SALT II results... (Part 1,2,3,4 Bokeh, Breathing & Flare and Part 5: Impressions)

[Blair S. Paulsen]

So how about a SALT III, featuring old cine glass. For example, Baltars, Super Baltars, Cooke Panchro Series 2/3, Schneider Cine Xenons, Lomos, old Angie and Cooke zooms. Or a SALT IV for old still glass like Canon FLs/FDs, Olympus. Minolta Rokkors, SMC Takumars, CZ Jena, etc... You know the good ole days when glass was still made with lead and radioactive isotopes.

I was part of a test with Frederic Goodich that compared the "look" of several sets of popular cine primes including the Super Baltars on both Epic and Alexa. I had the great fortune to be invited to screen the first pass at compiling the images we shot and even amongst the newer primes there were obvious "personality quirks". I believe that Frederic has an agenda for an article and for screening the footage from the test, but I don't know any details. What was clearly obvious was that if you're going to shoot vintage glass like the Super Baltars to get a certain "feel" just be sure you can live with just how soft they look - particularly noticeable on a camera like the Epic.

On a side note, the Leica Cs were spectacular and IMHO have set the bar - so much real resolution, so smooth. That reminds me, gotta go buy a lottery ticket...

Cheers - #19

[KETCH ROSSi]

"Breathing performance is about the same for the three brands"

Typo or missing a line after?

It seems the zeiss is a bit better to me...

OKAY...

So we have been Breathing every day since Birth, but if a Lens does it a little, all of a sudden is a problem? I don't get it... ;)

[Patrick Grossien]

Jeezz guys, can I at least get this one done first

However, if you'd like to send me all ou vintage glass for an extended test period I'd be glad to accomidate you :)

Poor Evin :) again thanks a ton for salt II :)

[Nick Morrison]

OKAY...

So we have been Breathing every day since Birth, but if a Lens does it a little, all of a sudden is a problem? I don't get it... ;)

Haha. Maybe, but I like what Ryan is winking at. There are a lot of Leica and Nikon fanboys on Reduser. Those lenses get a lot of love, a lot of forgiveness. Which is great. But Zeiss lenses, especially the stills, not so much. Lets face it, they have as many haters on these boards as fans! Put it this way. I'm sure if the Leica R's breathed the best, we probably woulda heard about it...

And I'm not saying any of this is inentional, it just Zeiss doesn't have the kind of following that Nikon or Leica does. Leica has always been more refined, aristocartic. And Nikon more rebellious, interesting. Zeiss plays it safe. So they are more easily overlooked.

Or am I just being too precious, as a self proclaimed Zeiss fan?!

[Evin Grant]

Zeiss are great, the Standard speed T2.1 primes are probably my favorite affordable cine lenses. I still miss the set I sold to Martin.
And the wide (21,25 & 28mm) zeiss ZF lenses were probably the best of the wide primes. So I don't think they're getting bashed. Also consider that they have been the defacto standard lenses for cine-mod for a while now, so they have a reputation to live up to. That being said I would choose the 50 macro over the 50mm 1.4 and I also think they should release an f2 version of the 85/90, the 1.4 is (possibly intentionally) soft for my taste.

[Matthew Duclos]

Moved to page 1... http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthr...ing-amp-Flare)

[Clint Lealos]

Jeezz guys, can I at least get this one done first

However, if you'd like to send me all ou vintage glass for an extended test period I'd be glad to accomidate you :)

I got B-Speeds, K-35s, Angenieux 25-250, and some other random stuff floating around here. When the time comes... hit me up. And thanks again for doing this test. Its very appreciated.

[Martin Stevens]

Part 5: Impressions

Matt Duclos:

LEICA.... Mostly because their optics are technically poor.

Hello Matt,

Can you elaborate on this line?

"Technically poor" seems a bit ambiguous to me.
Poor, as in, old design, or poor, as in, not sharp etc.?

[Nick Morrison]

Zeiss are great, the Standard speed T2.1 primes are probably my favorite affordable cine lenses. I still miss the set I sold to Martin.
And the wide (21,25 & 28mm) zeiss ZF lenses were probably the best of the wide primes. So I don't think they're getting bashed. Also consider that they have been the defacto standard lenses for cine-mod for a while now, so they have a reputation to live up to. That being said I would choose the 50 macro over the 50mm 1.4 and I also think they should release an f2 version of the 85/90, the 1.4 is (possibly intentionally) soft for my taste.

Haha. You're a good guy Evin! You make me want to get the Contax 50 1.7 now, because it's certainly less soft wide open than the CZ 1.4, and I'm guessing its older brother ZF 1.4. And the bokeh is different than on the 1.4. Now I'm gunna get it. And Contax also has an 85 2.8 that is super, super sharp at 2.8, but at that point the 85 1.4 catches up.

And fair enough. You are right, the Zeiss are the standard to be compared against. Thanks for saying that. I've invested so much in Contax that I get petulantly protective, which is just lame.

I have a CZ 135 f2 that I'd love to test. It's not that much sharper than the 135 2.8, but its supposed to have a certain mojo that still guys love. Its probably that "softness" wide open you guys hate! And I have a feeling it's optimized for portraits as well, whereas the 2.8 is the workhorse.

Anwyay. Again. Thanks for doing these tests. Totally amazing.

[Matthew Duclos]

On paper, the Leica R lenses don't perform too well. Their sharpness is extremely subjective. Sharpness is a combination of contrast and resolution, neither of which the Leica R lenses can nail simultaneously. This is similar to what I've seen on a lot of RPP lenses. On a test projector, you can focus the image to obtain the best contrast but the resolution is lost. If you focus for the best resolution, the contrast suffers. It's one or the other. And when you split the difference and pick that half way medium point, you get the "Leica Look" which is, from a technical standpoint, not an accurate image. But it certainly does look nice. I'll take some photos to explain this and post shortly. Or maybe I'll hi-jack some REDUser traffic and put it on my blog. Either way, I'll share with all.