Quote Originally Posted by Biogon Bill

Those uncorrected aberrations that we may love so much in certain older lenses weren't put there by the lensmakers to cater to the needs of the artiste. They are there because it was the best the lens maker could do at that stage of optical development.
Nope. They selected and tuned aberations as compromise for effect. Have a look at the wide range of special purpose "designer" and portrait objectives one had back in the early part of the last century. If it was about the "best" and "best" was objective then why should a vendor (beyond cost considerations) have ever offered such a wide selection? Why would one have ever given a thought on selection when one could just chose the best?


Zeiss marketing does not claim specifications that violate the laws of optics. As far as I know, they do list specifications that are beyond the capability of the human eye to see.
They violate the laws of physics in that they claim to have tested the resolving power of a camera optical system using a film ("Gigabit" which is Agfa Copex): Camera Lens News Issue 20 of Sept. 2004, "Gigabit is not a Hoax".
In the article they claim they measured 400 lp/mm on Agfa Copex using ZM objectives in a real camera system. This is not possible. This is complete hogwash when one considers that this claim is even being made for pictorial tonality/contrast (the point of the Gigabit developer) with a film that can't even in "ideal laboratory conditions" resolve 400 lp/mm (and we are not talking yet about objectives, cameras and optical systems).

Erwin Puts did a good intro write-up on this: Zeiss and resolution and fairy tales (October 15, 2004).

Looking through the 20 issues of that "magazine" I've found many marketing claims that push the laws of physics to support Zeiss marketing. I like some Zeiss products but their marketing is these days no better than... Seems like they hired their copy from writers that don't know the difference between nm, mw and ml. :-)