Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,564   Posts: 1,573,430   Online: 911
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Actually everything is leveled and perfectly flat, it is not the negative carrier because I can see the distorsion on a negative even without a loupe.
    Also, I can see this on many negatives. Thanks for the grid, it shows what I wanted to show.

    I also think that some persons are more sensitive to distorsion, that some people might notice it easly and other don't, it is really personnal.

    About perspective shift, yes there might be a little, but perspective shift does not induce barrel distorsion at all, the lines might converge but they should remain straight. Aperture should not have influence on this either.

    I think that Hassy and Zeiss lenses are awesome, but I also feel like people loose their objectivity... It is not because it is expensive that it is perfect. (By the way the same effect hold for Leica glass... and yes I have a couple of them so I am not bashing because I don't own.)

    I am no way going to sell it, but the question remains: is the Rollei version better in this regard( especially the 3.5)?

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    reaches 1% Distortion
    at a distance of about 33mm from the center of the picture, the edge of a typical
    56mmx56mm Hasselblad frame has a distance of 3,13mm from the center.
    So your distortion should be below 1%.

    I think you are making a small mistake.... 3.13 mm from the center is far from being at the corners.....

    Kris

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Moxom View Post
    I think we all know that the 80mm CT and CF lenses are not the best in the zeiss line up
    On the contrary: they are indeed among the best in the Zeiss line-up.

    Almost everything shorter and longer does less good, in every respect.
    There are a few lenses that do better, in single features (some have higher resolving power, in certain conditions; some have lower distortion). But that does indeed not mean that the 80 mm is not excellent.
    And looking at every possible performance parameter combined, it's hard to beat these 'humble' lenses.

    The 100 mm and 120 mm Planars were mentioned a few times here. They are great lenses. Love them.
    But they really do not outperform the humble 80 mm in a significant way. Mostly, they do not outperform the 80 mm at all!

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by kristopher_lawrence View Post
    I also think that some persons are more sensitive to distorsion, that some people might notice it easly and other don't, it is really personnal. [...]
    I think that Hassy and Zeiss lenses are awesome, but I also feel like people loose their objectivity...
    Yes.
    Have you considered the possibility that you are one of those, thinking, as you are, that people don't see the distortion because they are not as sensitive to distortion as you are?
    (But seriously!)

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    Nice answer...

    But seriously I think there is some and I see it. If some think I am nitpicking ok for them.
    But be aware that I don't shoot testcharts ( the picture provided was just a stupid shot to try stand dev. in Rodinal...) and all and all this is because I value the image not necessarly the technical aspect and distorsion in one of the aspects that have a great deal of influence on the final product. Contrast and sharpness, you can always use them in a creative way but distorsion.... exept if you want a fisheye effect but it is obviously not the case when you buy a normal lens...

    Well I feel like it was a mistakte to start this tread since I get flamed down. I guess it is normal when you are critical of Zeiss and Hassy and their god made cameras and lenses...

  6. #26
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    but I also feel like people loose [sic] their objectivity...

    You surely know that "ad hominem" is considered a logic error,
    and doesn't constitute evidence.

    And we're really short of evidence here.

    First, if you're bothered by it, get rid of the lens.

    If you want to stay in Hassie, get a 100. No distortion, none. It was designed as an aerial mapping lens.
    Expensive ? Pah, a bargain for what it does. Don't be cheap.

    If you to keep the lens, comfort yourself in the fact that designing a relatively short f/2.8 lens (and not a 3.5) with balanced performance, you have to spread the inevitable errors around. And the good news is that there are no 80mm lenses that come close to the low distortion of the Planar.

    And the distortion is no secret. I mean Hassie and Zeiss have been up front about this forever. That is the beauty of the system. No secrets, perfect documentation. Lots of choices. You can have exactly what you want.

    Now, I would think that if you wanted to test the performance of this lens, you are going to need to tighten up your protocol. As SK Grimes used to say, "The test tests the tester." I'd be surprised if many of us could set up a camera accurately enough to be able to get good data from a distortion test.

    One of the interesting things that can happen is that one might be shooting so close to a subject that the difference in magnification between the center of the field and the edges might cause the image to be drawn in a nonrectilinear way. But magnification difference isn't distortion. Perspective error can be troublesome, too. That is magnified by being close, as well.

    I wonder what would be a good working distance to compare the center to the edges, without magnification being a factor ? Well, you'd need to have a magnification difference equal to or less than the suspected distortion !

    Good luck.

  7. #27
    david b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    None of your business
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,034
    Images
    30
    Can we see some of your work somewhere?

    Will you be shooting wide open or close to it?

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by kristopher_lawrence View Post
    Well I feel like it was a mistakte to start this tread since I get flamed down. I guess it is normal when you are critical of Zeiss and Hassy and their god made cameras and lenses...
    No, Kris. You did not get flamed down (though it has started now).

    What happened is that people mentioned that they did not see what you said was there to see.

    The flaming (mild, and not malicious, all in good spirit) started when you started attributing that simple thingy to people not being sensitive the way you are.
    Now you add fule to the fire by suggesting that people then perhaps do not want to see what you are seeing, because they are in some sort of awe for a great name.

    Surely, you too can recognize that as complete rubbish.
    (But seriously, again)

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Westport, MA.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,063
    I've an old C lens and it's pretty good but it's definitely not perfect. Actually, the whole system has it's quirks.
    I agree though, people flip out with zeiss and hasselblad. At first I couldn't see the distortion but the one w/ grid really helped.. That would drive me nuts if I noticed it in every frame.

    I've always heard that the 80mm isn't the 'star' performer. The 100 is much tougher to find, sells for more (sometimes much more)..
    Perhaps the makro-planar would be one to look out for?

    Ever hear the story of Howard Stern's brand new (at the time) Bentley? He went to open the door one day and the door handle fell off.
    You don't expect it to happen but anything is possible..

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    123
    No offence, I didn't wanted to be rude.

    As I said its a matter of sensitivity. As for myself, I am not really sensitive to contrast, some people like contrasty lenses, I don't really care about it for most tasks however I am able to understand that someone cares and is picky about it.

    Maybe I havent made tests comparing and all and all but i used extensively other lenses: fujinon 210 never being bothered by distorsion, Tessar, again never, Elmar 2.8 a little on the edges but I don't use Leica for geometrical purposes, 40mm nokton, never, 90 Elmar, never. Only the Planar gave me this impression and I started to check my negs and found this effect, compared to others and found that yes it bothered me. Keep in mind that my original question was about the distorsion level of OTHER lenses compared to the planar 80

    By the way, simply go over Flickr and have a look to planar + hasselblad shots, a lot of them exhibit the distorsion I am speaking of. It is small but there.

    Unfortunately I don't have an updated website, only an old flickr account not updated for more than a year you can find it if what I do matters.

    So again sorry, my exemple shot must not be a good exemple and I don't want to say that people are idiots that can't see distorsion, far the contrary. If I was thinking this I would not have asked on this forum.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin