Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > A mystery, wrapped in an enigma, etc, etc.

Reply
Thread Tools

A mystery, wrapped in an enigma, etc, etc.

 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2012
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 3:21*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper. *The Zeiss
>> >won over the Summilux.
>> >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.

>>
>> Which Zeiss? *Which Summilux? *There are several variants.
>>
>> Leica M mount or (SL)R mount? *I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
>> f/1.4 in M mount.

>
>Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
>URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
>fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
>can't find word one about now.



Is this the 60mm?
<http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/news/1-latest/102-first-fully-corrected-lens-for-the-uv-vis-nir-spectrum-introduced.html>
<http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-nir-60mm-slr-lens-mainmenu-155.html>

It is/was made by Coastal Optical Systems, Inc. of Florida, which
became a wholly owned subsidiary of Jenoptik in 2002 and now trades as
Jenoptik Optical Systems, Inc.

There is also a 105mm macro lens:
<http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-105mm-slr-lens-mainmenu-40.html>

The lens designer's home page is here:
http://www.caldwell-photographic.com/Home_Page.html

Unfortunately, that's all there is, but Brian Caldwell has been active
designing various esoteric lenses in the last few years.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-28-2012
On Jun 28, 5:30*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Jun 27, 3:21*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper. *The Zeiss
> >> >won over the Summilux.
> >> >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.

>
> >> Which Zeiss? *Which Summilux? *There are several variants.

>
> >> Leica M mount or (SL)R mount? *I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
> >> f/1.4 in M mount.

>
> >Well, that's the annoying part. *I read the thing fast and forgot the
> >URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
> >fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
> >can't find word one about now.

>
> Is this the 60mm?
> <http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/news/1-latest/102-first-fully-corrected-l...>
> <http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-nir-60m...>
>
> It is/was made by Coastal Optical Systems, Inc. of Florida, which
> became a wholly owned subsidiary of Jenoptik in 2002 and now trades as
> Jenoptik Optical Systems, Inc.
>
> There is also a 105mm macro lens:
> <http://www.jenoptik-inc.com/coastalopt-standard-lenses/uv-vis-105mm-s...>
>
> The lens designer's home page is here:http://www.caldwell-photographic.com/Home_Page.html
>
> Unfortunately, that's all there is, but Brian Caldwell has been active
> designing various esoteric lenses in the last few years.


Thanks, it looks like the price went up $1000.00.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2012
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Jun 27, 3:21*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper. *The Zeiss
>> >won over the Summilux.
>> >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.

>>
>> Which Zeiss? *Which Summilux? *There are several variants.
>>
>> Leica M mount or (SL)R mount? *I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
>> f/1.4 in M mount.

>
>Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
>URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
>fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
>can't find word one about now.


How long ago did you read it? Would it still be in your browser
history? (Ctrl-H on most browsers, IIRC)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2012

"John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>It's like the $4000
>>fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
>>can't find word one about now.

>
> How long ago did you read it? Would it still be in your browser
> history? (Ctrl-H on most browsers, IIRC)


Can't imagine *anyone* having a URL from 2 years ago still in their browser
history!
In their "favourites" list *IF* they kept it perhaps, but apparently that
was not the case here.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2012
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:00:12 +1000, "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"John A." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>>>It's like the $4000
>>>fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
>>>can't find word one about now.

>>
>> How long ago did you read it? Would it still be in your browser
>> history? (Ctrl-H on most browsers, IIRC)

>
>Can't imagine *anyone* having a URL from 2 years ago still in their browser
>history!
>In their "favourites" list *IF* they kept it perhaps, but apparently that
>was not the case here.


Actually, he was comparing his difficulty in re-finding the originally
mentioned article to the similar difficulty in finding the fluorite
article of two years ago. He never mentioned how long ago he read the
originally mentioned article.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2012
On 27/06/2012 05:48, Me wrote:
> On 27/06/2012 8:56 a.m., RichA wrote:
>> Two lenses. One Zeiss, one Leica, both the same focal length. Both
>> capable of handily exceeding sensor resolution. Both tested on the
>> same object and one of them beats the other.
>> How?
>>

> Is this a riddle, or do you have something more to add?


It is quite possible depending on the target pattern. If the lens
resolution can and does exceed the sensor resolution then the image is
undersampled by the detector and may show jaggies and/or chroma
artefacts on some line art subject material with sharp edges.

The lens with the highest resolution may subjectively produce images
with unflattering alias artefacts under these circumstances depending on
the nature of the image and anti-alias filter fitted to the sensor.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2012
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Jun 27, 3:21*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: > >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper. *The Zeiss
: > >won over the Summilux.
: > >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.
: >
: > Which Zeiss? *Which Summilux? *There are several variants.
: >
: > Leica M mount or (SL)R mount? *I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
: > f/1.4 in M mount.
:
: Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
: URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
: fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
: can't find word one about now.

Is this it? First hit googling: zeiss summilux resolution

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...eview.shtml#24

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2012
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: On Jun 27, 3:21*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: > RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: > >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper. *The Zeiss
>: > >won over the Summilux.
>: > >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.
>: >
>: > Which Zeiss? *Which Summilux? *There are several variants.
>: >
>: > Leica M mount or (SL)R mount? *I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
>: > f/1.4 in M mount.
>:
>: Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
>: URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
>: fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
>: can't find word one about now.
>
>Is this it? First hit googling: zeiss summilux resolution
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...eview.shtml#24



It cannot be the comparison Rich referred to because the Summilux won.

However, the Leica Summilux lens didn't win by a big margin and the
cost advantage in favour of the Carl Zeiss Sonnar is huge.

I would be interested to see a comparison with the Leica Elmarit-M
24mm f/2.8 ASPH which is by some margin the sharpest 24mm lens ever
made for the 35mm format.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2012
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:42:38 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: >On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >: On Jun 27, 3:21*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >: > RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >: > >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper. *The Zeiss
: >: > >won over the Summilux.
: >: > >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.
: >: >
: >: > Which Zeiss? *Which Summilux? *There are several variants.
: >: >
: >: > Leica M mount or (SL)R mount? *I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
: >: > f/1.4 in M mount.
: >:
: >: Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
: >: URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
: >: fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
: >: can't find word one about now.
: >
: >Is this it? First hit googling: zeiss summilux resolution
: >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...eview.shtml#24
:
:
: It cannot be the comparison Rich referred to because the Summilux won.

Reading it more carefully, I see that the reviewer mentioned that he had tried
to do the comparison a few months earlier but had screwed it up. Maybe that
was the comparison that Rich remembers.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-04-2012
On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 17:11:52 -0400, I <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 21:42:38 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: : Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: :
: : >On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: : >: On Jun 27, 3:21*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: : >: > RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: : >: > >Yes, the guy just wanted to know which one was a keeper. *The Zeiss
: : >: > >won over the Summilux.
: : >: > >He saved about $2500.00 in the process.
: : >: >
: : >: > Which Zeiss? *Which Summilux? *There are several variants.
: : >: >
: : >: > Leica M mount or (SL)R mount? *I ask because Zeiss doesn't offer an
: : >: > f/1.4 in M mount.
: : >:
: : >: Well, that's the annoying part. I read the thing fast and forgot the
: : >: URL!! But the general question was what remained. It's like the $4000
: : >: fluorite macro lenses (60mm and 100mm) I read about 2 years ago and
: : >: can't find word one about now.
: : >
: : >Is this it? First hit googling: zeiss summilux resolution
: : >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...eview.shtml#24
: :
: :
: : It cannot be the comparison Rich referred to because the Summilux won.
:
: Reading it more carefully, I see that the reviewer mentioned that he had tried
: to do the comparison a few months earlier but had screwed it up. Maybe that
: was the comparison that Rich remembers.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...ressions.shtml

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Deploying wrapped dlls Dave ASP .Net 0 01-30-2006 05:38 PM
DIV wrapped around hidden fields? Rocky Moore ASP .Net 2 11-03-2005 02:52 PM
Review: Mutant Mods' 24 UV Reactive Blue EL Wire Wrapped R Silverstrand Reviews & How-To's 0 06-20-2005 03:47 AM
Code is automatically wrapped to next line Nathan Sokalski ASP .Net 4 05-30-2005 03:08 AM
FileInputStream alone VS BufferedInputStream wrapped FileInputStream Krick Java 2 08-28-2003 01:25 AM



Advertisments