What gives Zeiss its color rendition?

D

drjoke

Well-known
Local time
5:42 AM
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
217
View My Gallery
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.
 
leicasniper said:
"Color rendition" is really subjective, and if you shoot anything but slides, irrelevant.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
leicasniper said:
"Color rendition" is really subjective, and if you shoot anything but slides, irrelevant.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
mr_phillip said:
As I recall, the T* coatings were originally designed by Zeiss post-war to ensure color consistency from lens to lens...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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

macro_glass.jpg


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"

amy_zf100_1.jpg


amy_zf100_5.jpg

john_zf100_1.jpg

leah_zf100_1.jpg


This is the other lens: As you see, on the same camera, it performs quite differently and the skin has a clear paler tone

vg180_1.jpg


zack_vg180_3.jpg

amy_vg180_3.jpg

amy_vg180_2.jpg
 
Last edited:
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
206793235_52axn-L.jpg


Nikon 17-35 F/5.6 @ 35 mm

206796416_SkRpM-L.jpg


you see how the first sample looks more red? (look at the yellow tones) in the alternate lines
 
leicasniper said:
uhligfd, I wasn't trying to be snide. The only way to judge objective differences in color rendition is to have a standard to compare the color against. The only way to do that is to shoot the same target under the same lighting conditions on the same slide film, where you end up with an original. Once that C41 passes through a Fuji Frontier, there is no way to make valid comparisons. Too many variables are introduced. Neither the operator of the machine nor the computer in the machine has a clue what the original colors looked like. Both make a best guess.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom