drjoke
Well-known
Is it the Schott glass, the T* coating, or the lens designs?
I am not talking about the MTF, sharpness and etc., but I am talking about its color rendition. I have ZM Sonnar 50mm and ZM Biogon 35mm. Both have very different design and signature, but have a very similar color rendition. The same is true for the ZF lenses and other as well.
In fact, I have been very attracted to the color rendition of Zeiss lenses. I think it looks very good on all film that I use.
I am not talking about the MTF, sharpness and etc., but I am talking about its color rendition. I have ZM Sonnar 50mm and ZM Biogon 35mm. Both have very different design and signature, but have a very similar color rendition. The same is true for the ZF lenses and other as well.
In fact, I have been very attracted to the color rendition of Zeiss lenses. I think it looks very good on all film that I use.
uhligfd
Well-known
I am afraid a snide remark of superiority does not explain why my Zeiss pics are clearly identifiable, and look so much nicer and better, and compare well to the scene colors etc.
Clearly i do shoot neg film, so a schooled print operator could enhance any other lens pic to get that look, but (un)fortunately that is not true at all: it is the relation of the colors and fine microstructures that cannot be created after you shot with other glass.
So, what is the cause of this? A very legitimate question.
I use the Contax G Zeiss lenses.
sebastel
coarse art umbrascriptor
should mainly be the coating.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I don't have any new Zeiss glass just older coated lenses from the 50/60s. I have noticed that I get a darker blue rendition of the sky areas when using C41 film. I always thought it was the type of coating used.
Bob
Bob
Avotius
Some guy
You could not be any more wrong.
A quick browse through my planar tag in my flickr will prove that. I happen to think its the lens design and coating. I understand all zeiss lenses are corrected so they all give a similar color/bw rendition. I can see it between my hasselblad distagon and sonnar and ZM Planar and biogon shots. They all seem to render colors in a similar way, and black and whites for the most part similar.
italy74
Well-known
It's coating for sure, with the kind of glass, and I too think that each lens leaves a little hint of itself into the image taken: for what op says it looks to be what people commonly call "cast". Some lenses are warmer (reddish/brownish/yellowish) other cooler (greyish, greenish, blueish); depending on our taste, we can love the one or the other...
ferider
Veteran
A lens is a passive optical filter and can only depict color and contrast as accurately as possible.
I would look at it like this: the Zeiss coatings give very accurate color and contrast rendition.
It's more a question on how and why other lenses (that you might not like) decrease contrast and distort the color spectrum.
Roland.
I would look at it like this: the Zeiss coatings give very accurate color and contrast rendition.
It's more a question on how and why other lenses (that you might not like) decrease contrast and distort the color spectrum.
Roland.
mr_phillip
Well-known
As I recall, the T* coatings were originally designed by Zeiss post-war to ensure color consistency from lens to lens, primarily with their cinema optics in mind (you can imaging how obvious it'd be if the tone of a movie using the new-fangled color films changed midway through a scene just because the director wanted to move in for a close-up). The technology then just trickled down to the stills lenses.
Bruin
Noktonian
I think color rendition is determined primarily by the coating and influenced by the glass type as well. Minolta was famous for consistent color and contrast balance across it's lens line through specific application of coatings:
http://www.dyxum.com/columns/dPhotoworld/Historical_perspective_Minolta_lens_design_philosophy.asp
http://www.dyxum.com/columns/dPhotoworld/Historical_perspective_Minolta_lens_design_philosophy.asp
jsuominen
Well-known
Hmm, I have some Zeiss lenses with T* coating:
- C/Y-mount Planar 50/1.4 for Contax SLR
- Contax T2 with Sonnar 38/2.8
- Yashica T5 with Tessar 35/3.5
- vintage (from 1950's) Zeiss-Opton Sonnar 50/1.5 for Contax rf (actually just T coating)
Should I burn some slide film to find out the results? Maybe I'll wait at the end of May, when there is more color outside... I shoot mostly b&w and have never thought about this color rendering issue.
italy74
Well-known
Hi guys,
let me show you how two different lenses behave:
We're going to compare these lenses the first is the ZF 2/100 on the right (the other follows later) - photo by Emanuele C - italian member of Nikoncafe
Even if a different world, this is Zeiss ZF 2/100 and these are all shots by a swedish member of Nikoncafe, Paul Lindqvist, as well all the others: look at the "reddish"/ bronzer cast on skin. They look almost "tanned"
This is the other lens: As you see, on the same camera, it performs quite differently and the skin has a clear paler tone
let me show you how two different lenses behave:
We're going to compare these lenses the first is the ZF 2/100 on the right (the other follows later) - photo by Emanuele C - italian member of Nikoncafe
Even if a different world, this is Zeiss ZF 2/100 and these are all shots by a swedish member of Nikoncafe, Paul Lindqvist, as well all the others: look at the "reddish"/ bronzer cast on skin. They look almost "tanned"
This is the other lens: As you see, on the same camera, it performs quite differently and the skin has a clear paler tone
Last edited:
italy74
Well-known
A couple of samples of mine:
Home test, done for a friend.
Comparing Nikkor 17-35 and Tamron 17-50
You will note very well the different cast imprinted by the lenses.
Tamron 17-50 F/5.6 @ 35mm
Nikon 17-35 F/5.6 @ 35 mm
you see how the first sample looks more red? (look at the yellow tones) in the alternate lines
Home test, done for a friend.
Comparing Nikkor 17-35 and Tamron 17-50
You will note very well the different cast imprinted by the lenses.
Tamron 17-50 F/5.6 @ 35mm
Nikon 17-35 F/5.6 @ 35 mm
you see how the first sample looks more red? (look at the yellow tones) in the alternate lines
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I do not see how anyone could disagree with this, or call it snide. Indeed, I'd go further, and include contrast as well. Unless you are looking at slides -- camera originals with non-reversed colours -- there is really not much you can rely upon in the way of comparisons.
Cheers,
R.
In order to compare color rendition given by two lenses using negative film, I've been scanning the entire film strip at once. Then, in Photoshop I copy the image and crop it down to the individual images. That way the scanner can't apply a color-balance correction to the individual images. I don't do this often, just when I want an A/B Comparison.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brian,
Fair enough: what you say makes perfect sense, but it looks to me like about as much trouble as shooting tranny. I should also be surprised if you do not have more faith in (and probably more knowledge of) imaging computers than I.
Cheers,
R.
Quercus
Quercus
There is quite a strong possibility that zeiss T and pentax smc are essentially the same coating as is rollei HFT. Developed at the time of the never to be fully realised zeiss pentax agreement. ie before yashica. If that is fully true then it would be interesting to see comparisons between pentax smc glass and either of the zeiss derivatives. If rendition stayed the same then it is coating that has the effect if it changes then it is glass.
Technically though even using reversal unless you are comparing batch by batch film will not give a comparision that has "baconian" validity. The only way to really find out would be to actually compare the transmission spectographically. Given that zeiss have a wonderful spectograph for just such purposes in their optical products line up - it probably is not to much of a leap to believe that CZ designers are quite good at getting "faith" throughout their range.
BTW Mr Philips is quite right that because of cz cinematic interests this has always been a priority for the arri division
Technically though even using reversal unless you are comparing batch by batch film will not give a comparision that has "baconian" validity. The only way to really find out would be to actually compare the transmission spectographically. Given that zeiss have a wonderful spectograph for just such purposes in their optical products line up - it probably is not to much of a leap to believe that CZ designers are quite good at getting "faith" throughout their range.
BTW Mr Philips is quite right that because of cz cinematic interests this has always been a priority for the arri division
Ronald M
Veteran
It is the glass used so all lenses are different. Then the coatings are adjusted to give the color desired. They can not always get it perfect, but a good manufacturer will get them all close.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i tend to agree with leicasniper.
If i only touch anything in the scanner software, if I change the Levels by ONE in Photoshop, if the light changes a little bit between two shots, the colours will come out already slightly different.
You need controlled non-changing light, you need same film, you need exactly same exposure and development, and in the end you need to scan and display it exactly the same way, otherwise there is no way to compare the "color rendition" of two lenses.
If i only touch anything in the scanner software, if I change the Levels by ONE in Photoshop, if the light changes a little bit between two shots, the colours will come out already slightly different.
You need controlled non-changing light, you need same film, you need exactly same exposure and development, and in the end you need to scan and display it exactly the same way, otherwise there is no way to compare the "color rendition" of two lenses.
markho
Member
Surely, even with neg. film, any adjustments made during printing will be to the whole frame(s), not to individual colours; so the relationship between colours (e.g. differentiation between shades of one colour, or contrast differences) will not be affected. A printer could remove a yellow tungsten-light cast, but that wouldn't change the relationships between the colours captured on the film - merely nudge everything along the spectrum in a certain direction.
I'm not an expert in colour theory or film processing, but that's my understanding. (I don't have any Zeiss glass either, so can't comment on that specifically).
I'm not an expert in colour theory or film processing, but that's my understanding. (I don't have any Zeiss glass either, so can't comment on that specifically).
gavinlg
Veteran
I'm going to vote "love". My idea is that when the zeiss designers create the lenses, they put lots and lots of love into it, and because of that, zeiss lenses seem to have better color rendition than most others.
But seriously, I'd say it's a combination of everything, but mainly coatings. It's indeed true the zeiss lenses render in a very particular way.
But seriously, I'd say it's a combination of everything, but mainly coatings. It's indeed true the zeiss lenses render in a very particular way.