Nachkebia
Well-known
Check this out! I think nobody has posted this yet, I just discovered it by mistake 🙂 enjoy!
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/zeiss/test85/t004.html
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/zeiss/test85/t004.html
85 sonnar tested!!!
- Thread starter Nachkebia
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 46
- Views 5K
Nachkebia
Well-known
Sonnar is such an excellent lens!!!! I want it!
Oh, yeah, that was about lenses.
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Right, the lenses aren't bad either.
I love the subtle condescension -- Cosina isn't yet capable of the final level of manufacturing quality; the Sonnar isn't as rock solid as the Leica lenses -- that always manages to creep into his reviews.
I love the subtle condescension -- Cosina isn't yet capable of the final level of manufacturing quality; the Sonnar isn't as rock solid as the Leica lenses -- that always manages to creep into his reviews.
Nachkebia
Well-known
What can he do? he loves leica, just take it in consideration and thats it, although he admits that aspherical is not the optimal, he also admits that some zeiss glass equal or even exell some leica glass 🙂
jano
Evil Bokeh
I noticed the slight fringing in the scan with the girl and hair 😱
No intention here of starting anything, however, I can see how it would quickly do so: why is it automatically a given that if it's made in Germany, there are stricter quality requirements? Times have changed since WWII...
No intention here of starting anything, however, I can see how it would quickly do so: why is it automatically a given that if it's made in Germany, there are stricter quality requirements? Times have changed since WWII...
Nachkebia
Well-known
Jano don`t forget it has been shot on velvia.
jano
Evil Bokeh
Is velveeta more prone to fringing? I've only shot it twice, once was a disaster, and the second time x-processed for some nice results.
J. Borger
Well-known
I especially liked the wall shots 🙂
Geeze so many words and so few usefull picture to look at .. what a waste ....
WE are talking portrait lenses here .. it can't be too difficult for him to produce a couple of descent portraits with the several lenses in comparable situations.
Puts articles never worked for me!
Geeze so many words and so few usefull picture to look at .. what a waste ....
WE are talking portrait lenses here .. it can't be too difficult for him to produce a couple of descent portraits with the several lenses in comparable situations.
Puts articles never worked for me!
Last edited:
telenous
Well-known
I tend to think of Puts as a historian of optics not as a photographer. As every historian, he revels in his own biases. And his stylistic flourishes do get the better of him from time to time. And contrary to what seems to be a consensus here, I don't think he is a bad writer (overall).
Oh, yes, the lenses... 🙂
Oh, yes, the lenses... 🙂
sdai
Established
Puts' words always helped a lot in retaining the value of my gears, thanks a lot!
Nachkebia
Well-known
I actualy enjoy all his reviews, and I have to say I liked images he provided with this test. 🙂
J. Borger
Well-known
Nachkebia said:
Do not get me wrong ..... i am glad you provided the link.
But which pictures?? .... The brickwalls? .... the flare test? ... or the few portraits which are of mediocre quality at best .... ? Is it asked too much to show some descent real life pictures showing the different character of the lenses side by side? Do not need a mr Puts to tell me the 85 1.2L is a heavy lens 🙄
For some real 85 1,2L samples check out the portrait section at
www.Marktucker.com
Just wished there was a similar gallery from somebody using the 75 lux
If somebody knows about it i would welcome a link.
Last edited:
I like the models. 🙂
The brick shot with the canon was pretty poor.
The brick shot with the canon was pretty poor.
K
Kyle
Guest
I've never really read anything that Puts has wrote, except for one or two snippets from an article. When this link was posted I went straight to the article, and I honestly didn't even know this was a test by Erwin Puts (that page only says his name in one place, in the top left corner of the screen, I had to revisit the page to find his name placed on the page somewhere). Anyways, I can safely say I am absolutely not a fan of his stuff. It was OK to start with, but then he started rambling about Dutch poets in the 1880s and I got bored. I read through most of the article, and was bored the whole time and thinking how stupid it was that this guy was wasting time shooting brick walls. Also, why a comparison between a lens designed for a DSLR to a lens designed for film based rangefinders?
Anyway, sorry about the Puts rant. Everyone always has something to say about the guy and since this was my first real experience reading his work, I figured I'd put in my $0.02.
Anyway, sorry about the Puts rant. Everyone always has something to say about the guy and since this was my first real experience reading his work, I figured I'd put in my $0.02.
jtm
not a moose
Do you suppose my 85mm f/2 LTM Nikkor on Velvia would make pictures that look notably different from any that Erwin showed, if used in the same way? I'm just looking for some reason to not like it, I guess.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
To me the LTM Nikkor 85/2 is smooth as butter. I'd rate it a bit better than my postwar Contax mount CZJ 85/2. Hang on to that lens.
Mazurka
Well-known
jano said:
Yeah, as if any scanner under Putsie's use couldn't possibly introduce such digital artifacts. 🙄
He'd make a great comedian though -- he certainly got the looks and the jokes, however inadvertent they may be. 😀
Last edited:
Nachkebia
Well-known
lol, I never thought he had this bad reputation 🙂 he is like rockwell in SLR scene 🙂
ghost
Well-known
"the new ZI camera: a derivative of the Bessa series of cameras...I leave it to the aficionados to discuss the true heritage of that body."
i love it when he's smug.
"The design requires a level of manufacturing quality that Cosina does not (yet) possess"
but not when he's flat out wrong. cosina isn't set up to make lenses with floating elements, but carl zeiss is.
i love it when he's smug.
"The design requires a level of manufacturing quality that Cosina does not (yet) possess"
but not when he's flat out wrong. cosina isn't set up to make lenses with floating elements, but carl zeiss is.
