.

Optimal is when you achieve outstanding performance by whatever means you can, and that implies total system performance. With film, the software corrections weren't available, and thus we had lesser performance because the optical designers had to make a lens that balanced all the performance lowering parameters, but could not produce a general purpose lens, ie, one that worked at many distances and over the whole visible spectral range that didn't show most of the aberrations to some degree.

With software correction we have much higher performance lenses.

Bringing in the cost into this argument is a red herring, because all manufacturers at all times have and will continue to reduce costs, whatever they produce.

In any case, yes, the software correction method of image correction is a fully valid and effective way of optimizing system image quality.

I have used and still have many lenses that do not rely on software correction to achieve very high image quality: Summilux 50mm ASPH, Summilux 21mm, Tri-Elmar 16-21mm, Canon 17mm TS-E, Apo Ronar 240 and 480mm, Photars from 25mm to 120mm, Biogon 38mm, etc.

All have some failing; the most noticeable common one is price. Other than that, in spite of their price and state of the art design, the Summilux 21 and the Tri-Elmar 16-21 have rather high distortion. The Canon 17 is huge and in the far corners has image quality falloff such that you really have to use f/11, the Apo Ronars are f/9 and the Biogon has a lot of vignetting and some softness in the corners compared with current designs. If the designers had software correction available for their imaging systems, they could have made lenses that produced higher quality images.

They could have optimized them.

In the end, optimization is not an absolute thing. The banding that is apparent in some instances will affect me less than you, it seems. To me, it's more important to have an optical system that is very sharp at all EI's and every picture due to excellent correction for most aberrations that affect image quality, and have distortion and CA 'fixed' in software than have a lens thats not that sharp wide open and in the corners, and has maybe 2% distortion but that renders more smoothly on the GH2 sensor at EI 5000 with the contrast and sharpness bumped high. And might cost me more.

Henning

 

[kwalsh]

I think you wanted to say before Panasonic decided to save some $$$...

Your evidence for that assertion is?

because there were and are lenses designed for digital sensors before and now, w/o that huge amount of geometric distortion... take LX3 P&S for example - Samsung did a better job w/ lens (and faster and longer) in EX1/TL500 w/o that...

Hey, thanks for proving my point and illustrating how you throw around speculation without even looking at objective data:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stu...a=canon_s95&slot3Sample=img_2251.acr&x=0&y=0

What's that in the corners and edges of the EX1? Horrific coma and astigmatism? Would that be three cameras that use SW correction having better IQ than the EX1? Just like I said?

Check out the label at the top of the martini bottle. The EX1 looks like garbage, not surprising since they didn't optimize the design as they should.

QED

Ken