[davidmanze]

 I've never really noticed a huge difference in colour rendering compared with the four bodies and two systems I run.

 

However, I would like to see "just a mention" without any tests or otherwise of focus breathing, that would give just an idea of whether a lens would suit itself to video or be a distraction.

[JJ_SO]

Without knowing anything in detail, I got the impression, focus breathing is quite a standard behavior with lenses which have their focusing units inside - meaning, the lens does't extened when focussing. And cinema lenses without focus breathing while zooming are some 20k $ Zeiss units like that one https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04...00mm-t2-9/

 

and about "parfocal lenses"  https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03...oto-zooms/

 

I do notice a color difference between Canon and Nikon and Zeiss - but why not? I find this as welcome as another difference between systems. If there was something like a "standardized color rendition" type of lenses, I would find that interesting for neutral reproductions but not for "what I use photography for". Like some sort of brushes give a different surface of a painting, a lens as whole is also a part of a picture's character. Personally, I like that but I'm not looking for a certain look and selsct lenses which can provide that.

[Brightcolours]

Lenses with no moving groups, or lenses which extend and move groups to/from eachother, also show focus breathing. A lens has to change focal length through the fcous range in order not to show focus breathing.

Lenses with IF can show both widening and narrowing focus breathing.

[Guest]

I think colour is more than just contrast. Different wave lengths can be impacted differently based on the lens coating/design. This causes the total (colour) rendering to appear differently. Partially related there was a term folks used with zeiss lens 'clarity' to describe how it rendered colour. I'm not really familiar with optical terminology but I have seen how different lenses will impact blue and reds in the film age and I can't really reproduce it by simply adjusting contrast with different lenses. Perhaps I lack the skills or the understanding of what the optics are doing to the rgb to emulate it by digital adjustment or perhaps it is more subtle than simply moving the r,b,g sliders in adobe.

-

Having said the above I'm not sure that this is something photozone can (or should) test. I suppose you could note in a standardize sceen how different lenses render (bokeh, colour, ...) but formally test ?

-

Having said the above I definitly miss my zeiss contax lenses and their rendering with film. The mamiya 7 lenses were also pretty darn decent for morning/night images but I've never really been able to get the same sort of rendering with the digital age (esp with canon). I haven't done that much photography in the past few years so I can't really give a fair comment on fuji system; and the olympus system was ok i guess (the lenses I used) but seemed to lack the overall punch of the c/y.

-

The above is more of a commetn on system than actual lenses. In case you are curious the c/y lenses I used the most were the 25, 35-70, 85f1.4 and 100f3.5. Occasionally I used the 21,28 and 50. never really cared for the 21 since it was a bit too wide for the sort of usage that suited myself.

[Klaus]

"Clarity" is another word for high contrast - specifically the ability to render deep blacks. If you are into displays - OLED displays have a high clarity (infinity contrast). Deep blacks are also the enablers for broad tonal range - a good OLED display gives you near 100% Adobe RGB for instance. The OLED example shows that you can quantify this. 

 

"Micro-Contrast" is nothing else but high resolution combined with high contrast.

 

In the photographic world, the camera characteristics are blurring the boundaries between lens and camera behaviour.

 

We shouldn't become esoteric really. There's nothing magic about lenses although we'd like to think they do so at times.

[JJ_SO]

Esoteric or not, I'm nearly sure, all of us have some kind of "lucky lens" which is kind of reliably producing pleasing results. And others which should be good or better, buuuuuut...

 

I don't know these days about the other Zeiss lines, but for the Touit 12/2.8 I dare to say, it fits in nicely to the Fujinons. I don't feel it different or producing a "micro-contrast out of this world". Did you notice a noticeable difference between that and the Fujinon 14/2.8? I didn't test it with a color reference because I have no high quality light source.

 

Long time ago I saw a big difference between Zeiss and Nikon lenses and although I was the one with the Zeiss, I liked the Nikon colors better

[Klaus]

I agree that the Touit isn't that special but it's pretty good nonetheless.

I could imagine that the Samyang 12mm f/2 is better ... if you can find a good one.

[JJ_SO]

I'm doing also close-ups with the Touit. And I feel sometimes not able to focus correctly in manual mode because the highlight mode of the X-E2 leaves me uncertain due to the comparatively low resolution of the EVF. Maybe it get's better with the more sophisticated display of the X-T2. But so far I'm a happy user of the Touit in AF mode although the aperture ring is going far too easy.

 

Oh, and for the lenshood which was going far too-not-easy: I use some drops of WD-40, now it's clicking in creamy.

[joachim]

Hi,

 

For reasonable testing a proper spectrometer would be needed, which is way beyond Klaus' setup.  Please see http://www.kenkotokinausa.com/pictures/F...ission.gif for a transmission spectrum for a few Hoya warm-up filters.  How to connect from such a graph to a meaningful discussion of photographic relevance is beyond me.  In general, I believe that the transmission spectrum has a significant effect on the image, which is not easy to correct in PS.  Would take a real colour profile to do so.

 

My 0.02 SEK

 

J.

[popo]

In general, I believe that the transmission spectrum has a significant effect on the image, which is not easy to correct in PS.  Would take a real colour profile to do so.

I'd go further and say it is impossible to do in PS. To correct a spectrum, you need to do so before the information gets destroyed. That is, before it gets turned into RGB. Also, I can't think of any easy way to correct for it either, short of creating a custom opposite response filter, which will also have the side effect of reducing overall transmission further.

 

For anyone outside of possibly some highly scientific imaging uses, this isn't worth it.