The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

When a 3% pincussion makes you a "serious shooter"..

ggibson

Well-known member
The lensrentals link highlights an important point:

It's well known among lens designers that when designing a lens correcting distortion often reduces resolution
So why add more glass to achieve the same result? I'd rather have a smaller, lighter lens and be able to choose whether or not to correct the distortion.

I'm also not sure why people care where the lens design came from (Tamron or whatever).
 

turtle

New member
That's it: if the subject matter shot with the camera and show in file is of exceptional resolution then it matters not. The LensRentals test was done with a SLR lens, so presumably that shows a whole image, shot and then processed to correct distortion, rather than with mirrorless, where I guess there is more scope for manipulating what you actually see on screen with the camera.

For me, if the image I see through the finder (A) translates to a superb file (B), then there is nothing more to worry about. Worrying about what happens behind the scenes to get from A to B seems fairly pointless. This seems to be worrying about a theoretical argument that presently stands in contrast to the (admittedly few) positive view that have surfaced. We will find out in due course, but it seems that some people are upset about the principle of the matter... as if they have been shortchanged... without reference to the output being what actually determines quality. This seems about as logical as complaining that you don't like the carbon fibre in your racing car because it feels light and cheap, you know, like where is the metal I paid for - you can feel that stuff!

As for the no compromises angle Zeiss is taking, this is marketing for the less informed, but we all recognise that there is no such thing as no compromises, otherwise all lenses would be the size of a watermelon (which would perform less well than the fridge sized one). The Otus is massively larger than the Batis, yet the Batis is supposedly stunning. Software correction has been traded for bulk. Yes, there is a compromise, but if the resultant corrected frames are great, then they are great.

Mirrorless is a different world to DSLR and I think we have to move with the times. There is no such thing as a free lunch, so its not fair to expect the performance of an Otus in a package 60% smaller/lighter without something given up. I doubt Zeiss would have gone this route if we were going to get poor corners as a result.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Actually, I don't care if it is a Tamron lens with a blue label or whatever since I won't buy it. In case I do, I would only pay for the lens and not the label. ;)

I'm also not sure why people care where the lens design came from (Tamron or whatever).
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
That's it: if the subject matter shot with the camera and show in file is of exceptional resolution then it matters not. The LensRentals test was done with a SLR lens, so presumably that shows a whole image, shot and then processed to correct distortion, rather than with mirrorless, where I guess there is more scope for manipulating what you actually see on screen with the camera.

For me, if the image I see through the finder (A) translates to a superb file (B), then there is nothing more to worry about. Worrying about what happens behind the scenes to get from A to B seems fairly pointless. This seems to be worrying about a theoretical argument that presently stands in contrast to the (admittedly few) positive view that have surfaced. We will find out in due course, but it seems that some people are upset about the principle of the matter... as if they have been shortchanged... without reference to the output being what actually determines quality. This seems about as logical as complaining that you don't like the carbon fibre in your racing car because it feels light and cheap, you know, like where is the metal I paid for - you can feel that stuff!

As for the no compromises angle Zeiss is taking, this is marketing for the less informed, but we all recognise that there is no such thing as no compromises, otherwise all lenses would be the size of a watermelon (which would perform less well than the fridge sized one). The Otus is massively larger than the Batis, yet the Batis is supposedly stunning. Software correction has been traded for bulk. Yes, there is a compromise, but if the resultant corrected frames are great, then they are great.

Mirrorless is a different world to DSLR and I think we have to move with the times. There is no such thing as a free lunch, so its not fair to expect the performance of an Otus in a package 60% smaller/lighter without something given up. I doubt Zeiss would have gone this route if we were going to get poor corners as a result.
I think we are just in the age where SOME like to complain for the sake of complaining. Some complaints are legitimate... Many are irrational. This is/will be an irrational argument after the improved lens corrections are released in camera firmware and RAW software.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Time will tell if "rational" or "irrational" applies.

Pegelli, Do you plan on even getting a FF NEX or is it something of a rational support for anything Sony related? :D
 

Eoin

Member
Personally I haven't cared for any of the images I've seen taken with the Batis 85. Perhaps this will change.

I'm more interested in the Zeiss promotional video http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/e...ges/batis.html of the landscape photographer who seems to not care about his non weather sealed A7 series with his weather sealed Batis lens ...
Am I missing something here, I've read horror stories about lightly splashed A7 going haywire.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Eoin, The whole video is missing. 404 error- does not exist.

Personally I haven't cared for any of the images I've seen taken with the Batis 85. Perhaps this will change.

I'm more interested in the Zeiss promotional video 404 | ZEISS International of the landscape photographer who seems to not care about his non weather sealed A7 series with his weather sealed Batis lens ...
Am I missing something here, I've read horror stories about lightly splashed A7 going haywire.
If that is true, I would have done the same thing as well. Heck, if I am given an evaluation sample, I will toss it in the air.
 

davidstock

New member
I'm one of the people concerned about distortion with the Batis 85 because I shoot a lot of urban landscape, with plenty of straight lines visible. This is one of the reasons I'm also considering the larger, heavier 90mm macro, which has virtually no distortion.

However, I am waiting to see. One thing I have read is that Zeiss calculates distortion differently from other companies (and reviewers). The Zeiss calculation is said to give a percentage roughly twice that of other calculations.

Between that factor and the unknown factor of how destructive software correction actually is, I'm willing to suspend judgement.

So far, early reviewers are mostly interested in wide-open performance and portraiture. The few squared-up images I have been able to access online have definite pin-cushion distortion, but it isn't horrible. I estimate about a -4 to -6 Distortion correction in ACR.
 

uhoh7

New member
Whether with the Q, FE 28 or other highly distorted formulas, the correction comes at a cost, though perhaps most don't notice or care.

I find the lax attitude in the Leica and RF forums to the Q's distortion pretty funny, since many users constantly sing the tiny advantages of film :)

As to Zeiss: so heavily branded you have to take the offering one lens at a time, and you better check to see it's properly centered.
 

mjm6

Member
I'm one of the people concerned about distortion with the Batis 85 because I shoot a lot of urban landscape, with plenty of straight lines visible. This is one of the reasons I'm also considering the larger, heavier 90mm macro, which has virtually no distortion.

However, I am waiting to see. One thing I have read is that Zeiss calculates distortion differently from other companies (and reviewers). The Zeiss calculation is said to give a percentage roughly twice that of other calculations.

Between that factor and the unknown factor of how destructive software correction actually is, I'm willing to suspend judgement.

So far, early reviewers are mostly interested in wide-open performance and portraiture. The few squared-up images I have been able to access online have definite pin-cushion distortion, but it isn't horrible. I estimate about a -4 to -6 Distortion correction in ACR.
Anyone shooting architectural subjects will agree with this if you are serious about that kind of shooting.

When I first saw the performance of the 24-70 lens I simply couldn't believe how much distortion they permitted in the design! It would be simply impossible to compose an image where the framing of the subject is carefully considered with this lens, as you never really know how much of the image is going to be thrown out during the correction step.

I consider this a poor compromise on the part of Sony/Zeiss. Yes, it is possible that it results in smaller lenses, and possibly subtly sharper corner performance (but I doubt it). But, you get that at the expense of never actually knowing what the composition will ultimately look like until in the computer after the fact.

With lenses like this, we're back to the realm of rangefinders and approximate framing techniques; shoot wider than needed and crop later.


---Michael
 

mjm6

Member
Defeats the whole idea of live view, doesn't it?
Unfortunately, yes.

I would have kept my M9 and (non-ASPH) Leica glass if I wanted approximate composition. That system certainly had that in spades, and I found it frustrating that I couldn't get closer to a well-considered composition with that system.

Well, that and the the fact that I didn't consider their inability to produce a properly functioning piece of electronics to be 'quaint' or part of the 'Leica Charm'...



---Michael
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
Look at the Leica Q, which is no different. I personally would rather have this compromise with software correction than carry another half kilo attached to the front of my camera. If the files look good the files look good. I could not care less about anything else

Quality Control will need to be good. The 35mm FE Sonnar fiasco has me wary.
Tom, couldn't have said it better myself. And dude, it would be more like a couple extra kilos body and lens.

If my files look good, my clients don't care what camera is used. If my files don't look good, my former clients won't care what camera was used either! :facesmack:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Mr. Jones, You confuse me. One day you are waxing lyrics on theHollywood distagon and how they don't make it like in the good of' days and now you are batting for the "new pro standard". Which one of your pieces in your blog should I follow? :confused:
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
Mr. Jones, You confuse me. One day you are waxing lyrics on theHollywood distagon and how they don't make it like in the good of' days and now you are batting for the "new pro standard". Which one of your pieces in your blog should I follow? :confused:
I only own one Sony autofocus Zeiss lens, the 55mm f/1.8. I've passed on any of the others, preferring to stick with my older glass with more "juice." I still own and use the 28mm Hollywood Distagon, which works on everything, including my Sony bodies.

The Batis lenses are both excellent from just a few mins of testing I got to do with them, and beautifully constructed. Build quality is at least as good as any lens Zeiss ever made in my opinion. But until the 25mm is sitting here to test side by side I can't say which is the better wide lens on Sony bodies, though I suspect the Batis will give the 28mm Hollywood a real battle, looking at image samples from both. Zeiss has promised a test sample as soon as a few more get into the country, so I will let you know on that one as soon as I know myself. The Hollywood though is manual focus only, where Batis is both manual and autofocus.

I can quite safely say that the 28mm f/2 will be the superior lens on my Olympus OM-D EM-5 II, Canon 5D III, and about anything else I want to put it on. It's the old apples and oranges argument thing Vivek, and yes, it is confusing. Batis is a SONY FE MOUNT ONLY LENS. Worthless on any other body, unless you care to try correcting that 3% distortion manually yourself and only if the flange focal distance would work, doubtful in both cases.

The 28mm Hollywood is in the same category as the newer OTUS lineup. Can be used with adapters on almost anything ever made. If you look around on my blog your also going to find that I own and use a Zeiss Distagon made by Rollei (40mm) which presently I would say is even better than the Hollywood wide open. But you think the OTUS is big and heavy, you should try the Rollei 40mm :)

So pick your poison, beautiful old tech with juice, though heavy, looks good and works on anything, or modern autofocus & tack sharp across the frame at half the weight and twice the size, but limited by software interconnection to Sony A series bodies only. Me, I never met a Zeiss lens I didn't love, so I see the two as complementary. You seem to see it as the anti-Christ, and you haven't even SEEN it yet.

But then neither has my wife. She'll just see it as yet another budget killer. And you know what? Of all of us, she is the most correct. :ROTFL:
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
Thanks for that, Chuck! :)

One small correction- if Zeiis were to come out with one of their newsletters on certain special lenses, I can supply some samples that they may not have seen in real life. I don't know where batus belongs be it Zeiss or Tamron.

BTW, don't you think Michael articulated one issue very well? :)
 

ggibson

Well-known member
When I first saw the performance of the 24-70 lens I simply couldn't believe how much distortion they permitted in the design! It would be simply impossible to compose an image where the framing of the subject is carefully considered with this lens, as you never really know how much of the image is going to be thrown out during the correction step.
Um, I was under the impression that live view has the lens corrections already applied so framing correctly is not an issue.
 
Top