 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / October 2006carl zeiss lenses: are they really any better than the other offerings?
Just an observation: I've been shooting this past year with a 6008i and 50mm distagon and 80mm planar, and though I'm not running lp/mm tests, but I'm using them regularly and I've not noticed superior sharpness or color rendition or contrast over any of the other mf lenses I've used (mostly Mamiya for the M6 and RB67). I've also noticed some unpleasant bokeh when used wide open (bright ring/cats eye). Zeiss lenses are exceedingly expensive, too, whether used or new, and I'm not seeing an advantage to them that would explain/offset the cost. BTW, I will say the Rollei 6008i is the nicest medium-format camera I've ever used, and its meter is as accurate as anything I've used in any format (with the usual caveats for dark/light backgrounds and subjects). It absolutely nailed some shots I did of shrubbery in late evening light recently; I even double checked the readings and they were in complete concurrence with my Sekonic 358L Flashmaster. Came out great on fuji velvia. The shots were boring, of course, but very well exposed nonetheless... ;-) -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com I've never used zeiss lenses (just mamiya RB kl and mamiya 7 lenses) but zeiss are just one of those brands that have a cult following for some reason. Maybe back in the day they really were better and that started it all off? > I've never used zeiss lenses (just mamiya RB kl and mamiya 7 lenses) > but zeiss are just one of those brands that have a cult following for > some reason. Maybe back in the day they really were better and that > started it all off? They certainly were the best, at least before WW2. After the war Mamiya had this model 6 that was famous for its good Zuiko optics... made by Olympus. I've been wondering how many optical shops there are, really. The number of lenses made for high-end MF cameras is so small that it would make sense for all manufacturers to subcontract them from the same specialist. What a nice surprise for Hasselblad fanatics if they found out that their fancy H1 lenses were made by Cosina ;-) -- Lassi >> I've never used zeiss lenses (just mamiya RB kl and mamiya 7 lenses) >> but zeiss are just one of those brands that have a cult following for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > H1 > lenses were made by Cosina ;-) Didn't Cosina make the Contax G lenses? But given the GS645S lens, I'd hope the H1 lenses really were by Fuji. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan [SNIP] > > What a nice surprise for Hasselblad fanatics if they found out that their > > fancy H1 lenses were made by Cosina ;-) > > Didn't Cosina make the Contax G lenses? > > But given the GS645S lens, I'd hope the H1 lenses really were by Fuji. The X-Pan lenses were Fuji, and they are certainly _really_ good. I share your opinion of the GS645S, and I also have three of the lenses for the old Fujica 6x9/6x7 rangefinders, and they too are simply superb. Peter > [SNIP] >> > What a nice surprise for Hasselblad fanatics if they found out that > their >> > fancy H1 lenses were made by Cosina ;-) >> >> Didn't Cosina make the Contax G lenses? They certainly make the new Zeiss Ikon rangefinder body. http://www.zeissikon.com/making.htm >> But given the GS645S lens, I'd hope the H1 lenses really were by Fuji. > > The X-Pan lenses were Fuji, and they are certainly _really_ good. I > share your opinion of the GS645S, and I also have three of the lenses for > the old Fujica 6x9/6x7 rangefinders, and they too are simply superb. I mainly wonder why Fuji would bother with a small shop that makes a few thousand lenses a year, when most of their products sell by the millions. The natural solution would be to outsource the actual work to an existing factory, but slap their own label on the product. -- Lassi > > I've never used zeiss lenses (just mamiya RB kl and mamiya 7 lenses) > > but zeiss are just one of those brands that have a cult following for > > some reason. Maybe back in the day they really were better and that > > started it all off? > > They certainly were the best, at least before WW2. Well, not their LF optics, many of which were/are pretty bad. Modern Zeiss does include some great lenses, but in MF my personal preference tends towards Schneider. Peter Recently, Matt Clara <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> posted: > Just an observation: I've been shooting this past year with a 6008i > and 50mm distagon and 80mm planar, and though I'm not running lp/mm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > new, and I'm not seeing an advantage to them that would > explain/offset the cost. First, I believe that the differences between any decent lenses (such as the ones you mention) will be far smaller than the difference in results between different users. As I see it, there are bench tests, and then there is the real world. In your real world usage, perhaps the results don't expose any benefit to the Zeiss lenses. Although I haven't seen *any* discussion around the idea that one has to "learn" their lenses as well as the other components in their system, I believe it to be true. Lenses with "lumpy" MTF curves will have "sweet spots", where their performance is best at a particular aperture. "Flat" MTF is one of the characteristics that I really apreciated about my Olympus lenses, though their best performace falls short of the best performance of my "lumpy MTF" Leica lenses. My 6008i kit has both Zeiss and Schneider lenses, although not of the same focal length so I can't really make a direct comparison between them. The lens that I most easily get "knock your socks off" results with is the Schneider 40 mm SA, but I can't say that the reasons have do with any specific qualities of these lenses. So far I haven't seen fit to replace my Zeiss lenses with the Schneider equivalents. However, making choices between these two options won't save me any money. ;-) Regards, Neil > Recently, Matt Clara <hey.wood.y@buzz.off> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > then there is the real world. In your real world usage, perhaps the > results don't expose any benefit to the Zeiss lenses. Good point: not all lenses suit all styles or subjects equally well, and by the same token, it is logical that the strengths of some lenses may not be as keenly highlighted by certain styles or subjects as others. The most obvious example would be (colour) portraits, where having a super sharp lens isn't really going to make the end result look a great deal better than slightly less sharp one, whereas in landscape the difference would be easier to see. The portrait lens would be better to have a very fine tonality, even if at the expense of ultimate sharpness and/or micro-contrast. Subtler distinctions than that rather obvious one must also exist. > Although I haven't seen *any* discussion around the idea that one has > to "learn" their lenses as well as the other components in their system, > I believe it to be true. I think it is eminently true, but probably few people take the time to do it now. Maybe it made more difference in the days before computer aided lens design when the 'styles' of different designers were more distinct, but there are still differences, and I agree with you that it pays to learn them. I think in the LF world this is much more appreciated - maybe the higher resolution of a big slide makes some differences more obvious - and many LF workers have more than one lens of the same focal length because they understand and have learnt the differences between them. > Lenses with "lumpy" MTF curves will have "sweet spots", where their > performance is best at a particular aperture. "Flat" MTF is one of the > characteristics that I really apreciated about my Olympus lenses, > though their best performace falls short of the best performance of my > "lumpy MTF" Leica lenses. Interesting way of looking at it - makes some sense. > My 6008i kit has both Zeiss and Schneider lenses, although not of the > same focal length so I can't really make a direct comparison between > them. The lens that I most easily get "knock your socks off" results > with is the Schneider 40 mm SA, but I can't say that the reasons have > do with any specific qualities of these lenses. Maybe your shooting style suits the wide angle of view? > So far I haven't seen fit to replace my Zeiss lenses with the Schneider > equivalents. However, making choices between these two options > won't save me any money. ;-) Alas no! Peter Recently, Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> posted: > "Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message >> Although I haven't seen *any* discussion around the idea that one [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > length because they understand and have learnt the differences > between them. My style is a lot closer to the LF approach when shooting film, even when shooting 35mm. It takes me a while to compose a shot. Even after a few years with my 6008i, I'm not at the point where I "intuitively" know what different apertures will yeild, so I check by stopping down the lens before every shot. >> My 6008i kit has both Zeiss and Schneider lenses, although not of >> the same focal length so I can't really make a direct comparison between >> them. The lens that I most easily get "knock your socks off" results >> with is the Schneider 40 mm SA, but I can't say that the reasons have >> do with any specific qualities of these lenses. > > Maybe your shooting style suits the wide angle of view? Well, not really. I like the short telephoto range best. Also, the 40mm is quite wide, and makes controlling the WA "distortion" a challenge because for many subjects the lens just can't be level to the horizon. However, I like the color balance of the SA. Perhaps one day I'll have the opportunity to try a Schneider 180 on the 6008i, but in my state they are non-existent, and I'd hate to lay out the money to buy one just to find that it's not significantly different from my Zeiss 150. Neil > Recently, Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here > <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> posted: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "intuitively" know what different apertures will yeild, so I check by > stopping down the lens before every shot. That sounds like me - some subjects can't be treated wholly that way, but whenever the time is available, I always take it. I suppose coming from a painting background may have something to do with that. I tutor photography with the Creative Arts Retreat Movement a couple of times a year, and my almost meditative approach suits that ethos. I always use DoF preview too when I can. It isn't just to see the effect of the DoF itself, or how the OoF areas are rendered, but because aperture also affects flare and how point sources appear, none of which is really easy to predict without checking. I can't see why anyone would buy an SLR without DoF preview - yet millions do. > >> My 6008i kit has both Zeiss and Schneider lenses, although not > >> of the same focal length so I can't really make a direct [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the money to buy one just to find that it's not significantly different > from my Zeiss 150. Mmm, I probably like short 'longs' and moderate wides best myself, though my subjects often demand more extreme treatments. I have a CZJ 180mm f2.8 Sonnar and a Schneider 150mm f4 Tele-Xenar for MF, and both are extremely fine lenses. If I was pushed, I would probably say that the CZ Sonnar has somewhat better bokeh (the T-X is good, but the Sonnar is great) while the Schneider T-X may have slightly nicer colour. I wouldn't say that that pattern is necessarily the same for all focal lengths though. (The Schneider 80mm f2.8 Xenotar is a truly wonderful lens, and it, the 60mm Curtagon, and the 140-280mm Variogon all seem to have that same colour balance.) Peter Recently, Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> posted: > "Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Curtagon, and the 140-280mm Variogon all seem to have that same > colour balance.) Wow. Talk about making the choice even tougher - do I want good color or good bokeh? ;-) Well, I can tweak the color after the fact but the bokeh is fixed after pressing the shutter release, so perhaps I'll stick with the CZ for a while yet. Still, your comment makes me suspect that the Schneider short teles may "look" a lot more like my SA than the CZ ever will. Regards, Neil "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message > I always use DoF preview too when I can. It isn't just to see the effect > of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > predict without checking. I can't see why anyone would buy an SLR without > DoF preview - yet millions do. Maybe it's me, but the viewfinder becomes so dark when using DOF Preview that I can't really get much useful information from it. In fact, I do not recall an instance where I adjusted my aperture setting after checking DOF Preview. I continue to use DOF Preview, but heaven only knows why, for all the good it has done for me. > "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Maybe it's me, but the viewfinder becomes so dark when using DOF > Preview that I can't really get much useful information from it. In fact, I > do not recall an instance where I adjusted my aperture setting after > checking DOF Preview. I continue to use DOF Preview, but heaven > only knows why, for all the good it has done for me. Try leaving the camera upto your eye a moment longer with the DoF preview closed down - if your eye has enough time to adjust to the lower light level, then you begin to see much more. Peter "Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in message news:DRuPg.2300 >>> My 6008i kit has both Zeiss and Schneider lenses, although not of >>> the same focal length so I can't really make a direct comparison > between Who is manufacturing the new line of Hasselblad-branded lenses? I can't find the name "Carl Zeiss" on any of them, so surely Zeiss is no longer involved. Once the current stock of the classic Hasselblad designs has sold out, will Zeiss have any association with Hasselblad, or will Hasselblad cameras be mated with Hasselblad-branded lenses? It sure looks like Zeiss and Hasselblad may be drifting apart. > Who is manufacturing the new line of Hasselblad-branded lenses? I can't > find the name "Carl Zeiss" on any of them, so surely Zeiss is no longer > involved. They indeed are not. The lenses are manufactured by Fuji. They are co-designed by Hasselblad. > Once the current stock of the classic Hasselblad designs has sold out, > will Zeiss have any association with Hasselblad, or will Hasselblad > cameras be mated with Hasselblad-branded lenses? No more Zeiss. But Zeiss already started to sell lenses for Hasselblad (the "Classic"-line introduced at the PhotoKina). As long as there will be enough V-System Hasselblads around, and the market of second hand Zeiss/Hasselblad lenses isn't too strong, Zeiss may continue to sell lenses for V-System Hasselblads. Whether these conditions can be met is still open. > It sure looks like Zeiss and Hasselblad may be drifting apart. "May be"? Have! > Just an observation: I've been shooting this past year with a 6008i and 50mm > distagon and 80mm planar, and though I'm not running lp/mm tests, but I'm [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > velvia. The shots were boring, of course, but very well exposed > nonetheless... ;-) Many are excellent regardless of the source. The CZ price premium is merited as much as it is due to reputation. Beyond optics, build quality is superb (not that the others are not). My only qualm is that my oldish CZ lenses are not very accurate in shutter speed ... must get them CLA'd... Are there any similar CZ lenses that you can rent for the 6008i to compare? I don't believe any MF lens is as sharp as the better 35mm lenses ... not that it matters much. Cheers, Alan.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > I don't believe any MF lens is as sharp as the better 35mm lenses ... not > that it matters much. That's what I thought to. Until I got a shift adapter for my Mamiya 645 lens on my 5D. There ain't _nothing_ wrong with Mamiya 645 lenses<g>. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan I think you can't complain about the optical quality regardign the Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad. I have some of the new ones (CFE/CFI) (50, 80, 120 and 180mm). Until now I could never blaim the lenses if a picture was not as I wanted. You also have to look at the build quality of a lens. I am impressed on how well made the CFE/CFI lenses are. I tried my CFI 50/4 on my D2X (using an adapted) and compared the results with my AIS 50/1.8. The D2X sensor was not able to record the extra resolution the 50/1.8 should have on paper? Are the Zeiss lenses that more expensive than other MF top brands? I got all my lenses with rebat (approx. USD 1300 for the 80/2.8, USD 2700 for the 50/4 etc.). Max > Just an observation: I've been shooting this past year with a 6008i and > 50mm distagon and 80mm planar, and though I'm not running lp/mm tests, but [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Matt Clara > www.mattclara.com > Are the Zeiss lenses that more expensive than other MF top brands? Uh, yes. > I got all my lenses with rebat (approx. USD 1300 for the 80/2.8, USD 2700 > for the 50/4 etc.). Those are more expensive than even Mamiya 7 lenses, and you get less for your money (the Mamiya 7 lenses cover 56x70mm as opposed to a mere 56x56mm). And the Mamiya RZ67 lenses in more equivalent focal lengths (65 and 110) are even more reasonably priced. And if you are making rectangular prints, 645 is the same size as 6x6, and the Pentax lenses are practically free by comparison. (And are just as good.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> Just an observation: I've been shooting this past year with a 6008i and >> 50mm distagon and 80mm planar, and though I'm not running lp/mm tests, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> exceedingly expensive, too, whether used or new, and I'm not seeing an >> advantage to them that would explain/offset the cost. >I think you can't complain about the optical quality regardign the Zeiss >lenses [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Max The Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad are the same as the Zeiss lenses for Rollei, optically speaking, and the 80mm Planar has poor bokeh, so yes, you can complain about them, and yes, they do cost that much more than the competition: 50mm f3.5 Hasselblad = $2700 http://www.adorama.com/HS6035CFI.html 50mm f4.5 Mamiya = $1800 http://www.adorama.com/MY5045Z.html 80mm f2.8 Hasselblad = $2150 http://www.adorama.com/HS8028CFE.html 90mm f3.5 Mamiya = $1500 http://www.adorama.com/MY9035Z.html 150mm f4 Hasselblad = $3150 http://www.adorama.com/HS1504CFI.html 150mm f3.5 Mamiya = $1600 http://www.adorama.com/MY15035Z.html 30mm f3.5 Fisheye Hasselblad = $7390 http://www.adorama.com/HS3035CFI.html 37mm f4.5 Fisheye Mamiya = $2860 http://www.adorama.com/MY3745Z.html Used prices show an even greater discrepancy; that is, the CZ lenses retain value longer and tend to cost a _lot_ more than their Mamiya counterparts, most of which can be had for under $500. Haven't looked at Pentax, but I suspect it's the same story there. It's interesting to note that the Mamiya 7II's lenses have a reputation for being as sharp as any lenses in the medium format range, and they still cost less than CZ. I suppose what I'm expressing here is ultimately sour grapes that I can't justify my continued use of the Rollei, unless I intend to stick with the two lenses I have, the one of which isn't stellar by any means, the other of which, while sharp, exhibits poor bokeh when shot wide open. Poor Man Matt ;-) >>> Just an observation: I've been shooting this past year with a 6008i and >>> 50mm distagon and 80mm planar, and though I'm not running lp/mm tests, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > you can complain about them, and yes, they do cost that much more than the > competition: I haven't realized that the 80mm Planar has poor bokeh. I will have a closer look at my pictures. Have you made a direct compare with other lenses (same scene)? .....ok....I use my 50/4 more than the 80/2.8...... > 50mm f3.5 Hasselblad = $2700 http://www.adorama.com/HS6035CFI.html > 50mm f4.5 Mamiya = $1800 http://www.adorama.com/MY5045Z.html [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 30mm f3.5 Fisheye Hasselblad = $7390 http://www.adorama.com/HS3035CFI.html > 37mm f4.5 Fisheye Mamiya = $2860 http://www.adorama.com/MY3745Z.html They are a "little" more expensive.....some a lot. The 30mm also looks expensive. As far as I remember it can be spilt in two parts to be able to insert at filter....so it is an expensive construction....and the optical quality should be very nice (but I have never tried it). As far as I can see the Mamiya has no shutter build in? .....this could explain some of the price difference. The general build quality....sample variation etc. could also explain the price difference.....and of course also that the lens is build in Germany where a working hour probably is higher than where the Mamiyas are build? > Used prices show an even greater discrepancy; that is, the CZ lenses > retain value longer and tend to cost a _lot_ more than their Mamiya [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Poor Man Matt ;-) > As far as I can see the Mamiya has no shutter build in? .....this could > explain some of the price difference. The general build quality....sample > variation etc. could also explain the price difference.....and of course > also that the lens is build in Germany where a working hour probably is > higher than where the Mamiyas are build? The Mamiya (RZ) lenses do have a built-in shutter (Seiko) although they lack a control ring as the shutter is controlled from the camera. They don't have a focusing ring either. Most modern Mamiya MF lenses are optically and mechanically very good performers and the APO line (210,250,350,500), the floating element line (60) and the LD line (50) are simply awesome both in optical and mechanical performance. The 210 APO is probably the finest lens I ever owned and compares very, very well (and costs much less than) the Zeiss APO for Hassy. ><eM eL >> As far as I can see the Mamiya has no shutter build in? .....this could >> explain some of the price difference. The general build [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >><eM eL OK.....if you get same optical quality and same mechanical quality and same easy handling then of course Hasselblad prices are to high. But they offer a great system and I have nothing to complain about. Now I can even get digital backs for my 500 C/M's. The 16MP backs are comming down in price (2nd hand). Max > OK.....if you get same optical quality and same mechanical quality and > same [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > digital backs for my 500 C/M's. The 16MP backs are comming down in > price (2nd hand). Yep other than the lack of these "magical" two notches on the frame border I can't tell apart the results from these systems and if I ever wanted a digi back, there are plenty models that fit Mamiya RZ. But using a Mamiya RZ has other advantages, too: bigger frame (and considering that 6x6 is often trimmed to 4.5x6x or so - Mamiya has a much bigger frame...) plus you really don't have to go to the gym anymore: after schlepping a Mamiya system in the field you develop biceps like the Governator :-))) ><eM eL Anyone thinking of Schneider today should look first to Rodenstock. > Anyone thinking of Schneider today should look first to Rodenstock. Rodenstock on Mamiya, Pentax, Rollei, Bronica, or anything from Hasselblad except the ArcBody??? >> OK.....if you get same optical quality and same mechanical quality and >> same [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >><eM eL OK......but a Mamiya RZ will never get a design price for fine arts. The Hasselblad 500 series probably will. Is there a word in english for art which can be used for pratical purpose? Max > OK......but a Mamiya RZ will never get a design price for fine arts. > The Hasselblad > 500 series probably will. Is there a word in english for art which > can be used for pratical > purpose? Yes. It is "craftsmanship". >> OK......but a Mamiya RZ will never get a design price for fine arts. >> The Hasselblad [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes. It is "craftsmanship". No it's not, he's talking about the aesthetic appeal of the camera. Craftsmanship is the work of a craftsman, which could be piss poor if he's a piss poor craftsman. There are master craftsmen, but even their work might not be labelled "art" in the way Max means. The closest artistic terms I can think of would be "readymade" or "found object", neither of which is quite right. Yes, Max, the Hassy's a sexy beast, where the RZ is a brick. > [...] The closest artistic terms I can think of would be "readymade" or > "found object", neither of which is quite right. It's not that difficult, i would have thought. The word is "design". This word has been used to describe things that are both nice to look at and good to use for a long time already. Maybe that (its 'obviousness') is why it escaped you? ;-) Recently, Q.G. de Bakker <qnu@tiscali.nl> posted: >> [...] The closest artistic terms I can think of would be "readymade" >> or "found object", neither of which is quite right. > > It's not that difficult, i would have thought. The word is "design". Perhaps there is a difference in the way the term is used in different parts of the world? Here, a good "design" can be said to have excellent functionality, and does not necessarily imply aesthetic appeal. Neil >> It's not that difficult, i would have thought. The word is "design". >> > Perhaps there is a difference in the way the term is used in different > parts of the world? Here, a good "design" can be said to have excellent > functionality, and does not necessarily imply aesthetic appeal. Well, i think Alessi, Philip Stark, etc. are fine examples of more aesthetic appeal than practicality. And how about architecture, fashion, graphics (and i'll skip photography... ;-))? All focussed on aesthetic appeal. All known as "design", the people involved as "designers". But here's another word, or rather, here are two other words: "applied arts". Recently, Q.G. de Bakker <qnu@tiscali.nl> posted: >>> It's not that difficult, i would have thought. The word is "design". >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, i think Alessi, Philip Stark, etc. are fine examples of more > aesthetic appeal than practicality. Might those be considered "bad designers"? ;-) > And how about architecture, fashion, graphics (and i'll skip > photography... ;-))? > All focussed on aesthetic appeal. All known as "design", the people > involved as "designers". Though, not necessarily *good* designers, nor their creations aesthetically appealing! ;-) > But here's another word, or rather, here are two other words: "applied > arts". Hmm. That's sufficiently ambiguous. ;-) Neil >> Well, i think Alessi, Philip Stark, etc. are fine examples of more >> aesthetic appeal than practicality. >> > Might those be considered "bad designers"? ;-) They might. They might also be considered good designers. > Though, not necessarily *good* designers, nor their creations > aesthetically appealing! ;-) What? None of them??? >> But here's another word, or rather, here are two other words: "applied >> arts". >> > Hmm. That's sufficiently ambiguous. ;-) Ambiguous? As a term to describe "art which can be used for pratical purpose"? I don't think so, no. ;-) Recently, Q.G. de Bakker <qnu@tiscali.nl> posted: >>> Well, i think Alessi, Philip Stark, etc. are fine examples of more >>> aesthetic appeal than practicality. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What? None of them??? The qualifier "necessarily" allows for the possibility that there are some aesthetically appealing creations. ;-) >>> But here's another word, or rather, here are two other words: >>> "applied arts". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > purpose"? > I don't think so, no. ;-) Then, that begs the question of what qualifies as art, and what is just junk. I think that leaves a lot of wiggle room. ;-) Neil > Then, that begs the question of what qualifies as art, and what is just > junk. I think that leaves a lot of wiggle room. ;-) Sure. But that's another question entirely. > Recently, Q.G. de Bakker <qnu@tiscali.nl> posted: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Neil Yes.....it is "aesthetic appeal" but still "excellent functionality" ......in danish we have one word for this = "brugskunst". Many of the old classic Voigtländer cameras looked much nicer than the Zeiss Ikon's. But it all comes to personal taste. Max > > [...] The closest artistic terms I can think of would be "readymade" or > > "found object", neither of which is quite right. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > good to use for a long time already. > Maybe that (its 'obviousness') is why it escaped you? ;-) I can't recall ever hearing or using the word "design" to mean that. Design, like craftsmanship, doesn't contain a qualitative evaluation internal to it--a thing can be of good or poor design, depending. To your credit, Merriam-Webster does list the 8th option of the second entry to the word "design" as, "the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs." Still, we're not talking about the art of implementing good designs, are we? (And even if we were, which we're not, the eighth option of the second entry would clearly indicate it's far from the most common useage for the word, and not really obvious at all.) > I can't recall ever hearing or using the word "design" to mean that. Well, i can. ;-) Very often, in fact. And i do not think it's a geographical issue. > Design, like craftsmanship, doesn't contain a qualitative evaluation > internal to it--a thing can be of good or poor design, depending. :-) It can be good, or bad/poor, yet has no qualitative content??? But even if it could be like you say, how does that make it different from art? > To your credit, Merriam-Webster does list the 8th option of the second > entry to the word "design" as, "the creative art of executing aesthetic > or functional designs." There you are.. > Still, we're not talking about the art of implementing good designs, > are we? No. "Good" was not part of it. Not yet. We're taking about "art which can be used for pratical purpose". "Design" fits. And is used as such. > (And even if we were, which we're not, the eighth option of > the second entry would clearly indicate it's far from the most common > useage for the word, and not really obvious at all.) According to whom? Merriam-Webster? Hmm... ;-) >> I can't recall ever hearing or using the word "design" to mean that. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > According to whom? Merriam-Webster? Hmm... ;-) Yeah, that's how dictionaries work--first entry is most relevent, etc. Max said, "Is there a word in english for art which can be used for pratical purpose?" You say that word is "design". I challenge you to use it in a sentence that meets Max's criteria. >>> I can't recall ever hearing or using the word "design" to mean that. >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > pratical purpose?" You say that word is "design". I challenge you to use > it in a sentence that meets Max's criteria. Here, let me try for you. "That Hasselblad is design." Damn, falls kinda flat, don't you think? How 'bout eM eL's suggestion: "That Hasselblad is an objet d'art." Hey, that works! Do you think it's the article? ;-) > Here, let me try for you. "That Hasselblad is design." Damn, falls kinda > flat, don't you think? Well, no. Quite the contrary. It's entirely within the, common, usage of the term Design. The "Hasselblad" even won several design awards. Things given to express appreciation for the combination of practicality and good looks. > How 'bout eM eL's suggestion: "That Hasselblad is an objet d'art." Hey, > that works! Do you think it's the article? ;-) Now that doesn't work for me at all. The only '"camera" i know that pretended to be an "objet d'art" was the Colani designed (!) Sinar. It, of course, was never put into production, because it only worked as something to look at. You could not take pictures with it. > The only '"camera" i know that pretended to be an "objet d'art" was the > Colani designed (!) Sinar. It, of course, was never put into production, > because it only worked as something to look at. You could not take pictures > with it. Colani designed also cameras for Canon, and they started a whole new trend in SLRs. Sloped and curved surfaces, etc. http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/design/kikaku/t90/03.html One camera that was meant to be more watched than used was the Olympus O-product. Actually, they sold several pretty weird designs. http://www.geocities.com/maitani_fan/special_models.html -- Lassi >> Here, let me try for you. "That Hasselblad is design." Damn, falls >> kinda flat, don't you think? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The "Hasselblad" even won several design awards. Things given to express > appreciation for the combination of practicality and good looks. Sorry, QG, but with two degrees in English Language and Literature I can tell you the word "design" isn't used in that fashion, and Merriam-Webster bears that out. > Sorry, QG, but with two degrees in English Language and Literature I can > tell you the word "design" isn't used in that fashion, and Merriam-Webster > bears that out. Well..., despite your certified erudition, there are countless books, magazines, etc. devoted to "design". There are Design Academies (of all sorts), even numerous Design Musea, all over the world. All are concerned with "design" as the combination of a pleasing, even 'artistic', exterior with functionality. So there. ;-) (And you, as a man of learning, would not seriously quote Merriam-Webster as evidence, would you???) > > Here, let me try for you. "That Hasselblad is design." Damn, falls kinda > > flat, don't you think? > > Well, no. Quite the contrary. No, the sentence does not work. > It's entirely within the, common, usage of the term Design. > The "Hasselblad" even won several design awards. Things given to express > appreciation for the combination of practicality and good looks. Yes, awards for good design. Not awards for things that are "works of design" in any sense akin to the phrase "work of art". "Design" is a word akin to "manufacture" - it is part of the process of making something, and can be carried out well, or badly, but either way it is still design. Every manufactured thing (and every process) is designed, from the most elegant of Alessi kitchen kettles to the most utilitarian part hidden away somewhere inside your car's engine: everything must be designed in order to be made, and there are large numbers of designers employed to do it. Not everything designed by them is - or is _meant to be_ - an artistic creation. This is not necessarily a reflection of the designer's skill either: the brief may be to design the product in the way that enables it to be manufactured at lowest cost, for example, regardless of what it looks like as a result of that key criterion. Peter > It's not that difficult, i would have thought. The word is "design". > > This word has been used to describe things that are both nice to look at > and good to use for a long time already. > Maybe that (its 'obviousness') is why it escaped you? ;-) Lets not forget design in the engineering context. You won't get too far with the camera that does not work but looks pretty. Actually, worryingly often people seem to like buying stuff like that Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > OK......but a Mamiya RZ will never get a design price for fine arts. The > Hasselblad > 500 series probably will. Is there a word in english for art which can be > used for pratical > purpose? You are correct - the RZ looks very (very...) stalwart and rugged and will not get any "industrial design" awards for its looks, even though I find the Mamiya system easier to use than Hassy (with one caveat - it's heft...the damn thing IS heavy and huge -- with a winder, bellows lens shade and an AE prism looks like something made by Marquez de Sade for Frankenstein :-))) As for Hassy - or any camera - being an objet d'art - I don't know. Hasselblad looks nicer in the brochure than in real life to me :-))) and I've used many different Hassy models since the '70s. I prefer the clean lines of Konica Hexar or Canon F1N for instance. ><eM eL > Zeiss lenses are exceedingly expensive, too, whether used or new, and I'm > not seeing an advantage to them that would explain/offset the cost. The Germans have been playing the "Superior Optics" card for years, and I think that we all know, intuitively, that they don't have an edge any more. It was one thing when they were computing optical designs without computers 50 years ago, but the Japanese have proven that Germany has no monopoly on excellent lens designs. When I saw the comparison shots on Ken Rockwell's web site, where he compared the new Zeiss 50mm normal lens in Nikon mount (manufactured under license by Cosina) against OEM Nikon lenses (one of which was over 20 years old), it was an eye-opener. You could pick up an old Nikon lens at a yard sale that would meet or beat the performance of the $500.00 Zeiss-Cosina normal lens. What a letdown! His bokeh comparison shots are here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/bokeh.htm His sharpness comparison shots are here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/bokeh.htm In terms of flare resistance, some of the Nikon designs actually outperformed the Zeiss lens. So much for Zeiss' myth about having the best lens coatings. Admittedly, these comparison shots were done on 35mm lenses, not MF. And there may be issues other than just image quality, such as build quality, that might be significant factors in one's choice of lenses. Landscape photographer Brian Bower noted in one of his books that he had been using Leica R-system lenses and that they had remained tight and operated like new even after over a decade of hard daily use. But not everyone subjects their gear to such stressful operation, year in and year out. > The Germans have been playing the "Superior Optics" card for years, and I > think that we all know, intuitively, that they don't have an edge any > more. It was one thing when they were computing optical designs without > computers 50 years ago, but the Japanese have proven that Germany has no > monopoly on excellent lens designs. Indeed not. But it's not so much a matter of "can", more of "will" and/or "do". There are only a handful of producers of "excelent lens designs". True, there are Japanese manufacturers among these. No doubt about it. And many are German (or rather, most German manufacturers belong to that "class") One important factor in this is market position: producing excellent 'glass' is expensive. (Which of course does not mean that expensive lenses necessarily are excellent) Nowadays (and in the past too, i guess) you need to have a sterling reputation to be able to 'shift' expensive goods. If you do not have such a thing, you can still produce and market excellent lenses, but will have trouble selling them for anything near what they cost to make. That's why Cosina bought the right to use the old, reputable Voigtlaender brand name. So they can too. That's why Zeiss is selling below-par lenses at premium prices. Because they can. > [...] Landscape photographer Brian Bower noted in one of his books that he > had been using Leica R-system lenses and that they had remained tight and > operated like new even after over a decade of hard daily use. But not > everyone subjects their gear to such stressful operation, year in and year > out. "But"? You mean without such heavy use, they may not remain tight and like new? ;-) > Admittedly, these comparison shots were done on 35mm lenses, not MF. And > there may be issues other than just image quality, such as build quality, > that might be significant factors in one's choice of lenses. My preferred 35mm SLR lenses are Zeiss, and I love 'em. There seems a disparity in that Zeiss seem to have made much the same lens - certainly the same grade of glass and coating: why do otherwise? - for a number of different formats and mounts, but with extraordinary variations in price. I use M42 mount being a cheapskate who upgraded from Zenit to Pentax, and I don't pay more than about 20UKP for my lenses secondhand, while I'm sure the ones sold in Contax/Leica (M39) fit for five to ten times those prices are the same bits. My 135/f3.5 Zeiss is a corker, with crisp colour rendering, pinsharp focus and lovely contrast range in b/w; I noticed it from the first roll of film I put past it. Maybe I'm not that fussy a user - I own a lens pattern chart but have not yet shot a test film to see what each lens actually resolves - but the distinct character of that and my Zeiss 35/f2.8 Flektogon (a lens with a reputation already - "sharp but fragile" though it's done nothing nasty on me and I'm not that careful) really jump out. Maybe we do live in an era of consistent high grade lenses that leaves the soft uncoated optics of 50 years ago behind - given the spending spree on SLRs from the mid-60s onwards we jolly ought to be - but even so there are some bargains out there. I've yet to get far into MF but the name Zeiss or indeed anything German such as Schneider would automatically be an attraction for me. (OK the Ludwig Meritar on my recently-acquired 1957 35mm Exa is as soft as milk pudding in comparison, but Zeiss made an Exa-fit lens which scores highly among enthusiasts and I'm looking already). (Ahem: my MF camera is a Lubitel 166. But it's a good one with no light leaks and it was very cheap. If I really get into this stuff, I'll save up for something better, honest). Tony Clarke Lens design is just about done, finished. When minicomputers (pdp 11/*) hit the market in the seventies the computation of ray tracing was available to any well endowed manufacturer. After that was the VAX. It was the end of handwork. Now almost any desktop computer can do the same work as those former big machines in a fraction of the time. But... is it interesting that the Biogon which was built from intuition and hand ray-tracing could hardly be improved with any degree of computational power. I think the Biogon was/is/will always be a brilliant design. Schneider's Super-Angulons are totally different in every respect. They have more coverage than true late Biogons, but also a great deal of light fall-off. That's not a bad thing. But an F8 lens compared to the same coverage at F3.4 or F5.6 is telling. I'll never buy another Schneider lens. Look to Rodenstock for the good stuff today. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.