Many of us would love a camera that would be small enough as to be pocketable (even if it takes a large-ish pocket), yet offer really superb IQ. When Sony released the RX1, 3 years ago, it caused quite a stir. Because Sony, who until then had seemed to struggle in the footsteps of Canikon, there took a bold step where no-one else had gone in the digital age. The RX1 was far, far smaller than any FF compact camera.

Some photographers bought it and there are many great pictures to show for their efforts, helped in no small measure by the 24Mp sensor and excellent, built-in Sony-Zeiss 35mm f:2.0 lens. But not everyone loved it. I liked it (see review here), but not enough to fork out the not inconsiderable price.

So, how does the second iteration measure up, including relative to the Leica Q and its 28mm lens?

Basically, the newer model cures my 2 deal-breakers: the LCD is now tiltable, and the camera incorporates a pop-up EVF. So we are headed for a slam-dunk, right?

Not so fast. That there are no longer any deal-breakers doesn’t mean that 3500€ have left my pockets. How does the IQ measure up to my “normal system”, the A7R II and Zeiss Otus 55mm f:1.4? Because, to be fair, if Sony expect to get top price for their camera, buyers expect top performance.

In a nutshell, because a bloated review for a diminutive camera would be an oxymoron, whoever loved the RX1 will love the type II even more. Better sensor, better processor, EVF, tiltable LCD. No downside. Slam-dunk!

But, if you begin to think that the Leica Q is “only” 20% more money, is the Sony in Leica territory in terms of haptics? Nope. Yes, it is nice, but no different, or not much, from the 1st generation. Meanwhile, the A7 has improved markedly, and the Q, while minimalistic, shows how easy it can be. The RX1 II feels nice and well made, but not luxo like the Leica.

Then there is the other aspect: IQ. Now I will readily admit that I am in the minority in not liking the Sony-Zeiss “look”. Many people love it, and more power to their elbows. But there is something in the (lack of) colour differentiation that bothers me. For some strange reason (because the Sony-Zeiss products are designed by Sony), it doesn’t seem to be there in the Sony G and Master G series. And the (for me) dreaded “look” strikes again. Yes, the lens is beautifully sharp, including wide open. Yes, it works very well indeed up close (including a pseudo-macro mode). No, it is no longer weaker at infinity than close up, as seemed to be the case of the original RX1. Yes, it has lovely bokeh, if you like it structured rather than totally creamy. Yes the AF is effective and snappy, much more so than before.

So, in many ways, yes, it is indeed a pocket rocket for street photo lovers, and for any and all situations where small size in a must. Eat you heart out Fuji and Micro 4/3 lovers, real ‘togs do it in FF! (special dispensation to Paul Perton, who is a real ‘tog by any measurement).  But, if I had a choice, and I do, I prefer the “look” of a real Zeiss f:2.0 lens like the Loxia 50mm over that of a Sony-Zeiss. Again, feel free to opine otherwise and to character assasinate me over my lack of enjoyment of my erstwhile FE 55 f:1.8.

So, in summary, yes it is a worthy upgrade, and yes, for those who liked the original one, it is a no-brainer. But will it get Sony new customers? My guess is that it will split the market with the Q. It has more pixels and a better sensor, a more common focal length, and wider distribution. The Q has more chachet, is more fun to use, is stabilised, offers a better EVF, but has no tilt LCD, and is larger, heavier and costlier.

Overall, isn’t it great that Sony are innovating and pushing the envelope, even if their efforts aren’t perfect (after all, how many years did it take Da Vinci to finish the Mona Lisa? Nobody knows, because he was still touching it up when he died), forcing others to hit back or fall back?

Posted on DearSusan by philberphoto.

When Zeiss sent me the Distagon 1.4/35 ZM, it was love at first sight. The lens’ size, ergonomics, aesthetics and performance simply matched my likes to a T.

When Zeiss sent me the Distagon Loxia 35/2, it was … a little bit different. Trying to keep strong words such as ‘hate’, ‘puke’ and similar idioms out my review, I simply explained how the high contrast of the lens wreaked havoc with the highlights in my photographs. A little later, I realized that the Loxia’s personality softens up as you open up the aperture and that underexposure helps with blown highlights (duh).

The guys at Zeiss being a patient bunch, I kept the lens with me long enough to feel really happy with the images and share a few significant findings about its performance.

Roots

And great that performance often is. So let’s jump right in.

Distortion

Essentially none whatsoever. Combined with the strong contrast, this lens will appeal to architects.

Internal organ

I can’t think of a single photograph I made with this lens that required any editing-out of distorted lines. The spec sheet confirms this quality with a -0.1% value, as close to perfect as any other lens out there. Impressive.

Inside the Saint-Maximin basilica

Ergonomics

It’s a Loxia. So, here again, things are essentially perfect. Compact, same filter size throughout the range, grippy but smooth focus ring, an aperture ring (the main reason for preferring it over a Batis).

Old ways never die  (Distagon 1.4/35 ZM)

The whole Loxia range brings a modern feel to the traditional manual-focus lens. The shape is clean and wouldn’t be out of place in an Apple catalog. The feels of both rings is great and the focus ring automatically brings up an enlargement of the view in the EVF. Brilliant and so much more satisfying than an oh-hum AF.

Vignetting

At full aperture, vignetting is quite visible and becomes negligible around f/4. However, the progressive nature of vignetting from center to edge makes it far less objectionable than on lenses such as the Distagon 15/2.8 tested recently, which displays ugly dark corners.

Shutter shake – Loxia 35/2

Flare & Glare

Performance is mostly good. The close the sun gets to the edge/corner of the frame, the more pronounced its reflections (flare) are.

Mail box

The effect is visible even at smaller apertures, such as f/8, below.

Sidelit cross – f/8

Or even at f/16, below.

Backlit cross (f/16)

In fact, closing down only makes matters worse by giving reflections more defined and less rounded shapes. With the sun closer to the center of the frame, all is well again.

Starlit castle

Winter sunrise – Loxia 35/2

Resistance to glare is excellent (that dreaded contrast does have some positives ).The mailbox above is the worst I have been able to produce so far (note: contrast has been increased in PP).

On the topic of reflections, this lens seems to create unwanted interactions with the sensor surface, much like the Sony FE 35/2.8 with the Sony A7r. This is a first for me on this camera. See Starlit Castle, above.

Loxia 35 sharpness compared to the Distagon 1.4/35 ZM

The very fact that I’m comparing this Loxia to one of the greatest (the greatest ?) 35mm lenses ever made should tell you have well it performs. But don’t take my word for it. Here is an aperture series made on the target below with both lenses. I carefully refocused on every frame (though may have missed *slightly* on the Distagon at f/2).

Official 2016 Jaboulet laboratory test chart.

F/1.4

Distagon Center

Distagon edge

F/2

Loxia f/2 center

Loxia f/2 edge

Distagon f/2 center

Distagon f/2 edge

F/2.8

Loxia f/2.8 center

Loxia f/2.8 edge

Distagon f/2.8 center

Distagon f/2.8 edge

F/4

Loxia f/4 center

Loxia f/4 edge

Distagon f/4 center

Distagon f/4 edge

F/5.6

Loxia f/5.6 center

Loxia f/5.6 edge

Distagon f/5.6 center

Distagon f/5.6 edge

F/8

Loxia f/8 center

Loxia f/8 edge

Distagon f/8 center

Distafon f/8 edge

F/11

Loxia f/11 center

Loxia f/11 edge

Distagon f/11 center

Distagon f/11 edge

What I’m seeing

At f/2, the Loxia has that (spherical aberration ?) veil covering the whole scene but still exhibits a wealth of details. Both are on par. Neither edge shots is particularly sexy, but the Loxia is less dark and murky, while not really showing any more detail.

At f/5.6, the Distagon seems slightly sharper and more alive than the Loxia.

From f/8 onwards, the Distagon seems hit a little harder by diffraction than the Loxia.

More importantly, the flaws on at wide apertures are meaningless in real life as no-one would shoot landscape at infinity as a setting below f/5.6, where both leses are essentially perfect. Below this, the tradeoff is a matter of persona preferences. Some cannot live with the sharpness fall-off of the Distagon (on Sony cameras only!) others will find the Loxia’s veil distasteful. Think about how you really want to use the lens before making a decision.

More importantly still, none of this really matters as you’d struggle to see differences with a loupe on a 16″ print and the differences in character far outweigh those in sharpness.

Close-up performance

The very close focusing distance of the Loxia is very useful. At very close range, I found that holding the camera steady enough to maintain focus accuracy soon gets a challenge (that has nothing to do with the lens), but results seem rather good, if not as excellent as at further distances. See below.

At 100%, this f/4 scene has a lot of detail on offer, too. See below

Click for 100% enlargement

As you can see, bokeh is also pretty nice in these conditions.

Here is a second aperture series at a slightly longer distance (around 60 cm). I clearly misfocused at f/5.6, so those results are omitted.

f/11

f/8

f/4

f/2.8

f/2

f/2 is rather oh-hum, but from there on, all is very good. And, bokeh is again very pleasing at all apertures. Which leads us to …

Bokeh

As hinted at in previous instalments of this review, the Loxia 35 has a softer personality wide open and offers really nice bokeh. Particularly so at close range.

Soulful

Unlike  an OTUS, bokeh doesn’t play weird (and wonderful) 3D tricks. It’s a different style but the Loxia maintains very good structure and depth in out of focus zones and can produce results which I find absolutely wonderful, as above, at f/2. At f/4, below,  things don’t look bad either. Highlights aren’t overly distracting and the separation between foreground and background is superb.

Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of furrrr

For a lens than can be so frickin’ harsh and brutal, the Loxia 35 actually produces very gentle bokeh. Kudos.

Colours

Bold, for sure. Subtle ? Errr. Since we name all the lenses we review, Philippe suggested we call the Loxia Bart, in honour of the subtlety of Bart Simpson Having recently been to Disneyland Paris with Audrey (Distagon 1.4/35 ZM) and Max (Milvus 1.4/85), I returned with Bart (Loxia 2/35) to compare notes. Although the time of day (and PP) was different, the photographs below still show a slightly different management of colours between the Loxia and the Distagon.

Bart’s Hollywood – Zeiss Loxia 35

Audrey’s Hollywood – Distagon 1.4/35 ZM

Bart’s bubble – Loxia 35

Audrey’s bubbles – Distagon 1.4/5 ZM

Tiled pillar – Zeiss Loxia 35

Village bin – Loxia 35

My preference goes to the (more expensive and less convenient) Distagon 1.4/35, colourwise. And this preference is further increased when dealing with B&W.

But the Loxia produces bold results and is fantastic in dark, gloomy situations.

‘vette 62

This is particularly obvious on these photographs of the 62 vette on display at Disneyland Paris. These were made on a super wet, super drab evening and the car just pops out of the screen (kudos to the sensor, too).

Annette and the ‘vette

Conclusion and gallery

In my mind, the photo industry should have stopped wasting its time designing 35mm lenses when Audrey (Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35 ZM) was released. I’ve yet to try anything that comes vaguely close. That lens makes you wonder why you should have to make allowances for idiosyncracies such as the harsh highlights of the Loxia 35.

Four corners – Zeiss Loxia 3/2

But the Loxia 35 appeals to many photographers and, after a while of adapting akin to the pupil adjustment you experience when walking out of a dark room and into the summer sun, it’s easy to understand why. To put it bluntly, Bart is a bloody good lens.

Distortion, while not that distracting on the ZM Distagon, is totally absent from the Loxia and that gets addictive for architectural photography. What little distortion is present in the frame below is due to the vertical pano process, not to the lens.

Colour, while not as painterly as on my reference gem, inspire giggles when so many other lenses feel dead inside and soul-less.

Bokeh, while not of the creamy cappuccino type, is really, really lovely in most situation.

Resistance to flare is good enough for most situations and you can always use your free hand to block out the sun when it is out of the frame.

Philippe riding into the morning

All said and done, the Distagon matches my usual lighting conditions and tastes better. But, if you live in a place where the atmosphere is more often veiled (think the glorious light of Northern Italy, the glorious rain of a San Francisco summer or a tropical island under a glorious sunset), your tastes will probably swing towards the Loxia. Night photographers, concert photographers, and many others will also love the Loxia.

Go Bart ! We met on angry terms, we part as seriously good friends.

Want to learn more about lens testing in the field ? Look no further, sign-up below.

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

It’s 16 March and the frame counter now stands at 91. That’s less than a hundred images from which I can say the X-Pro2 is definitely a keeper.

It’s been hard to find an X-Pro. The international roll-out was delayed and Fuji hasn’t got around to a launch in South Africa yet, which is probably just as well. The country – led by our immensely hard working Minister of Finance – works to avoid a financial ratings downgrade and our government, led by a venal cabinet cabal built around our corrupt president, are equally determined to steal everything that isn’t nailed down.

Nett result? Our currency has been devalued by around 30% since December, making just about everything on our shelves – including photographic kit – ratchet up by a similar amount.

End of personal rant.

Derelict – Singapore. X-Pro2, 35mm f1.4 @ f5.6

Elsewhere – Singapore. X-Pro2, 35mm f1.4 @ f5.6

So, my purchase has been made during a visit to Singapore. Even that has been difficult, as there seems to be little stock still available following a very successful launch and acres of on-line pre-tests and enthusiasm.

Anyway, I got one yesterday. I also got a free 16Gb SD card from the highly recommended (by everyone, not just me) Cathay Photo, a second 16 gig card from Fuji, plus a leather case and a cleaning kit.

Today, less than 100 photographs later, I’ll say it was a good move.

Are you awesome? Singapore. X-Pro2, 35mm f1.4 @ f1.4

Bus stop – Singapore. X-Pro2, 35mm f1.4 @ f2.8

In use, the -2 feels like the -1, but better, more assured. Predictable might be a good word, as its focussing is much better, faster and less prone to the hunting which was something of a hallmark of it’s predecessor.

The mechanical shutter sounds more convincing, less “chick”, more gentle “thunk”.

Unwrapped and unboxed, one of the first things I’d wanted to try was the much reported Acros black and white film simulation. First though, I stole my -1’s fully charged battery to use in the -2 for setting-up purposes. There have been many reports of -2s dumping set-ups because the internal battery is insufficiently charged on unboxing and a less than full system battery not having sufficient charge to keep all the little chaps inside hard at work. So far, so good.

Studded carpet between the doors – Singapore. X-Pro2, 35mm f1.4 @ f2.8

Bar stools – Singapore. X-Pro2, 35mm f1.4 @ f3.2

Diving into the -2’s much improved menu system, I set it to record RAW and fine JPG – the Acros elves work on RAW sensor data to deliver beautifully toned black and white JPGs alongside the expected colour RAWs. I know that especially, because despite currently being in colourful Singapore, the black and whites are really arresting, I’m yet to test the colour option(s).

That’s about as far as I’ve got. To date, most of the images have been taken with Fuji’s 35mm f1.4 and a few with the 16mm f1.4. The 90mm f2 has also seen some action as you’ll see below.

Chijmes – Singapore. X-Pro2, 35mm f1.4 @ f3.2

Early dinner – Singapore. X-Pro2, 90mm f2 @ f2

Locked – Singapore. X-Pro2, 90mm f2 @ f4

Posted on DearSusan by paulperton.

23 March. Home.

To recap; a few days in Singapore – our favourite city in the world – followed by a quick trip up to George Town (Penang), to remind ourselves how much we enjoy being there, too.

Haji Lane – lilac and sunflowers. -2 with 35mm f1.4 @ f2.8. ISO 200. Note that the shadow at the top is cast by the roof eave and not a vignette.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Haji Lane. -2 with 35mm f1.4 @ f4. ISO 200. Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Shall we? Shan’t we? Escalator to (yet another) shopping mall. X-100T with 23mm f2 @ f4. ISO 400.
A classic Fuji image, showing the subtle colours in the glass, reflections in the escalator treads and the distinct colour of brass. Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

In part 1, the X-Pro2 was brand new and the post was taken up with black and white images, made using the very impressive Acros simulation. If Fuji achieve nothing else with this piece of software mastery, they’ll inevitably attract the attentions of Nikon, Canon and Sony users, wanting similar, easy-on-the-eye tones and rich blacks.

A big thumbs up on that one.

Solo drinker, Brewerkz, Clarke Quay. X-Pro1 with 90mm f2 @ f2, ISO 800.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Tea and a text. X-Pro1 with 90mm f2 @ f2.5, ISO 800.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Building site at 07:03. X-Pro1 with 90mm f2 @ f2, ISO 1250.
Another view of the draped building site, full of tonal values. I think a large print of this might soon be on a wall at home.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

To colour then. A significant strength for Fuji, with the X-Trans sensor – no I don’t claim to understand how it works – especially the softer tones. Soft colour isn’t so easy in a city, where brash is a byword.

So, instead of trekking the city looking for specific photo opportunities, I decided to shoot what I saw, with both X-Pros (and my trusty X100T) and add some images from George Town. Now I’m home, I’ll go look for the more subtle colours in the late summer sunrises, sunsets and landscapes.

Building site at 07:03. X-100T with 23mm f2 @ f2.8. ISO3200.
One of my favourite shots from this trip – it was barely first light – illumination is by high pressure sodium street lighting only.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Tai chi, Robertson Quay. X-Pro1 with 90mm f2 @ f5.6, ISO 400.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Waiting for the water bus – Robertson Quay. X-Pro1 with 90mm f2 @ f5.6, ISO 800.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Fabric sculpture intended to mimic Singapore’s Super Trees – Fullerton Hotel. X-Pro1 with 35mm f1.4 @ f1.4, ISO 400.
These fantastical sculptures are on display in the hotel’s foyer – a must photograph if you are in town.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

I’m going to keep the narrative to a minimum; doubtless hundreds of blogs are posting similar opinions of the -2, so I’ll stick to what we used to call caption stories in the good old ink on paper publishing days. ‘kay with you?

Two small points I do need to cover, however.

The -2’s set-up dumping issue might have happened to me. On one early morning foray into the city, I did notice that I was shooting only JPGs and not RAW+JPG. The irritating focus chirping had also re-started – I turn all sounds off as a matter of course. Two minutes and I’d sorted the problem and had cause to wonder whether my larger than usual hands had lagged my enthusiasm and failed to develop the necessary muscle memory, hitting a button or two without me noticing. No matter, it wasn’t serious and in Fuji’s usual kaizen style response, a firmware update to prevent recurrences, is promised within days.

Penang blinds. X-Pro2 with 35mm f2 @ f4, ISO 1000.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Street scene, Penang. X-Pro2 with 35mm f2 @ f2.8, ISO 1000.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Rising sun, recycling collector – Penang. X-Pro2 with 35mm f2 @ f2.8, ISO 200.
The city is full of people making a tiny income from collecting paper, plastic and glass for recycling – this chap was clearly up and out long before the sun.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Bike sculpture – Penang. X-Pro2 with 35mm f2 @ f5.6, ISO 320.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

The second might be a non-event. But just in case you might be venturing into southeast Asia, be aware that the -2 works very hard, especially in Acros mode, where the sensor and X-Trans processor do all the digital doodads to make fabulous black and whites. The daily ambient temperatures were close to 40C most days and I wasn’t surprised to discover that the body of the camera around the command dial grew perceptibly warm. In it’s defence, the -2 never missed a beat and battery life wasn’t impacted, but you might still want to bear the situation in mind.

In closing, the -2 easily lives up to the pre-launch hype. As a convinced -1 user, the transition has been almost painless, it’s too soon to say much about it, but the increased resolution not yet apparent as the printing cycle will only now start. Lens choices are easy; the 35mm f1.4 is a no brainer for street work. The 90mm f2 likewise, but it is heavy and quite obvious, especially with the photo-nerd style (read massive) lens hood in use.

My recently purchased 16mm f1.4 got used once (briefly) and is probably best left at home if you’re planning anything other than extreme street shooting.

Of course, the fantastic X100T also fills in gaps, so I will almost certainly opt for that and leave the 16mm lens out of my kit when I pack for the DearSusan workshop in Paris in a few days time.

Window shutter – Penang. X-Pro2 with 35mm f2 @ f2, ISO 2000.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Apothecary’s drawers – Penang. X-Pro2 with 35mm f2 @ f4, ISO 3200.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Street scene – Penang. X-Pro2 with 35mm f2 @ f2.8, ISO 640.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Street scene – Penang. X-Pro2 with 35mm f2 @ f1.4, ISO 200.
Processed using Thomas Fitzgerald’s Velvia plug in.

Posted on DearSusan by paulperton.

DearSusan is a free Website. No advertising, no paywall. Hence we don’t play games and tease you with sensational headlines, but hide the meat of the info behind the paywall or after pre-roll ads have played out. So you get it up front, the spanking new Sony FE 85 f:1.4 G Master has joined the very limited, very select list of DearSusan-sanctioned Überlenses.

True to belonging in that category, the G Master lens delivers first-class performance in every situation. Close-up or further out, wide open, but also stopped down, for portrait as well as for landscape. Pascal will publish later a comparison between it and the gold standard of 85mm lenses, the Zeiss Otus f:1,4. The very fact that the Sony withstands the comparison testifies to its quality.

Simply put, the FE 85 is fast (f:1.4), fully usable at that aperture, and a veritable bokeh machine, with colours and detail to boot. Add to that autofocus, and it begins to make total sense despite its not inconsiderable weight and cost.

Now before you think that I have sold my soul to Sony  (I’d need to buy it back from Zeiss first, in order to be able to do that), let me tell you what is not right, or at least not perfect with that lens. First there is a modest amount of CA, even in the plane of sharpness. It is not critical, it is easy to cure, it may be a bit less than the already superlative Milvus 85, but we’d all prefer that it weren’t there, and there isn’t any in true APO designs (a claim that Sony don’t make). Then I found something unexpected. Some files looked slightly “dead”, or “artificial”, especially with regards to colours. It took me some time to map out colour and contrast treatment in post to get it to the point where I really like it, though, now that I am there, it takes me no more time to process those files than any other. YMMV.

Let’s start with the physical characteristics. The 85 Master G is a large (77mm diameter, almost 1kg) AF lens that works on Sony FE and E bodies. It is wide, and not very long. While heavy, in my opinion it balances adequately on its most natural partner, the A7RII. Manufacturing quality seems very high, as befits its price, around 2000€. There is a welcome aperture ring, allowing the user full control without resorting to the camera. AF action is not very snappy, and not very quiet either, but it does focus accurately including in very low light, except maybe, just maybe, at close range and wide open. The stabiliser of the lens+camera system is very effective indeed. I have taken sharp shots at 1/15s handheld, and I am not particuarly good that this. Focusing this lens manually isn’t as enjoyable as with the best MF lenses around, but it is as good -or even a bit better- than manually focusing any other AF lens that I have tried. Not bad at all. Of course, no infinity stop, because it is focus-by-wire, and the throw isn’t as long as with an Otus, but it does let me get the job done without fuss or muss. One disappointment is the minimum focusing distance, at 0,8m. I know it is not unusual for a 85mm lens, but it does mean you are not going to get any close-ups, and that is part of my photography. 0,5m would have been soooo nice.

Now to IQ. Sony’s marketing blurb says their twin design objectives were very high resolution, not only for this generation of sensors but all the way up to 80Mp, and lovely bokeh, and they definitely achieve these twin goals. Now bokeh is a subject of personal taste, so YMMV, but at least there are no “nasties”, such as “busy bokeh”, “Nissen boken”, etc. It will really please those of us who like it creamy rather than structured. Transition from in-focus to out-of-focus is fairly rapid, so it provides strong separation of foreground and background, though not as laser-sharp as Otus 85.

Resolution of the lens is obvious, especially if you view at 100% on a 42Mp image. Very small details abound, including minute spatial information and transitions. In this respect, I don’t know of a lens that outperforms it, though some equal it. This suggests that the lens outresolves the sensor, as it should, according to Sony.

Overall rendering is a bit warmer than the Zeiss Otii to which it was compared. Micro-contrast is a bit less, so the image prioritizes colours and detail over sharpness, though it is in fact sharp enough that one can shave with it. This is consistent with the “look” of Sony G lenses for FE (70-200 f:4.0, 90 f:2.8 macro), which display beautiful colours and great detail but don’t “wow!” with in-your-face sharpness the way a Zeiss 135 APO does.

Wide open, there is a modest loss of apparent sharpness due to a very slight loss of contrast. But first it is very slight, then it clears up not only by f:2.0, but already by f:1.6 (the aperture range moves in 1/3 stops). From f:1.7 on down, the lens hardly improves, but its rendering becomes just a tad less warm and more neutral. So, in effect, you have a portrait lens wide open, where many prefer not to show too much detail and sharpness (I happpen to disagree), and lovely, romantic colours, then a lens for close-up and street from f:1.6 to, say, f:4.0, then a landscape lens from f:4.0 onwards. But please these are small differences indeed, and the G Master is by no means a lens with split or multiple personalities.

And that is one of the 2 key drivers behind my decision to buy the Sony FE 85. Because its look isn’t quite the same as the Zeiss look, having “a bit of both” will, I hope, provide a bit more diversity to my range of results. The other reason, of course, is the AF. With it, I can take photos I cannot achieve with a MF lens. That simple. Pascal says he won’t touche a lens with AF because “it will make him lazy”. But, to you our fiends of DearSusan, I will reveal his dirty little secret: I saw him test a Sony FE 90 f:2.8 macro. I saw him shoot lots, in a really carefree way. How does one-handed grab you? From the founder of DS? So, yes, maybe just a little too flippant. But many of his shots were just excellent. Including some I know he’d never have attempted with Hubert, his mighty Otus. That’s all I’m hoping for with my FE 85. Tolerate my laziness, yet still make me happy. That’s why I call it Felix!

There is lots more to say, a lens review is never really over. I could write about its excellent flare resistance. Discuss details of AF performance. Mention weather protection (some, but not fully sealed). Talk about the 3D (good, but not earth-shakingly great) I could discuss its performance relative to its competition: the Zeiss Batis 85 f:1.8 (the FE is, without a doubt, a better lens IMHO. It better be, because it costs and weighs twice as much). The Zeiss Milvus 85 f:1.4 (I would say, roughly equivalent performance, in a different sort of way. I’d need to shoot both face to face to be more definitive). The FE 24-70 f:2.8 (I’ve read excellent things about it, and seen pics that prove it, but, for now, I’m still not lazy enough to buy it as a single-lens walk-about tool. Or maybe I’m too lazy, because mastering all aspects of a prime lens is already painstaking, so fully mastering such a zoom must be a real bear). The forthcoming FE 70-200 f:2.8 (large, heavy, expensive, and nobody yet seems frightfully excited). And so on, and so on.

But there comes a time where matters need to be wrapped up, lest Pascal does to me what bean counters in Holllywood studios do to film masterpieces that run too long. They carve them up mercilessly. So let me close the door on the review of this exciting new addition to my stable…

Ooops! I was going to finish without showing what is a typical use of a fast 85mm lens: the portrait. Preferably wide open. Here it is. Courtesy of professional model Claire van Seters, who graced our own Ze Workshop with her presence.

Posted on DearSusan by philberphoto.

It is now some weeks, and the Sony has earned itself a place in my bag. Considering that I take that bag with me everywhere every time, which, for me, spells a limit of 3 lenses, that is no mean feat. All the more so as the Sony isn’t exactly light, at some 2lbs, nor cheap.

That said, does that mean that I am going over to AF? Or to Sony rendering? Or is the approach of having “different” lenses in the bag rather than that of a “single-line-single-look” finally working out?

To the first question, the answer must be “no, but…”. Fact is, the FE85 AF on A7RII is pretty good IMHO. With my settings and my mostly stationary targets, I get some 85%+ keeper rate, including a majority of large-aperture shots. That means a significantly higher keeper rate than with MF. Yesterday, I even found (caught?) myself not chimping, subconsciously knowing that the camera had nailed the shots. The one exception is when I am shooting at or close to minimum focusing distance. Then, if I am too close, the camera will focus on anything a bit further back that is “in its sights”, and I will get a properly focused picture, except my subject will be out of focus. That, however, is not a factor of my Sony, but of the principles of AF, and my Canon 5D II/III did it as well (or as badly, actually). So I am not going over to AF, but I could. Actually, I would, if I had the right choice of überlenses, because I find myself shooting more when I have my Sony mounted than my beloved B² (Otus 55). This is why I call it Felix. It recalls its FE DNA, and, in Latin, “felix” means “happy”.

To the second question, the answer is a clear “no”. The Sony, to me, good though it is, very, very good, is still no Otus. Yes it does some things remarkably well. Its amount of detail, including minute detail, straight out of camera, is awesome. Definitely Otus-class. Its bokeh, if you happen to like it creamy, is world-class, maybe even the new gold standard. Sharpness in every respect and condition, including wide open, even with 42Mp, is something you’ll just never have to worry about. So what’s not to love? Maybe hanging Zeiss lenses on the mounts of my cameras has me spoiled. By comparison, Felix has one aspect that one has to be careful around, one weakness, and one question mark.

First, the aspect I need to avoid or circumvent. Remember the creamy bokeh? Well, Felix also has a rapid transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. Rapid, as in super-rapid. This means that the pictures transition from sharp, detailed and in focus to “pure cream” PDQ. And there are times when it just doesn’t feel right, because it is just not like that in real life. When I am shooting close up, and the background is close behind the subject matter, and I am close to wide open, that is when this can happen. Now that I know it, I don’t try that anymore. By comparison, for those shots, the structured bokeh of B² is much easier on the eye, and partakes in the storytelling as well. Of course there are shots where Sony approach actually helps, like portrait. Shoot up close, and wide open or almost, and Felix will blur anything but the right eye or eyelash….

Second, the weakness. Because of the very thin DOF and rapid transition, capturing subjects where both the in-focus and the out-of-focus zones are a single, continuous part of the story is not gonna happen. Typical of this is a flower. Because of size, I will shoot it up close, meaning DOF is at a minimum, so lots of it will be out-of-focus. And because the lens transitions straight to creamy, non-structured bokeh, you don’t get the awesome curves, or for that matter delicious colour variations that you can get with an Otus 85, or, for that matter, a Milvus 85. No flowers for Felix! Not that they’d come out bad, of course, but B² does them more to my taste.

Though it does not mean that Felix is useless close up. Hardly. Look at this 100% crop…

The question mark. There are times when colours are a bit strange, with a distinct yellow-green tint that ought not to be there, and that isn’t the prettiest. It isn’t WB, because changing the WB doesn’t put it right. I don’t know yet what to assign it to and how to correct it. So it is a question mark. But there are enough shots where the colours are not only all right, but actually delightful, that blaming the lens doesn’t wash.So, is my gamble of having “different-look” lenses in my bag panning out? Yes, it feels that way. Because there are more than a few shots that I can chose to shoot either with a 55mm or a 85mm lens. So, how does that work? Well, if the shot is tricky because there isn’t enough light, then Felix is my first choice; With its 5-way stabilizer, the Sony combo is very effective, giving me sharp images as slow as 1/15s. This is the case with these church ceilings, for example.If I have good separation between foreground and background, then, though the results will be different, I can use either lens with delicious results. If I am close up, no doubt, B² should be my first choice, even more so if I add an extra close-up ring

If I am looking for a deliberately blurry background, such as with portraits, then Felix is my weapon of preference, because it can’t be beat for blur.

The other case when Felix is a killer lens, even over B², is when the foreground and background are very much apart. Felix manages a very nice rendering of a distant background, like tree leaves. Very blurred and very pleasant at the same time. Because B² has a more structured bokeh, a shot can easily become “encumbered” by elements that aren’t contributing to the storytelling That’s it for now. So far, so good. I am actually enjoying the fact that I can select on the basis of the look rather than on the focal length. That gives me an extra dose of creative freedom (whether I make good use of it is an entirely different story!). So, is my early report that it is an überlens confirmed? Definitely. I just look at the variety of shots on this post to appreciate how wide its spectrum is. Finding a lens that can do one thing brilliantly is easy. Why, Pascal even gets some brilliant shots out of his smartphone. But an überlens does it across many different subject types. Like Felix.

And, yes, the FE 85 G Master is a keeper. Not only that, but I would love to have a wider one. Please Mr Sony, a 28 f:1.4 or a 35 f:1.4 G Master! That would make such a great 2-lens kit!

Posted on DearSusan by philberphoto.

Pre-sunrise over the Kogelberg – shot with the Fuji X-Pro1 and Fuji 90mm f2

The northern end of the Kogelberg – shot with the Fuji X-Pro1 and Fuji 16mm f1.4

Pre-sunrise – X-Pro2 with Leica Summilux 50mm f1.4

It’s nearing the end of autumn – it’s been a fantastic summer down here on the Southern Tip (of Africa). The temperatures started to rise during October and by Christmas, we were all wondering where the seasonal winds had gone, as day after day passed in a welter of clear skies and balmy temperatures.

The Cape Doctor* (our seasonal south easterly wind) finally arrived late in December and put a stop to our luxuriating for several weeks, finally moving away only in March and making a sneaky return for a final go-round in early May.

In between, the post Christmas period has been beautiful; warm days, clear skies, starry nights – the best the Cape can offer.

Rooi Els river valley – shot with the Fuji X-Pro1 and Fuji 90mm f2

Pre-sunrise over the Kogelberg – shot with the Fuji X-Pro1 and Fuji 90mm f2

So, time this weekend to get the cameras out and do a bit of coastal exploring.

Both sets of images were taken in the hour before sunrise. The first on Saturday, the balance this morning (Monday). The locations varied; on Saturday, I walked just beyond our neighbour’s property to an area known locally as Roman Rock. Today’s pics were taken above the village on the road to Pringle Bay and the balance near Kogel Bay – a favourite spot just along the coast towards Gordon’s Bay.

Looking NE along the Kogelberg – X-Pro2 and Fuji 35mm f1.4

As is now my habit, I concentrated on the Fuji X-Pros. I’ll be touring the far north of Scotland in a couple of months and want to ensure my Fuji skills are up to the job. Aside from not being able to find the ISO menu option and having to content myself with Auto ISO, everything else worked fine.

5 frame Kogelberg pano – shot with the Fuji X-Pro2 and Fuji 16mm f1.4

Anyway, I think I’m making progress and shot with Fuji’s 16mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4 and 90mm f2, plus my Leica 50mm f1.4 Summilux, although the latter proved to be a bit long for what I was trying to achieve. In addition, I used an ND grad to control the brightness of the sky – this is Africa and from pitch dark to full sunlight is a surprisingly rapid transition.

Looking NE along the Kogelberg – X-Pro2 and Fuji 16mm f1.4

* Named because it blows so hard that it (figuratively) rids us of all the poor weather. Mind you, it’s hard to see the benefits when it’s howling at 80km/h – 100km/h outside and delivering a thick coating of salt spray everywhere. The sun may be shining out there and the thermometer reading in the high 20s, but it’s still inadvisable to open a window – lest the furniture, pictures and pets all get blown away.

Shot with the Fuji X-Pro2 and Fuji 35mm f1.4

Shot with the Fuji X-Pro2 and Fuji 35mm f1.4

Shot with the Fuji X-Pro2 and Fuji 35mm f1.4

Looking north west towards the Cape Flats – shot with the Fuji X-Pro2 and Fuji 90mm f2

Posted on DearSusan by paulperton.

This is the last picture I took with this Zeiss OTUS 1.4/28. After this, it was returned to its white and blue box and to the post office to meet its new owner.

A patient daughter – Sony A7rII & Zeiss OTUS 1.4/28

Lucky man

But I can’t complain, having myself enjoyed, for 3 weeks, the presence on my camera of what Zeiss call, with reason, The World’s Best Wide-Angle lens. It isn’t by accident that my final photograph, and the first in this review, is a portrait. Despite what the focal length might lead you to believe, this is a portrait lens. Or rather, as we will see below, it is an absolutely universal lens, but it opens up a new style of portrait photography and I cannot wait to see great stuff come from the hands of the world’s best portrait photographers, with this lens.

After publishing many walks and giving our (Philippe and I) opinion, it’s now time to take the lens through a few rounds of our typically hands-on testing to see what it is that makes it the superlative performer many will soon grow to love.

Sharpness

Let’s start with that and just move on quickly. You can find the tremendous MTF curves for this lens in the technical brochure. I’ll just say this: think about any full-frame lens that comes to mind. This is probably sharper.

Marseilles panorama – Sony A7rII & Zeiss OTUS 1.4/28

At peak performance, it vastly out-resolves the sensor on my A7rII and, in that respect, is a very future proof investment. As Sony and followers continue to equate progress with more megapixels, we will soon be carrying 70MPx, then 100+Mpx, cameras in our pockets and out cherished lenses will, one after the other begin to appear to be very crappy performers at the all unimportant 100% on-screen evaluation game.

Not this one. At least not at f/4.

I’ve no formal information to back this up but, if the theoretical limit to pixel useful smallness is around 2 microns, this should take you all the way to that irrelevant limit. You computer will conk out way before your lens does.

Roof moire from above panorama

More psychedelic roofs, at f/2 !!!

However irrelevant future sensor resolutions are, the tremendous resolving power of this Otus 28 provides many real-life benefits today. The spectacular 3D, the medium-format look that bests some medium format gear (in my subjective opinion), the wonderful colour fidelity, the texture and dimensionality of objects … all of this is thanks to the super acuity of the lens. Brilliant!

And now, for the Aperture Series

Because why not?

However, this is DearSusan. We do not shoot paper targets or dried flowers in the attic. Our test scene weighs several million tons and uses gigawatts of lighting. Plus it is close to infinity, a distance for which the lens wasn’t optimized. With that said, on with the show. Here it is, proof that nothing is too grand for our readers

The test scene

What I’m seeing doesn’t quite mirror the published MTF curves. On screen, at 100%, the corners, wide open are a significant step down from the center (itself sharper than I’d have expected from the f/1.4 MTF). The bottom corners appear slightly sharper than the upper, leading me to guess that, on this very 3-D test target, the upper corners are simply out of focus more than the bottom (very slight inward field curvature near the edges ???). Vignetting is quite strong giving the corner a slightly muddy feel which evaporates with an application of the lens profile (“corrected” label, below).

f/1.4 center – Otus 28

f/1.4 edge / corner – Otus 28

f/1.4 – edge / corner corrected – Otus 28

F/2 narrows the difference significantly (while raising the center to stratospheric) and there are improvements all the way up to f/5.6, but you’d need to be printing a billboard to require anything beyond f/2 for image quality reasons.

f/2 center

f/2 edge – Otus 28

f/2 – edge / corner corrected – Otus 28

So, stellar performance from such a wide-aperture wide-angle. I can’ think of any shot during the 3 weeks for which aperture would have been a technical (as opposed to artistic) consideration. Is there anything sharper out there at that focal length? Maybe some specialty lenses, possibly Zeiss’s own cine-series, possibly top offerings from the medium and large format niche (with f/4 max aperture) but certainly nothing I’ve ever seen or used that’s even remotely so universal in its use.

f/5.6 edge / corner – Otus 28

f/5.6 corner – Otus 28

Colour rendition

Now, let’s talk about something more interesting

Over the first few days, I was unable to produce a good B&W photograph with this lens. They all paled in comparison to the colour version. Since then, the uses of this lens in B&W have become far more obvious, but that has taken nothing away from the superb colour rendering.

Since gear and inclination fail me to describe colour accurately, here are a variety of photographs made either to show a great range of colours or, on the contrary, to highlight the great separation between similar hues. Also, some are straight out of camera while others have been processed quite significantly. All are clickable for a larger version.

What I’m seeing is an impression of great transparency and natural colours that make the lighting conditions quite obvious. Given that Canon and Nikon have better perfected the colour rendition than Sony, users of these two brands will enjoy even lovelier results. But we Sony nuts have nothing to complain about and, for some weird reason, colours from this lens seem far more natural than those produced by native lenses. Go figure.

Chromatic aberration

To all intents and purposes, the Otus 28 is apochromatic. At least in the strict “colour free in the in-focus zones” acceptation of the term.

Here is a 100% enlargement of a photograph below (the second in the Bokeh section), made at f/1.4.

Click for 10%

There is a minute red-ish fringe along the black table on the label. Essentially perfect on this test.

The cookie crumbles very slightly in out of focus areas. In the black-to-sunlight out of focus reflection below, the red fringe becomes a tad more visible (again 100%, f/1.4).

In the example below, the tiny red to green shift as you move from inside focus to outside focus is again detectable at 100%. Of course all of these clean up easily.

Here is a series of overexposed out of focus tents that show some traces of green.

And, finally, still at 100%, a close-up f/1.4 shot showing very rapid focus ramping and some hint of colouring.

In my quick evaluation of the Otus 28 in its French debut, some months ago, chromatic aberration had been more noticeable, leading me to believe this must have been a preproduction item. The final version Otus 28 is probably the worst offender of the Otus line, yet still really excellent. And just as the 55 and 85 brothers ware having a laugh, here comes the flare test, where baby 28 simply feels unshakable.

Flare

Flare / glare control is possible the most impressive technical ability of this Otus 28. As good as my Otus 85 is, the 28 is a far better performer. It just doesn’t flare.

In my experience, effects are usually at their worst with the sun just out of the frame, as below (apologies for the uninteresting shot, the sun has been in short supply in France, recently ) Nothing to see here. Absolutely nothing, and this is f/1.4.

With the sun on the edge of the frame some glare is visible in the immediate vicinity but the rest of the image shows very little loss of contrast from glare. And the flare at bottom left is really weak.

Here’s the worst I could do. Super bright light in a corner, super dark background. It doesn’t get more unfair (actually, it does, this is “only” f/2). Beyond the small green/blue flare at bottom right, there’s not a lot to talk about.

Let’s just say flare shouldn’t be a major consideration when setting up your shot …

Distortion

Ah, at last, something to say.

The Otus 28 has distortion. Barrels of it too ! Well, tiny barrels, but give me a break, I need to show Zeiss I really tested and found something to report

OK, so 1% barrel distortion gives you this (in case you’re wondering “what am I looking for?”, note the concave curvature on the bottom pavement):

Corrected with +5 in LightRoom, this is what you get.

Here’s another uncorrected shot:

And another (only upright perspective applied here):  And another:Note that correcting this with the distortion slider in LightRoom isn’t perfect as it introduces pincushion distortion on the small axis once the long has been corrected. See below:

The best way to deal with is to use the lens profile in whatever software you are using (since Lightroom is no longer being updated for non subscribers, I use the OTUS 55 profile, which appears to work fine). Before and after samples, below:

Subjective Bokeh evaluation

First of all, lets shine a light on the great Zeiss mystification !

We’ve all been told depth of field depends on aperture and subject magnification (or focal length & distance). Not so. Pound for pound (or aperture for aperture) some lenses produce more blur than others. This is one of those wizzard lenses that create blur out of thin air.

And it looks good, too …

Here’s a slightly out of focus shot that gives you an idea (and yes, in public, I’ll pretend I did that on purpose).

More interestingly, here’s the sort of otherworldly trick this lens can pull. 50 Noctilux ? Nope, much smoother bokeh and only 28mm. Unbelievable.

Even the nasty sunlight-through-tree-leaves ISO 9001 standard (for English readers, that’s foot-pounds per cubic inches ) test is passed with flying colours.

At medium distance (roughly full body portrait distances) here’s what f/1.4 gives you. The out-of-focus bulbs on the left show no traces of unwanted doughnut or onion-rings effects.

Used at close range, this Otus is a real cream-machine (dreamy machine ?) and really allows you to create interesting imagery with none of the unlikable bokeh effects of some other fast lenses (read, no ugly swirls).

The progression from in-focus to out-of-focus is smoother than on the Otus 85, a desirable feature it shares with the 55.

(c) Philippe

Here are a few other shots, all at f/1.4. Smaller apertures simply create a lesser blur but, as far as my experience goes, create no unwanted nasties.

And below, two shots at f/2.8

In this 100% enlargement from an f/5.6 shot (by Philippe) you can see that the trees are slightly out of focus whereas the small building is perfectly in-focus. This in spite of both being very close to infinity relative to a 28mm focal length. Note also how lovely the rendering of the trees is.

Subjective Black & White evaluation

Now, we’re really getting into seriously unscientific regions I’ll try to convey what appeals to me in a monochrome setting, but your mileage may certainly vary.

One of my favourite lenses for B&W is the C-Sonnar 1.5/50. This gives a sharp but grungy look to images that few digital filters can recreate adequately. The Otus 28 is also a top performer in B&W but its strengths lie elsewhere. Transparency and tone refinement rule the day here.

That’s not to say images produced with the Otus 28 can’t be made to look different. It’s always possible to add your own digital recipe to the file in post-processing.

But the underlying touch of class is always present, if you don’t push the sliders so far as to completely lose the original look of the optics (and in that case, why buy top class glass?). Again, I feel the combination of great tonal subtlety and the wide-angle geometry “distortion” makes for really amazing portrait possibilities and really hope some daring pros soon adopt this Otus to introduce a new “perspective” in their work.

Who is it for?

Let’s set aside price considerations for now. It’s a sad fact that its current price point puts the Otus 28 out of most photographers’ reach and you already know whether you can/want to afford this lens or not. It lets you do things other lenses can’t achieve, which answers the “is it worth it ?” question by lack of alternatives.

Since Canon and Nikon have fine-tuned their colour output better than Sony, users of these platforms will find the lens even more spectacular than A7x owners. Plus, the use of adapters apparently introduces very slight additional vignetting. Now that live-view implementations have improved, the whole Otus range comes highly-recommended.

Sony offers excellent focusing aids and it’s hard to imagine a more pleasant lens to use for a camera such as my current A7rII.

Given the close focus ability, the range of imaging aesthetics, and a range of apertures that introduce no technical limits, this really feels like a universal lens.

It’s big and heavy so hikers will choose it as an either-or  proposition rather than as part of larger range in their bag. But there isn’t much you can’t do with it.

Landscape ? Check.

Architecture ? Check.Nature ? Check.

Hiking ? Check.

Portrait ? Check.

Street / urban ? Check.

Concert ? Check. (the crummy image quality has nothing to do with the lens and all to do with a certain manufacturer’s RAW file management …)

Fine art ? Check.

Product ? Check.

Of course, this doesn’t mean much. Any kit lens could make photographs in these situations. But the results would be variable: excellent in some cases and poor in others. Whereas the Otus 28’s use case seems far more universal.

In every shooting scenario I have been able to tackle, its blend of no-comprise focus-depth control and stubborn transparency always yielded a very high keeper rate and lower-than-usual post-processing efforts (for pros, that alone makes it worth the price of admission, and some). In that respect, and given the very useful focal length, I feel the lens is both universal and slightly disruptive. I hope it fosters innovative thinking in the hands of many creative pros and enthusiasts in the world. 

“Think different, I have your back” it whispers in our ear!

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

It’s done and posted. The book records a five day road trip on the now (increasingly popular) North Coast 500 – a traverse of Scotland northernmost roads and geography.

It’s here: North Coast 500

How are your entries coming along?

Posted on DearSusan by paulperton.

Meet George. Small, unassuming, George is (our codename for) the newly introduced Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85 lens.

It was sent to me in July, shortly before my departure for Western Australia, with the usual instructions of telling it like I feel it. Well, at the time, I admit to thinking the good wizards of Oberkochen were ever so slightly … off-course. Owning an Zeiss Otus 85 and a Leica Elmarit-M 90/2.8, arguably two of the best lenses ever made in that focal range, and having being really quite smitten with the fantastic Milvus 85, I seemed hardly the right person to appreciate a compromise newcomer.

In fact, the marketer in me cringed at the very idea of such a middle-of-the road positioning. With a max aperture of “only 2.4”, it may have a hard time convincing the specification-oriented photographer of its merits and soon fall into a grey middle-ground of un-memorability.

Happily, none of my fears were vindicated and the 2.4/85mm not only completes the Loxia range in a very consistent manner, it also embodies in metal and glass Zeiss’ talent for segmenting and strategic thinking. The Loxia 85 is a lens with a mission, a mission it fulfills better than any other lens I know! It’s a truly brilliant achievement, yet another from House Carl.

To illustrate this point and prove we are not just sellouts to Zeiss we’ll present our findings, collected over a 5-week test period in Paris, Marseilles, La Ciotat, Doha, Perth, Kalgoorlie and more, in three sections:

• First of all, I’ll address the technical aspects of the review, with occasional comparisons to the brilliant Otus 85 and the ever-lovely Elmarit-M 90.
• Then, I’ll dive into more subjective rendering and handling considerations which make the lens the gem it is. This is undeniably the section I prefer and want to focus on.
• If that’s not enough, co-author Philippe will then addresses the lens’ importance in the Zeiss line-up, who it is for and its (many) real-life uses.

As usual, I’ll mutter a bit to justify calling myself a reviewer, but will mostly let the photographs, plenty of photographs, do the talking, hopefully enabling the reader to find something to relate to visually. All photographs made with a Sony A7rII camera. Onwards!

Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85 Sonnar: a technical review

To sum things up, this new Loxia is mostly a stellar performer, from a technical point of view.

Though the f/2.4 max aperture might not turn heads at the pub, it is at least a fully usable f/2.4 in which aperture is used purely as a means of light gathering and depth of field control, not to control aberrations. And the Sonnar design certainly lives up to its sweet-bokeh reputation.

The Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85 Sonnar

Sharpness

The MTF curves below address this from a measured point of view:

As you can tell,aperture has very little impact on detail rendering in MTF measurements. And the aperture sequence should convince you how well these spectacular lab results are born out in real life:

Ze test scene

Please note the images below are screen captures and the quality they show is lower than reality. The point is not to show the lens is sharp (it is) but to show it gains very little by closing down. Plus, life’s too short to crop all of these by hand and export

f/2.4 (right, left, center)

f/4 (right, left, center)

f/5.6 (right, left, center)

f/8 (right, left, center)

f/11 (right, left, center)

At f/11, the early signs of diffraction become visible.

I’m not entirely sure of this, but it seems the left may have a slightly curved focal surface with edges focusing slightly closer than the center. Lab-equipped reviewers will be more accurate about this.

At this point in reviewing purgatory, let me now introduce the sort of nonsense metric that makes reading (and writing ) a tech report bearable: moire-quantification ! (patent not really pending, have a day). Here’s a photograph of a standard ISO-test-yacht made with the Loxia 85 at f/8.

You can see moire on the window louvres that easily scores 6/10.  Is a similar shot made with my Otus 85, the moire here scores an 7/10. It exhibits more colour and contrast and is therefore more problematic. Which makes the Otus very slightly better. Oh wait …  No

So , I don’t know how to interpret that exactly, but let’s just say that the Loxia 85 significantly outresolves my 42Mpix sensor and should be future-proofed for the next couple of generations of megapixel lunacy that manufacturers will inevitably inflict upon us in place of better handling

And, to give you a better comparison with other lenses, here are 3 100% files from the Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85, the Leica Elmarit-M 90/2.8 and the Zeiss Otus 1.4/85, all taken at f/4. As you will see, the Leica is stupidly sharp in the center and degrades in the edges (it is a 30 year-old design, after all). The Loxia and Otus are more homogeneous throughout the frame. That the Loxia is as good as these two legends should quiet all sharpness-related worries once and for all

Leica Elmarit-M 90/2.8

Zeiss Otus 1.4/85

Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85

Distortion

Distortion is also a very strong point for the lens. Again, the brochure graph illustrates this with an almost linear progression to just over 1%:

And this tricky and epically interesting shot gives you an idea of what a worst-case scenario looks like in real life:

Here are other uncorrected architectural photographs slightly more worthy of eyeball time :

Vignetting

Once again, lab results are superb, with just one stop lost in the very corners of the frame.

In real life, this level of vignetting is barely detectable, which – combined with the low distortion – also means the lens is almost perfect for creating panoramas in simple software that cannot correct for aberrations. Yippeeee !

Flare and glare

Again, a picture is better than a thousand words. Below is a typical summer scene in sea-side resorts such as La Ciotat. These swimming costumes are photographed at f/2.4. To my eyes, this looks like a scene out of a modern movie. Videographers will likely be all over that lens (I forgot to test for focus breathing, sorry guys).

Below are more photographs with the sun in or just outside of the frame. Flare is very well controlled. A small amount of veiling glare is visible around the sun and reflections, but nothing really objectionable.

And finally, here is a 100% enlargement of an extreme situation, closed down.

Chromatic aberration

Let’s use the photo above to illustrate the performance of this lens in terms of chromatic aberration as well. Slight purple halos are clearly visible, but are easily cleaned up in PP. So this isn’t a strict APO lens (not that any claims are made about this) but it handles itself well.

For a worst-case scenario, turn to the photograph below, and following enlargements:

Full test scene at f/2.4

100% enlargement, uncorrected. f/2.4.

100% enlargement, corrected in LightRoom. f/2.4

100% enlargement, f/4, uncorrected. Boat in focus. (see specular highlights on metal at top center)

Performance at 100%, f/8, uncorrected. Bride out of focus.

Of all the technical performance envelope variables available to them, it feels like Zeiss have let chroma drift the furthest from theoretical ideal. A wise idea since I’ve not found a single picture ruined by that aberration and relaxing tolerances here probably made it easier to correct more problematic bugaboos within the budget and size constraints available to them.

Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85 Sonnar: A subjective evaluation of a photo-reporting pocket-rocket

You could worry that a lens that focuses on detail might end up looking clinical. And nothing could be further from the truth.

The best way I can put words on what this lens inspires me is this: the Loxia 85 has been designed following a process of elimination. It reduces vignetting, it reduces glare, it reduces distortion, it reduces colour casts. It eliminates unwanted filters to let through the natural essence of the subject in all its purity and simplicity. No added salsa.

Soulless ? Nope, quite the contrary.  Illumination comes from removing egotic gunge from your perception of the world. In this sense, this is one enlightened lens!

In a recent article, I discussed how phone manufacturers are slowly but surely eating the marketshare lunch of camera manufacturers. My guess is that the algorithmic witchcraft that enables this inevitable conquest will come with a visual signature. Much like DSPs messed up the purity of sound. In acceptable measures for most but too much so for the audiophile raised on Lynn and Boenicke milk.   In this respect, the only possible countermeasure for traditional digital photography (yes, it makes me feel old to type these words) is to produce something so pure and elated that it leaves the willing photographer fully in control. The Loxia 85 is one such product. And I love it to bits for that. 

In initial use, I found this lack of bravado a little disconcerting and (to be frank) quite disappointing. The lack of pungent hues hinted at hours of post-processing and most attempts at boosting saturation ended up looking really uninspiring and visibly forced.  This was until I realized a simple little boost of overall contrast (the Sony A7rII does have quite a large dynamic range) instantly brought out tints and tonal separation in a most natural way. In more extreme cases, larger boost of the contrast resulted in dark shadows and burned highlights but local work on the corresponding sliders soon brought those back to life and produced a very colourful image without ever resorting to the saturation slider. With this simple process the original atmosphere is superbly preserved.

Loxia 85 in Colour

Perhaps the best illustration of this is how well the little Loxia renders varying ambiences, from the gloomy to the joyful to the dull. The much-loved Sony-Zeiss FE 55 will etch the finest details in a remote pine cone with super convincing sharpness. The Loxia 85 will let you feel the thin pollen moving in the breeze around the cone at sunset. It is all about atmosphere, like the very best transducers from Boenicke or Soudkaos recreate the air around members of an orchestra and the ambiance of a recording hall.

The Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85 excels at letting visual cues through, at letting the season, location, heat, time of day and ambient humidity all create a very different mood from photograph to photograph. Some will look gentle and pastel, others brooding and stark. This is definitely no single-trick pony.

Loxia 85 in Black &White

Predictably, this great transparency and elegance make it an exquisite lens for classy black and white photography, where great tonal subtlety is available at all times.

Bokeh

This image pretty much sums it up.

Bokeh, in a f/2.4 85mm lens, is never going to get very intense. Nonetheless, what much is there is very Gaussian and clean. The bokeh from the Loxia 85 also has quite a bit of contrast to it, letting the background play an active role in the composition. This unlike the cappuccino machines that dip everything into a strong haze (both approaches have their merits, you just need to know what you prefer).

But contrasty doesn’t mean intrusive or harsh. As a true Sonnar, the Loxia 85 has very high quality bokeh, simply in small measures. More Rhabarbergrütze than Austrian Strudel.

Given this lens’ stitch-friendly aberration control and its close-up focusing abilities, you can easily emulate the shallow-depth of field  found on vastly more expensive wider-angle lenses (see bleeding tree, below). That’s really cool.

Below are a few more samples of Loxia 85 bokeh at various apertures.

A word on ergonomics

Perfect !

OK, a few more words on ergonomics

Almost perfect. The lens cap isn’t the best. The lens shade has to be mounted upside down for transport. The rest of the lens is essentially perfect. Focusing is firm enough to feel tight but buttery smooth. The aperture ring is such a delight that it makes you wonder why these things are becoming extinct. The build is modern and snazzy yet reassuringly robust. A truly lovely lens to own.

Those who have used other Loxia lenses before will feel right at home. The build and size is the same, and the focusing similarly damped. All very very good here. The aperture ring has a longer than usual rotation and feels perfect. The sunshade mechanism is the usual: inserted over the lens during transport, and clipped onto the front when in use. Not the most elegant system (which still goes to the retracting shades on some of Leica’s M & R series lenses) but convenient enough (and probably far cheaper for the customer).

Equally noteworthy, though not a flaw of the lens itself : as all Loxias do, this 2.4/85mm automatically gets the Sony A7 cameras to x5 focus mode when you rotate the focusing ring, which is nice. But my experience is that the best focusing accuracy really requires you to switch to x12.5 mode. x5 is often not enough to extract best results from the lens. On this lens, a tiny difference in focusing is visible in the final image, which is good, but requires a little attention on close-up subjects.

Compared to other Loxias

Remember, this is subjective. But, to me, this lens sits somewhere in between the 21 and the 50.

As mentioned above, aperture has almost no bearing on performance (in this, it compares favourably to most f/1.8 lenses that need to get to f/2.8 before they start delivering their best). But aperture does have a very slight effect on the impression of micro-contrast of this lens: wide open, it feels like the Loxia 50. Closed down to f/8, it’s a lot closer to the Loxia 21. Of the 3, I feel the 85 is, by a tiny margin, the most free-breathing and natural. A 21 – 85 duo is a very desirable setup indeed. Two world-class lenses in a small and affordable package, that will handle the megapixel race for years to come.

The 35 sits a little bit off-center from this trio, with a contrast that can easily push into harsh territory. In the right hands, under the right conditions, it’s also an excellent lens. But the 85 needs no such qualification. It tells it as it is, with great elegance whatever the conditions, and lets you handle PP however you want.

Conclusion

In closing, let me just say that great lenses come in two categories:

• those with a strong character. My C-Sonnar 50/1.5ZM is one such example. Others will look to the old Noctilux. These add a strong signature to your images. One that’s really hard to replicate in post-processing and that you either love or don’t (swirly bokeh, yuck).
• those with a level of neutrality and purity that lets the light shine through untouched and transmits the temperature, haze and other conditions in a way that puts the photographer in total control. Those are less immediately impressive and ultimately more rewarding (for most people).

The Loxia 85 is a stunning example of the second category of lenses and has provided me with hour upon hour of photographic joy. My photographs tend to be made at the infantile end of the aperture range (f/1.4 all day long) but this was a lens I really loved using at f/8, where it’s naturalness and elegance are most evident.

Who is It for ? Picture yourself on a small piazza in Vicensa. The friendly waiter lays in front of you a simple dish of home-made pasta with small mushrooms and truffle, peppered with crumbly Parmigiano cheese. He pours you a glass of carefully aged Nebbiolo or Arneis and hands you a napkin full of warm, swirly grissini. If you’re already reaching for the ketchup, this lens is not for you. If, on the other hand, you are weeping before your very first taste, well, are you in for a treat!

Some photographers will be happier with an AF kit zoom. This lens does nothing spectacular and costs a healthy amount of money. You’ll love it if you appreciate the white flower in the bouquet of Viré-Clessé, the crackling of an exhaust on upshift or the subtleties of Fischer’s best endgames. It’s definitely more Tea Ceremony than rodeo. For atmospheric landscapes, it’s a really lovely lens.

So, after all this emotional mumbo-jumbo, let me end with a slightly more Manichaean conclusion.

Positives

• Great transparency and subtlety, which lead to lovely textures, colours and atmospheres
• Resolution for the crazy megapixel years to come
• Lovely ergonomics
• Consistent with other Loxia lenses

Negatives

• Lens cap
• A lens for the thinking photographer (is that a negative?)
• Not super-fast (if that’s what you need, there are plenty of options)

Of the  negatives, only the lens cap really counts for me. It’s a minor item but can mess with your nerves. This aside, the Zeiss Loxia 2.4/85 comes with my highest recommendation. And that might be its greatest negative for some

I’ll now leave you in a capable hands of Philippe, who will add his take on the Loxia 85 and its raison d’être. Before you move on, please leave a comment to tell me what you think about the lens and the pics it produced in my custody !

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

Ah, what is so rare as a perfect gentleman ? He is always appropriately dressed, but never calls attention upon himself, the way a dandy would. He always fits in, yet maintains a distinctive identity. He never puts a foot wrong, whatever the circumstances. And, as and when matters require it, he always comes through for others. Though there are things a perfect gentleman would never stoop to doing…

Readers of the older persuasion may remember Jules Vernes’ Phileas Fogg, the perfect gentleman who circumnavigated the world in 80 days without ever losing his poise. And no, the picture below is not that of Mr Fogg’s cat. Merely an example of the Loxia 85 wide open.

The Loxia 85 is one such lens and, indeed, Fogg would have loved it. It is fairly compact, for a 85mm full-metal prime that is, and shares a common filter thread with the 3 other Loxia lenses (52mm). That commonality dictates the single performance parameter of the Loxia 85 that stands out: its (relatively) slow maximum aperture of f:2,4. So, how does it all add up?

Testing a lens is both exciting and boring. Exciting, because it is a potential new toy, something that can bring fun to your photography, and maybe enhance your sense of achievement. Boring because you have to take the same shot with multiple apertures, multiple lenses of similar focal length, and any fun in that, believe me, soon wears off. You can imagine my glee at leaving that part to Pascal…:-)

So let’s start with the fun part. Put the lens on, take a shot of a subject you know well, and look at the rear LCD of the camera, then magnify at 100%. Not forgetting that you only get one chance to make a good first impression .:-) With some lenses, that is all it takes, and you know. You go “Wow!”, and you know this is the start of a beautiful relationship. Or you may go “Meh!” and you think: “do I really need to do any more, I know how this ends up?….”

No point in maintaining any suspense here, DearSusan is not a site where the meat of the review is behind a pay wall, and you only get the teaser for free. Take a shot with the Loxia 85, and -Wow!- you are right up there with some of the world’s best lenses. For reference, I used it in comparison to the Sony 85 f:1,4 GM and Leica M Elmarit 90 f:2,8. And I compared some pictures with those from an Otus 85 f:1,4, a ZE 85 f: 1,4, a Sony FE 90 G macro f:2,8. Lofty territory indeed, and it held its own like a perfect gentleman.

Now to facts. Designing this can’t have been easy, because MM. Zeiss had decided that Loxia would be a line of compact manual lenses designed for the Sony FE mount that (a) had a common 52mm filter size, (b) would appeal to both photographers and videographers, and (c) had a common look and feel.

The common, compact size excluded making a fast (meaning f:1,4) 85. It just couldn’t be done with that filter size. But 85/90mm lenses are supposed to be portrait lenses, and, for portrait, you want a fast aperture to get a maximum amount of separation between the face and the background . Zeiss themselves do a fast-ish 85 for the same Sony cameras. It isn’t overly large or heavy, and it costs pretty much the same as the Loxia, it is the autofocus Batis 85 f:1,8. Don’t think that, because they come from the same stable, that of Zeiss, Batis and Loxia are part of the same range, they aren’t. Batis are for people who want/need autofocus. Interestingly, they were released not long before Leica went autofocus in 35mm format with their SL camera. Not a coincidence, many pairs of eyes are getting older, and can’t MF that well any more. Loxia, on the other hand, are manual focus like the other Zeiss lenses.

But no way could a 85 f:1,8 fit the Loxia form factor. It would have to be a f:2,4 lens. So, before they even started the design, Zeiss had more or less conceded the single most obvious application for that lens, the thin-DOF portrait. It is like designing a family car that only seats 4. Did you say counterintuitive? There are precedents, though: the Contax G 90mm, a remarkable Zeiss design of years past, was f:2,8, and the Leica Elmarit 90 was also f:2,8. Also, don’t think either that this new lens doesn’t provide any separation. It does, and beautifully, too, as some of these pictures demonstrate. Just not as much, and not with a razor-thin DOF, the way a f:1,4 lens would. But a perfect gentleman shouldn’t judged on his ability to compete with Usain Bolt, should he?

On the other hand, the new Loxia had to be what owners of the other Loxias expected it to be. Not only physically (format) and mechanically (haptics), but also optically. Including the recent and more-than-excellent 21mm f:2,8. Which means high micro-contrast, and a very clean, clear rendering, free of the distortions that weaken other designs, and with the “pop” and 3D that owners equate with owning a Zeiss lens. For reference, the picture below is straight-out-of-camera, and the one under it a 100% crop. Did I say lots of detail?

So, is there a life for slow-ish 85s?

The long and the short of it is: you bet there is! And it is fun, too! That is where MM. Zeiss show that they are not only competent, they are actually clever. Because the Loxia 85 is “only” f:2,4, the battle for the hearts and souls of the bokeh-freaks is lost. Or is it? Because bokeh can be creamy, wiping out any detail in the out-of-focus parts of the picture. Or it can be structured, and contain much graphical detail, though out of focus. And Zeiss decided, if we can’t get super-creamy bokeh, we will design a lens that will appeal to the structured bokeh crowd. Those who want the out-of-focus part of the picture to participate in the storytelling. That is not unusual for Zeiss, whose lenses have always been more on the structured side than overly creamy, but, with the Loxia 85, they outdid themselves. This lens has (a) very beautiful, structured bokeh indeed, and (b) great depth of field and (c) gradual transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. The result: a storyteller’s dream. This is where I believe that Zeiss have actually made significant progress recently. They now know how to design every aspect of a lens’ performance exactly to specification. I first noticed it with the Otus 28, and its telephoto-esque amount of blur, and here the opposite with the Loxia 85.

Now to results: what does the Loxia do for its owner? Simply, straight from wide open, which admittedly isn’t the widest, it delivers superbly clear shots, with massive detail and beautiful colors, abundant 3D and a drawing style which I can only describe as “on the gentlemanly side of absolutely neutral”. The pictures never raise questions as to whether they are sharp enough, ‘cause they are plenty sharp, but not “in-your-face-sharp”. Seeing the lovely colors and the painterly rendering, you might be tempted to think “low micro-contrast”. That would be a mistake, because the micro-contrast is actually quite high, definitely higher than the mild Sony FE 85GM, and in keeping with the recent –and great- Loxia 21. Again, Zeiss manage to improve in one area without losing out on another. You get colors and detail and contrast and neutrality, all in one. Wow! Very, very wow!

Basically, a direct comparison with shots from the Sony (2x the price), the Leica (also 2x the price in its time) and the Otus 85 (4x) shows that the Loxia pictures look to be of an equivalent quality level…. Wow! This lens in a way reminds me of my beloved ZE 85 f:1,4 Planar. In the ZE/ZF days (now replaced by Milvus), Zeiss offered 2 pairs of lenses. The 50 and 85 f:1,4, and the 50 and 100 f:2,0 Makro Planar. The Makro Planar pair offered immaculate performance at close range, and tremendous take-no-prisoners sharpness. The f:1,4 duo offered warmer, more romantic colors, and a gentle, graceful rendering. That, alas, they also came with all manners of aberrations, and shooting close up and wide open was just not a practical option. The Loxia seems to have much of the 85 Planar in its DNA. The beautiful colors, the gentleness, the overall loveliness that it imbues its pictures with. Fortunately, the aberrations are gone, and the Loxia is strikingly “clean” in this respect. But the very wide and fast aperture couldn’t make it, at least in a Loxia…

But you shouldn’t take this as meaning that the Loxia is an Otus, only much smaller, lighter and cheaper. It isn’t, primarily because (a) it is much slower, and (b) while there is little CA, it isn’t quite an APO lens. And the Otus has “something” special…

What Zeiss have done IMHO is made a clear choice. Rather than a lens that does many things “as well as possible”, they have chosen a lens that does everything it can superlatively, but there are things it can’t do. Rather than compromise each shot as the price to pay for broadening the lens’ capability (the sort of approach that leads to designing AF zooms), they have made the opposite choice: superb, but only for certain applications.

How does it integrate in the Loxia lineup? The star, to my mind, is the 21mm. Simply, the reference in that focal length. I would say that, within its relative speed limit, the 85 is as good. Maybe even, if, like me, you like a gentleman more than an athlete, you might find even a little bit better. It is, in a way everything I like best about the Loxia 50, the lovely colors, and the rendering, but made more modern with an infusion of the 21’s clarity and detail, yet without any of the countervailing loss one would expect. Very wow indeed!

So who is this sort-of-specialist lens for? The first category that comes to mind is the storyteller. Whether you are doing street, where you want to highlight your subject, yet show the context (thanks for the structured bokeh!), or landscape, when you stop down to where the slowness of the lens doesn’t matter at all. Or outdoor, where you have lots of available light, and where low weight matters for hiking. Or video, where you need a manual focus lens that has the same look as its brethren. So, while many bloggers may post snide knee-jerk comments about the worst speed-to-cost ratio, and thus the Loxia won’t win the specification game, there are oh-so-many photo-and-videographers that will love it to death. They also know how good “slow” lenses can be, like the Leica Elmar 24mm f:3,8 and the Super Elmar 21mm f:3,4, both of which are considered better for landscape than their larger, heavier, more expensive Summilux stablemates. Or the Leica R APO Telyt 180 f:3,4.

A quick word about using the Loxia. Just as the Sony A7 line has grown in size and weight (and performance) in its V2 iteration, the Loxia 85 is no small and light lens. Yes, it feels full-metal and very solidly built, and it balances well on my A7RII, but the I-have-given-up-my-DSLR-in-favor-of-mirrorless-because-of-lower-weight crowd are not going to get as light a lens as they’d want. Think more Leica R than Leica M. And, like other Loxia, it is a delight to use from a haptics point of view. Precise and smooth, well-damped focusing, automatic switch to magnify when you focus, a nice aperture ring, full EXIF. I wouldn’t have minded slightly shorter MFD, though, at 80cm, it can’t be criticized, but a shorter one would have been even nicer for flower shots and the likes.

So, 2 questions before I conclude: is the Loxia 85 an überlens? And am I going to buy one?

No, the Loxia is not an überlens. To achieve that hallowed status, a lens needs to produce superlative IQ. And the Loxia does that in spades. But it also needs to do it across a broad spectrum of situations, and there, the Loxia doesn’t measure up. So what does that make it? A lens that produces überlens-level pics, but “only” in many –but not all- situations? Because Zeiss have so brilliantly designed its performance envelope, I choose to call it a designer lens. Like a designer dress…

And the last question: will I buy one? As I already own a larger, heavier, costlier Sony FE 85 GM f:1,4, an überlens in its own right, though the Loxia can deliver even better results in some cases, I won’t. I chose the Sony to have at least one AF lens, so my choice is clear. But, as and when my age catches up with the weight of my lenses, and I go for a lighter system, I can’t imagine a better choice for a lighter 85 than the Loxia…

Habitual readers of DearSusan know of our strange custom to give lenses a name. But only those lenses that we, Pascal and I, love. Hence, the Otus 85 is Hubert (French version of Über). The Milvus 85 is Max. Well, the Loxia 85 earned itself a name. George. A royal name in its own right, as befits a perfect gentleman. But, for us, a different breed of George. George Smiley, the spy master from the John Le Carré spy novels. Why? Because Zeiss lent us this lens under strict secrecy guidelines. And also because George Smiley tried to bring/maintain some sort of propriety in this sorry world that was the Cold War espionage. A gentleman in a world of double agents, liars, thugs and hookers.

PS: a brief (and sad) afterword. Dr Hubert Nasse, über-scientist at Zeiss, passed away in late August. I cannot help but think that every picture I take with my Otus incorporates a tiny bit of Dr Nasse’s soul, which would indicate he had a very, very beautiful soul. R.i.p. Dr Hubert Nasse

Posted on DearSusan by philberphoto.

Yes, it does and I’m beginning to like it a lot.

For a V1.0 release it’s pretty good. No crashes, interfaces with Lightroom, Aperture, PS etc.

I’ve not tried all the options and have done little more than fiddle so far, but as an editor, I’m impressed. The browser/workflow tools are still in development; promised soon.

It edits in studio make-up mode; splash the filter/effect on and then refine to taste. Sounds a bit extreme, but I don’t do Xmas chocolate boxes, calendars and/or “awesome” landscapes for Facebook, so the toning-down option is pretty welcome.

The interface is good, but not intuitive (yet) – I’ve still to get used to it.

The sliders do. They don’t jump around like Lightroom’s do when you release the mouse.

Edits and visuals are not that fast yet – LR is definitely still quicker.

Plug-ins aren’t really available yet, so these are samples – just RAW images re-worked in Luminar to see if it does the basics. It does.

Pretty well too, much more user-friendly than LR, although that could never be difficult.

More soon. Promise.

Here are two images I shot yesterday in Osaka:

Bikes. Lightroom processed image first, using a Velvia plug in. Luminar second, no plug in, just an approximation.

Woman in izakaya. Lightroom processed image first, using in-camera Acros emulation. Luminar second, processed to produce a good image.

Posted on DearSusan by paulperton.

While Paul navigated Japan and experimented with the very promising Luminar software, I was closer to home, in Berlin, making a set of photographs in various situations to compare the outputs of Capture One and Adobe Lightroom.

Lightroom got me very excited in the early days. Compared to my workhorse of the moment, Photoshop, the newcomer created a much better digital reenactment of the darkroom processes of my childhood. Instead of software for the digital creator, it felt like a digital experience created by photographers for photographers.

And it probably was.

More recently, however, 3 pain-points have gradually depleted the love and encouraged me to start looking elsewhere:

1. The excruciating file management bugs which not only make it a nightmare to locate files but also to back them up.
2. The move to a saas model which, although very natural from a business-model point of view, should have been handled with more empathy for long time customers. Today the Lightroom + Photoshop bundle is a steal at 12€ / month but the fate of files when you stop paying that money still isn’t as 100% clear in my mind as the original – and undefendable –  initial announcements. It takes minutes to damage a reputation and years to repair it.
3. Sony customers having to live with the nagging feeling that not only is their camera not the best at extracting finest colours from their sensor but also that not all RAW processors are created equal. Probably through not fault of theirs, Adobe stand at a disadvantage compared to Phase One (Sony partner) on that front.

So, temptation to try Capture One has been high for a long time, even though past attempts had resulted in a “life’s too short” knee-jerk reaction to the far less intuitive and flowing interface that Phase One had plagued their offering with. It took dedicated followers of quality such as coauthor Philippe to jump ship and face the learning curve.

This time, however, no chickening out of the trial.

One immediate nail in Lightroom’s coffin, for Sony users, is that the Express version of Capture One (a more basic version than the Pro, which doesn’t allow local adjustments, for instance) is free …

A second is that it’s very easy to import (into Capture One) files that have already been imported into Lightroom. The RAW files aren’t duplicated and the catalog is totally separate from Lightroom, as is the output folder you specify.

All of which makes a comparison very easy to perform.

And here we have it. I’ll get into the specifics of workflow and ergonomics in a more fully fledged review. The topic of today’s article is the different looks you can achieve and (are naturally drawn to) using the two pieces of software. Is Capture One really superior on Sony files ? Considering Lightroom’s more intuitive interface and ability to integrate with a huge range of third-party filters and presets, Capture One needs a solid win in this department to justify the effort.

In LightRoom, very high dynamic range situations are handled either by lowering the highlights / pushing the shadows via dedicated sliders, or lowering global contrast or via the curve editor, which replicates the same effects. Using the sliders can lead to a slightly lifeless image which can be livened-up via clarity or a slight mid-tones contrast boost (curve).

In capture one, the highlights and shadow sliders belong to an HDR group and act on the shoulders of the contrast curves. They seem to lower the contrast of highlights and deep-shadows as well as bring them closer to mid-tones. This results in a more lively mi-range, on which you can also work via a strangely named brightness slider. Clarity can also be added, but comes in two flavours/sliders: structure, which basically adds micro-contrast and clarity, which is very similar to the one found in Lightroom (but seems to have a more limited effect).

All photos above were processed in Lightroom. Below, you’ll find pairs of Lightroom / Capture One photographs, for comparison. Note again that this is the free version of C1, so all the C1 photographs on this page have only received global adjustments.

On paper, Capture One’s approach is slightly less intuitive. At the computer, however, it’s very satisfying indeed. To the point that even the free Express version (no perspective correction, no local adjustments) makes the Lightroom + Nik combo feel quite redundant. But how much all of this matters in real-life is really for each person to decide. So, on with the comparison pairs.

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

One major issue I still can’t understand or find a solution to is this: the jpg files from Lightroom (sRGB) look very similar here (on a relatively low gamut screen) to the file viewed inside the program. Whereas with Capture One, the files look a lot more saturated in the software than in the final jpg, whatever the output profile. So I’m providing a few sets of variants (ProPhoto, AdobeRGB, sRGB) for a few photographs so you can make your own opinion.

Lightroom

Capture One

Capture One AdobeRGB

Capture One sRGB

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Capture One (AdobeRGB)

Capture One (sRGB)

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Capture One, AdobeRGB.

Lightroom

Capture One

Capture One, AdobeRGB

None of these pairs were scientifically matched. White balance settings in Capture One do not mirror those found in Lightroom and image management is quite different. So these probably represent where the software took me more than how close the two can be made to look.

What I’m seeing is a more natural image with Capture One. More lifelike and realistic (which is also how Paul’s Luminar processings felt).

Which is great … when that’s what you’re going for. Capture One is obviously software designed for working professional photographers and it shows in the great realism of the final image. Sometimes, that feels a little dull compared to the more vibrant and saturated output from Lightroom. But it’s fairly obvious you can boost saturation and clarity on C1 to make it look like LR whereas it’s a lot more difficult to find the natural beauty in files that have been slightly overcooked from step 1, inside the RAW processing.

Horse for courses and a choice of individual tastes, then.

One area where I find Capture One absolutely sings, is B&W. Stay tuned, that’s the topic of the next article.

So, what do you see ?

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

Continuing my comparison of Adobe Lightroom and Phase One Capture One photo editors, here is a sequence on B&W conversions.

So it’s fitting to start with a colour image, right? Just to set the scene of the first conversion.

Capture One in colour, AdobeRGB profile

Capture One

This conversion used one of the built-in presets. The one below used a second. We can all agree the looks are very different, but neither is an overbaked caricature. Unlike some (fun but) exaggerated looks you can get from Nik Silver Efex, these two examples are very typical of what Capture One’s presets will give you: a very distinct set of aesthetics but with a strong dose of realism always present.

Capture One

Let’s do that again. I’m loving Capture One’s B&W conversion so much, I can’t resist inflicting more on you Not even sorry !

Capture One

Capture One, B&W profile 1

Capture One, B&W profile 2

Capture One, B&W profile 3

OK, two more, with Lightroom added for good measure.

Adobe Lightroom

Adobe Lightroom B&W

Capture One

Capture One, different preset

This is particularly revealing. By no stretch of the imagination a scientific test, but one that mirrors what was already visible in colour: there seems to be a better management of the luminosity channel in Capture One, which makes it sing in B&W.

It also shows how different presets produce different looks. Lightroom also provides a few “filters” that pretend to mimic glass or gel filters of traditional B&W film (or Leica Monochrom) persuasion. They look nothing like the results of actual colour filters, but the results are still worth your time.

More interesting results can be achieved in both software, by manipulating the hue, saturation and lightness of the colours in the colour mixer B&W conversion.

In both cases, sliders let you dial in more or less of each colour into the final monochrome (just like glass filters would) and a colour editor lets you alter the properties (as opposed to the quantity) of each of these colours. Capture One provides a Smoothness (and Uniformity in the pro version) slider that’s really helpful for tone control.

Most of this can be done in Lightroom as well, but the Capture One implementation seems to produce more visible, yet more sublte, results.

Lightroom

Capture One

Lightroom

Capture One

Which conversion you prefer is a matter of personal taste, but on the two pairs above, it took considerable local retouching in Lightroom to come close to what was possible in Capture One with global adjustments alone.

Adobe Lightroom B&W

Capture One

Here are a few random conversions on a bleak shot.

Adobe Lightroom

Adobe Lightroom B&W Profile 1

Adobe Lightroom B&W Profile 2

Adobe Lightroom B&W Profile 3

Adobe Lightroom B&W Profile 4

Capture One

Capture One, B&W Profile 1

Capture One, B&W Profile 2

Capture One, B&W Profile 3

Capture One, B&W Profile 5

My preference, in general, goes to Capture One. That’s not to say this is systematic. On the example below (Paris, not Berlin), Lightroom does a more pleasing job. A similar result can probably be achieved by altering the colours behind the B&W conversion, but I couldn’t replicate the LR look easily.

Capture One

Capture One B&W

Adobe Lightroom

So that’s it. There’s little more I can add to these samples. Photography is subjective and monochrome work even more so.

I’ve always been happy with Lightroom’s B&W conversions, particularly with the complement of Nik Silver Efex 2, and don’t want to turn this into a sterile match. My point here is merely that Capture One does a wonderful job and that Nik’s tools wouldn’t be missed at all given the range of controls Phase One have crammed into Capture One. And that’s without local adjustments.

To end this, here are a few more from Capture One, photos mostly from Paris and London.

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

Capture One

What do you think?

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

A few weeks ago, my article (The MacBook Pro. Overpriced gimmick or World’s best laptop for photographers ?) garnered comments that where overwhelmingly … divided. Talk about entrenched camps. Interestingly, the transfuges who raised their hands seemed to be exiting the Mac world, drawn by the sirens of powerful GPU cards (Razer Blade …) and innovative thinking (Microsoft Surface Studio …).

All of which left me very undecided, until the screen hinge on my works horse XMG broke in half. Time to make up my mind.

Well, against the advice of 99% of my entourage and most of the online media, facing the scorn of my children and the disgust of my work partners, my money went to Cupertino.

Hats off to One Paul Perton for that Paul patiently explained the upsides of Macintosh ownership, the joy of using well honed machines and the long-life and reliability he’s experienced for the past 20 years. Up to the point when, unimpressed by my inability to make up my child’s mind, he summed his advice up in a short & sweep wrapper that leaves Nike looking drab and uninspired: “Just f$&king do it! You won’t regret it”.

So, here we are, 5 weeks later, with me typing this post on an unfamiliar keyboard with the speed of an dim-witted 4 year-old, two fingers and tongue sticking out. I f$&king did it, spent twice what I wanted to and live to tell the tale.

Do I regret it? Heck no!

Not now, anyway.

Bed of roses ? Not really! Devilishly hard, rather .

It’s an incredible amount of hidden automation we have inside ourselves. Not just the keyboard shortcuts, but the logics of file management, OS oddities, trackpad weirdness … For a life-long PC user, a Mac betters Aesop’s tongue as best and worst of all things.

The Good

Where do I start? No, that’s easy. The screen. The screen alone is 60% of why I bought the new MBP. And it is brilliant beyond anything I’ve seen on a laptop before. Colours look pure. Compared to a Samsung S7 and an S6, it is less saturated and flattering, slightly more neutral. Compared to my old screen, well, you actually can’t really compare it, it’s so in another league completely. Compared to the excellent Dell XPS 13, it’s a lot brighter and at tad more alive. Blazing mediterranean winter sun on the screen, everything remains super easy to read with the screen at 60% power, even though it is super glossy. Fantastic.

The touchbar is brilliant. It may be a small productivity boost but is mostly a very pleasant user experience. All the emoticon I have inflicted upon you are just one (silly) example of the numerous uses for this dynamic tool: as soon as I type a word, related emoticons appear on the touch bar. Example: angel . And there’s a lot more: on the fly volume and brightness adjustments, tab switch, editing tools that would be hidden inside menus …

Also, standard apps are brilliant. Pareto would get a boner. Pages, Photos, Keynote,  … as far as my limited experience goes, these really are a case of doing 80% of the work at 20% of the effort. Photos is actually a superb, lightweight piece of kit. The first photo (plane in clouds) was processed in Photos, using the inbuilt Apple RAW processor.

Luminar preset

Luminar preset

Some shortcuts are really intuitive and time-saving. Multilingual auto correct on all apps is a huge time saver for me. The list goes on.

The Bad

Some shortcuts are bewildering. 3 finger dancing gets old quite quickly.

Onboarding. Seriously guys … when you’re turning an innovative star into a cash-cow behemoth as Tim Cook is doing, you really need better on boarding than this. Coming from the PC world, a Mac sends a culture shock greater than

Finder. I must be missing something, but Finder feels very uninspired.

Compatibility and drive management. Put simply,  to one of my PC backup devices work on the Mac. I have to format one from scratch then copy stuff onto it. Silver lining: it can be formatted for Mac and PC (which is probably not easy from the PC side of the pond, so I shouldn’t complain).

Keyboard. It’s fast and pleasant to use. But the placement of familiar symbols is just all over the place and downright painful to relearn. Why oh why is it so difficult for companies to settle on a standard keyboard …

The Ugly

Ugly and Mac are rarely found in the same sentence. This is one magnificent looking piece of kit. But this restless search for pretty does induce some pretty unpleasant behaviours. Some situations involving slightly technical manipulations (installing software for instance) are dealt with using pretty graphics and no text at all, leaving the neophyte baffled and frustrated.

Some tiny, unexplained, unprotected icons can dismount drives in a single mistake click, leaving yours-truly in a state of rage not seen since Steve Jobs demo tantrums. Generally speaking, I can’t help feel some features are pretty for the sake of being pretty, at the expense of user experience. Modern PCs feel more logical in some respects.

Processed with Luminar

But that’s pretty much it. Cold Turkey? Yeah, plenty. That beast was enormous. But no withdrawal syndrome from leaving the PC behind.

As honestly and free from choice-supportive bias as possible, I LOVE this thing !

But it didn’t come alone.

MacPhun Luminar

60% screen, 10% reliability – I’m going to want to change it after a few years, anyway – that leaves 30% in my reasons for buying pie-chart. Luminar accounts for those. After looking for alternatives to LightRoom long and hard, Luminar caught my attention and actually made me buy an expensive computer just to run it. Stupid, right?

The thing is, Luminar is excellent! Really.

The marketing positioning is this: the only photo editing app that evolves with your skills. Be that as it may, the customisable work environment is really interesting. I’ll get back into this in a more formal review, but you can start with presets to find something that suits the photograph and your tastes, move on to filters for a more refined approach then fine tune with abundant local retouching tools.

The software builds onto the excellent Photos app and feels like a Photoshop / LightRoom hybrid. All photos on this page except the first were processed using Luminar.

Happy Camper ?

You bet. The combination of a near perfect screen, fast machine, software that comes closer to single-stop (for my needs) than any other before is really all I could have hoped for. So far, I highly recommend this combo: 5 DS stars.

More, much more very soon. Questions about this setup? Fire away

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

This is not, strictly speaking, a formal review of Apple Photos, the free MacOs photo-cataloging, photo-editing application. More of an unrant (a rant is what you complain about something, an unrant is when you compliment, but in an equally subjective and biased manner).

And if you think about it, much of what is written here applies to the whole Mac universe.

It’s kind of funny to be promoting Macs when they’ve bored or repelled me all those years. I always knew there was something special about them, and many of my turncoat friends told me they would never go back. But the closed-wall environment was not for me, and much of the strong points felt gimmicky.

It’s also funny to be promoting Macs when most of the Mac community has elected to shun the new MacBook Pro releases. Yet, it’s hard to think of a more pleasant environment in which to be editing and viewing photographs. And I’ve seen … a lot. Note the use of ‘pleasant’ rather than ‘best’. So many people get hooked up on specs and reports from men in white blouses that never see the light of day … Forgive me for taking the hedonistic road to my hobby.

This, then, is all about why I’m happy to have made the switch to this hipster environment of photo editing.

So, Photos …

A confusing name to use for a reviewer, really. In the following, the upper case denotes the app, the lower case refers to actual pictures. Onwards?

For those who’ve never used the app, the photograph above constitutes a whole review. That really is all of it.

A photo (lower case) on the left, a set of sliders on the right.

So, what’s all the fuss about ?

In a word, simplicity. Refreshing, brilliantly executed simplicity.

Simplicity is the hardest thing to do well. And some apps in the MacOS environment drive me bonkers. Finder, for example, seems designed for numb nuts. But Photos (upper case) ? No sir.

Above is the catalog mode. There are other fancy features that bundle images with close timestamps into memory albums. Let’s ignore that. Double click an image in the catalog and it opens up. Click Edit and the first view, above, appears with a range available adjustment.

Global adjustments only. By default, Light, Colour and Black & White. The Add menu, at top, can supplement these with Sharpen, Definition, Noise Reduction, Vignette, White Balance and Levels.

Simple, uncluttered but not dumbed down. The app is as easy to use as Instagram or any other app with presets. However, the difference with these is this: the range of editing the sliders give access to is huge and under your control. Some, like the Brilliance slider in the Light section, depart from the traditional darkroom controls (exposure, contrast …) and provide really interesting alternatives to them.

And the real kickers are the very first sliders in each section.  Each of these acts on all the others in the section to provide a wide range of “presets”, from which you can fine tune by acting on the individual sliders in the section. Thing is, though, these “preset” sliders are really “consistent”. Unlike saturation or other controls that can soon look overcooked, these maintain photographic consistence throughout their range. Unlike some products from other manufacturers, it’s pretty clear real photographers had their say in the development of this clever application.

Beyond these, you’ll find the usual crop (beautifully executed) and retouching (cloning) tools as well as a set of Instagram-like filters that really serve no purpose given how easy it is to create your own editing.

To sum all this up, I’ll just say that the global adjustments offered by this simple set of controls very rarely leaves me wanting for local tools. Which is saying a lot. That’s both a huge time saver and a guarantee for natural looking images.

If something goes overboard in Photos, Luminar can be called up in a couple of clicks. If some special local wizardry is needed, ditto, Luminar to the rescue. Above is a photograph with a dose of Luminar magic added to it. It has more mood than the one shown inside Photos (top of the page), but also looks less natural.

And natural is how I’d qualify Photos. Brilliantly simple and natural. Of course, Luminar (and Tonality, more on which later) builds on this.

To give you an idea, here is a photograph processed in Lightroom, Capture One and Photos. My main worry with the Apple environment was the quality of its RAW processor. But, to my eyes, the Photos rendition is the best of the three here. That’s not to say Photos is systematically superior to the two others, but it’s at least in the same ballpark. Good.

Processed in LightRoom

Processed in Apple Photos (ex iPhoto)

Processed in Capture One

Let me end with a few more photographs processed in Photos. With Lightroom I’ve always struggled to make this sort of drab image pop without looking unnatural.

And here, it was belting down with rain. It’s safe to say the gloomy atmosphere and vapour in the air are very well rendered here.

Photos isn’t without its issues. There are some minor bugs such as weird black streaks on some pics (see on first image) and broken thumbnails. But, all in all it’s a very satisfying piece of kit. Many of the free apps on the Mac are pleasantly simple and rewarding like this.

Some photographers love doing their processing in-camera, using inbuilt filters. Others enjoy assembling super elaborate contraptions, using 6 or 7 pieces of software to build their workflow. To me, Photos is the Goldilocks of photo editing environment. It’s brought back a lot of the fun and enthusiasm that my previous kit was slowly killing off. Goodie.

So. Wadjathink ?

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

This is a very interesting guest post by Brian Patterson on how and why to adapt enlarger lenses to outfit modern day cameras. Refreshing … Be sure to click on the clematis shot, it is full size and shows the lovely image quality of the lens. Brian, thanks a lot for sharing this.

That’s the best title I could come up with for this wonky article – honest. How else do you introduce the idea of shooting images with enlarger lenses? There. I’ve said it. I take pictures using old enlarger lenses. I know. Who taught this guy to take pictures anyway?

All you white-collar Batis and Loxia shooters can take a long yawn if you’ve stopped reading already. I don’t blame you. It struck me as more than just odd to seriously consider going down this road. Until I saw images made this way and realized you can’t always get these results with normal taking lenses.

So, you interested? You’re still reading so I’ll take that as a ‘yes’.

There’s a big assortment of enlarger lenses out there – some are better than others. Rodenstock Rodagons. Schneider-Kreuznach Componons. And even more you probably haven’t heard of, like the Russian Vega-5U 105/4 I fell in love with. Mounted on a bellows, my sample captures 2:1 and 1:1 images as sharp and contrasty images.

Did I tell you the best part? They’re cheap! But that’s not why I buy them. Primarily, it’s the combination of wide open aperture performance and a variable bokeh that draws us flies to this flame. Flat field enlarger optics have little or no CA, little or no distortion and little or no lack of sharpness that even some pricey ‘camera’ lenses won’t give you.

The purpose of this article is to offer some insight on using enlarger lens with modern digital cameras – on my 24MP Sony a65, in this case. The aforementioned Rodagon, Componon and Vega models are a great starting point for this adventure. You’ll need a bellows, of course.

For this primer, we’ll look at samples from my Rodenstock 80/5.6 and Vega-5U 105/4 lenses. First, what these optics look like mounted on my Sony a65. The Vega-5U is used for closeups and macro while the Rodagon gets to work at longer distances on the street.

First up is the Russian Vega-5U 105/4 – a Zeiss Biometar optical design reproduction made up of 5 elements in 3 groups intended to enlarge 6X7 images on 120/220 roll film.

Next, the Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 – a 1980’s optical design intended to enlarge 6X4.5 and 6X6 film images taken on 120/220 roll film. The Rodagon still represents their premiere enlarger lens formula. A $30 42mm >39mm helicoid, coupled with a short extension tube for closeup/macro subjects, and M42>MA adapter enables a wide focusing range.

Eat Your Veggies!

It’s important to tell you at this point that I grow vegetables. They make great models. Always smiling in the morning sun. At least one good side, once you find it. Available anytime you need them. And they have plenty of bugs for friends. So every time I get a new, uh, old lens, it just takes a few minutes to get the skinny on how good they are, or aren’t.

Vega-5U 105/4 & Basic Bokeh

Vega-5U 105/4 & Mid Aperture Bokeh

Vega-5U 105/4 & Infinity Bokeh 1 (Blueberries)

Vega-5U 105/4 & Infinity Bokeh 2 (shown w/ Zeiss Tessar T 50/2.8)

Vega-5U 105/4 & Macro Bokeh (Yellow Squash)

Vega-5U 105/4 Macro (Clematis)

Vegas-5U 105/4 Infinity Sharpness Check 1

Vegas-5U 105/4 Infinity Sharpness Check 2

Next up is the 1980’s Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6, their premium enlarger formula of the day. IQ is excellent wide open and even better just one stop down. This nearly apochromatic enlarger lens is still available for today’s film shooter.

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Wide Open

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Infinity Bokeh 1

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Infinity Check

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Close Up

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Infinity Bokeh 2

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Distortion Check

Rodenstock Rodagon Contrast Check

Rodenstock Rodagon 80/5.6 Wide Open

So why in the world would anyone go to the trouble to shoot with these lenses? Personally, I love the optical properties they possess and the renditions they create. The sharpness is so rewarding and the variety of bokeh effects seem endless and easily accomplished with a little practice. For landscapes and street shooting they are tiny and essentially weightless. And they can be found for $50-60 in excellent condition by the savvy online buyer.

Everyone loves an adventure. This one is straight out of the darkroom…

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

This is a new hands-on guest post about the new Leica M10 and 4 interesting lenses by reader PaulB. Here’s is his bio and introduction :

“My name is Paul Barclay and I have been practicing photography for the past 33 years. I began pursuing photography seriously after graduating from Engineering school, and early in my career I had the good fortune of being able to mix industrial photography with engineering for about 12 years. Today I am involved with the business side of my industry rather than engineering, so my photography is personal.

I began my photographic journey using film with an Argus medium format camera, though I quickly upgraded to a Nikon SLR system. In the mid-2000’s I switched from Nikon to Leica, made a serious effort into large format landscape photography, and was a contributing photographer to an online magazine during the internet’s infancy. Today, I still have my large format equipment, though I mostly use Leica and Olympus cameras, with a Sony A7II on the side.

My favorite forms of photography are street, travel, and landscapes.”

Thanks Paul !

I know the title of this article seems a bit strange, but my first impression of the Leica M10 came a few days after it’s announcement when I visited my favorite Leica dealer. When I walked in the door I was surprised to find one of the store’s regular Leica users holding a new M10 in the leather half case. This was the proud new owner of what was most likely the first M10 in Seattle. Needless to say, my first impressions from talking with this new owner and handling my dealer’s demonstration sample gave me the desire to try the M10 for longer than just a few minutes in the store.

My first opportunity to really use the camera, with my lenses, came a couple of weeks later when my dealer let me borrow their camera. Since I was only able to use the camera for about 2 hours this is my second impression. I would need a much longer period of time to write a review. In addition, since several good reviews have already been written, I needed to have a different point of view in order to provide what I hope is valuable information to anyone reading this. So I decided I would use four legacy lenses with the camera set to ISO 800; there will be more about this setting later. The lenses selected were the 135 mm APO-Telyt M, a first generation 50 mm Summilux M, a 21mm Elmarit M-ASPH, and a mystery lens.

After picking up the camera from my dealer, I walked a few short blocks to South Lake Union and one of Seattle’s jewels for photography, The Center for Wooden Boats. As the first image above shows, the camera was equipped with the optional grip base, a hot shoe cover, and no camera strap. It also shows how much larger the rangefinder window is and the location of the ISO dial.

When I arrived at my destination, I took a little time to check the camera menus, the button and switch layout, and their function. During this time I noticed how different the power switch configuration is. It’s just a two-position switch, off and on, rather than a four-position switch as on my M9. I started using the camera set to single frame advance and later changed to sequential frame advance. The button function on the camera and the menu choices are simple and the way I thought they should be. When I started my photography session I thought I might miss the versatility of the four-position switch on the M9. But if you have ever found yourself in the situation where you have missed images because the switch gets bumped to self-timer, or between settings, you will quickly appreciate the new switch. It is very simple and it works.

The second thing I noticed is the shape and size of the grip, and the size and position of the thumb rest molded into the rear face of the camera. My first thought of the grip was I might like it to be slightly wider, left to right, and possibly shaped slightly farther around the side of the camera body. In using the camera for almost 2 hours I never gave the grip or the thumb rest a second thought. Their size and placement provided for a secure and comfortable hold on the camera. Considering that about half of the time I was using the grip exclusively with a firm hold, says that it is well done and makes the grip a worthy addition to the camera. This is a bit ironic, considering the attention being paid to the new thinner body.

I started using the camera with the 135mm APO-Telyt M lens, which is probably the most difficult focal length to focus on a Leica. Since 135mm is the limit for the base length between the rangefinder windows, and generally speaking the distance to our subject makes details small in the viewfinder. As the image of the clock below shows, when our subject is fairly close and has large easy to see features, the new viewfinder size and magnification helps with the focusing process. Though when the subject gets farther away, such as with the image of the canoe below, focusing a 135 mm lens can still be a challenge. As the image of the Oar House sign shows, when your subject gets harder to see, it becomes easier to miss-focus. So for photographers with eyes that are under 40 years old, using a 135mm lens with the finder alone may be sufficient for good focus. For my 58 year-old eyes the optional EVF will be a requirement for this lens.

135mm f3.4 APO-Telyt M

135mm f3.4 APO-Telyt M

135mm f3.4 APO-Telyt M

For the rest of my time with the M10, I switched between the other lenses and as you can see all of the images we were challenged by bright sunlight. Which meant using f4+ to f5.6+ in order to keep shutter speeds below the 1/4000 th of a second limit.

The Mystery Lens

50 mm f1.4 Summilux M (Ser. 1)

Even with the exposure challenges presented with this location, all of the above images show the dynamic range potential available with the new sensor. In each of the original files the white boats are very close to being washed out and the shadows are very dark with almost no visible detail. In the case of the 135mm image of the canoe above, the woman under the roofline was the only person visible in the unprocessed image. For the girl on the left, only the shine on her face was visible, and the other girl was not visible at all. In Capture One 9, I was able to bring down the highlights and bring up the shadow details, and the default noise reduction was more than enough to counter the noise in each of the images. I did reduce the noise correction to zero to check a couple of images, and while visible the noise was not offensive.

50 mm f1.4 Summilux M (Ser. 1)

The Mystery Lens

One experience that is not visible in most of the images above is the effect of the new viewfinder size and magnification on the focusing and framing process. In short, the new viewfinder is a big improvement for focusing and framing the 21mm through 50mm lenses I used. For the 21mm, since the camera had a hot shoe cover installed and I did not want to lose it, I used the hard frame edges of the viewfinder instead of my external finder. For this location and subject I think the hard frame edge is reasonably close to the 21 mm field of view, see below. Though I would want to compare this to my finder before I made the choice to leave it behind.

21mm f2.8 Elmarit M-ASPH (Uncropped)

Another thing to point out is I wear glasses, and the new finder size and magnification made seeing the frame lines and focusing much easier than I experience using my M9. Though be aware that since the field of view is much bigger, you may need to alter your technique if you grip your lenses from the top when making vertical images, as your hand may block the viewfinder.

Over all I enjoyed using the M10 and I am pleased with the images presented. Which means I will want to use the camera again for a longer trial. Though, there were acouple of disappointments in this experience. First, I was disappointed I did not take a bit more time to go over the camera to get the feel for all of the features. As old habits die hard when you are busy, and when I realized I needed to reduce the ISO setting I went into the menu instead of adjusting the ISO speed dial. The second disappointment came while choosing images to include in this article. My normal method of making images is to set the camera to record DNG and JPEG files, with the JPEGs set to monochrome. I am used to the wonderful B&W images the M9 produces and the B&W JPEGs from the M10 are not up to that standard. The M10 B&W JPEGs appear to be a simple de-saturation of the color image with a very slight tone adjustment. Hopefully this can be corrected in the future with a firmware update.

For those interested, none of the lenses used are 6-bit coded, so no in camera lens correction was applied. And all the images were processed to taste for exposure, sharpening, noise, alignment, and aspect ratio using Capture One 9. White balance was set for the best gray point in the scene, otherwise no color or lens corrections were applied in post.

Finally, I would like to thank my Leica dealer, Glazer’s Camera, for loaning me the camera, and Pascal Jappy for the opportunity to make a contribution to Dear Susan and it’s readers.

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

We’ve heard a lot about the new medium format cameras from Fuji and Hassleblad and some user reviewers are now surfacing slowly. But what’s been on our mind lately, here at DS, is how these compare to the current star of our Full Frame lineup, the Sony A7rII. And now, thanks to contributor Bob Hamilton, we can.

We only have a few samples to share but these are 100% and converted to jpg in a high quality setting so comparisons are still interesting. If more come our way, we’ll add them to this feed.

Before the pics, a couple of methodology caveats :

(1) Both cameras are using their own glass. So what you’re seeing is a system to system comparison rather than a back to back camera confrontation. Still, that’s what people will be using in real life. So 120mm Macro on the Fuji GFX and Sony G 90 on the A7rII.

(2) Images are processed with LightRoom. And it’s my experience that LightRoom and Sony don’t get along perfectly all the time. Sometimes the colours are a bit off, particularly in the yellow-greens that foliage often exhibits.

So, with that covered, many thanks to Bob and onwards to the photographs. Warning, large files ahead (35MB each).

Sony A7rII & Sony G90 Macro

Fuji GFX & 120 Macro

Second pair

Sony A7rII & Sony G90 Macro

Fuji GFX & 120 Macro

Third set

Sony A7rII & Sony G90 Macro

Fuji GFX & 120 Macro

My conclusions are that the GFX feels a tiny bit less electronic at 100% and colours seem a bit better. On the other hand the A7RII seems a little sharper. But the real conclusion is that, in terms of IQ, both are so close as to make no significant difference, other than colourwise. So, coming from a Sony A7rII corner, it’s hard to see anything compelling enough to make a switch. Moving up from a different system, your mileage may vary.

Then, there’s usability. But we’ve covered that elsewhere, no point on repeating ourselves.

So, what do you think ?

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.

Smartphone photography is a bit of a polarizing topic, here on DearSusan :  some photographers herald it as the definitive solution for close-up, spontaneous, huge DOF explorations, while the arrière-garde argue that they’re perfectly happy with their large bodies (cameras, that is) and super lenses. I personally fall in both camps.

Well now, there may be a unifying solution. It comes from Zeiss, who else, bringing with it the promise of jaw-dropping optical yumminess while bolting on to your ever-present friend, the Smartphone. It’s called the ExoLens, and consists of an exo-skeleton designed to hug your phone and hold a lens over the phone’s inbuilt camera.

My daughter recently bought a similar bolt-on lens systems for her OnePlus 3T phones. A Holga-like fun addition that creates the sort of edge blur you expect from a toy camera and which, let’s be honest, is a lot of fun. Zeiss’s positioning is … different. More … serious. The photograph below (from the ExoLens website) illustrates this point quite clearly. The lenses look like they are polished from diamond by Astraea and a held together by parts that would look at home in a Koenigsegg.

Is this all marketing hype ?

Nope. To me, this is a niche game-changer, with a small target audience that will adore it.

Unboxing the ExoLens System

So, a parcel turned up a few days ago, sent by the great people at Rivolier (Zeiss representative in France) and it felt like they’d mistakenly sent me a baby Otus. Inside the parcel, 4 Exolens boxes : one bracket for iPhone 6/6s, one wide-angle lens, one macro lens, one telephoto lens.

Unboxing followed, somewhat bewildered. Yes, unboxing. Some have questioned the price of these accessories. And I’ve yet to assess image quality. But in terms of packaging and build, you’re clearly getting your money’s worth. This is clearly not toy territory.

In fact this isn’t even usual photo lens territory. The Tele Exolens, while small, is built like a Milvus. Which, for those who’ve never seen one, means heavy and beautiful. Full metal jacket. Large glass elements. Aspheric design. T* coating. The whole shebang. Immensely desirable. Here’s another photograph from the website.

The front of the barrel is roughly 40mm (1.6″). 50mm (2″) with the metal hood. And – wait for it – the lens cap is brilliant. On my MacBook Pro, the above photo is roughly 10:9, 10% over real life size. Adjust according to your dpi resolution

Have they lost their mind ?

However, once past the very positive first impressions, it’s hard not to question the rationale for this lens system.

1) Image quality is never going to be good

Let’s face it. What you’re buying is a real lens. Something like a downsized Milvus 50/1.4 (a brilliant, brilliant lens, by the way). It’s heavy. It’s expensive (by phone standards, dirt cheap by lens standards, and for what you are getting). And, although my shock at seeing these things has prompted me to start writing before any testing, I have no doubt quality will be excellent.

But … Isn’t the final quality of the image tied to the quality of the lens inside the camera ? If so, what’s the point ?

The ExoLenses can’t possibly be optimised for a specific smartphone camera. That would render most of the available mounting brackets useless and would imply a redesign for every new smartphone release.

Here’s what Oliver Schindelbeck, master brain behind the ExoLens system, explains :

The basic parameters of smartphone cameras (Viewing angle, aperture, entrance pupil, sensor size) do not vary so much. The Exolens lenses are afocal systems and we calculated our lenses to fit to the maximum most of these parameters. Therefore the Exolens lenses fit to most of the existing smartphones from optical point of view. The limiting factor in most cases is the mounting of the lenses. We need a very precise and sturdy mounting system to guarantee the image quality (…) afocal photography allows to cover a range of different parameters.

2) But who on earth wants to carry heavy lenses for a Smartphone ?

Well, it’s all relative. The lenses feel large and heavy compared to the plastic toys on offer elsewhere. If you’re worried about carrying 3 Otuses in your bag, don’t be

3 Exolenses and an Otus 85

In fact, the largest is not half the size of my tiniest lens, the C-Sonnar 50. It’s only compared to usual phone accessories that the size is noticeable.

Plus all 3, and the bracket, come with dedicated textile pouches. So, it’s quite conceivable to shove all this into a tiny town bag and carry along a tiny, high quality 16-56mm + macro system with you at all times rather than rely on digital zoom. All for less money than an entry-level compact with crappy ergonomics.

And that does make sense. But …

What if you’re not Wolverine-compatible ?

This one’s a biggie. There are a few mounting brackets available for the most common phones on the market. And, yes, they seem built out of something from Wolverine’s claws. But some people will inevitably fall outside that range. Like me, with my Samsung Galaxy 6. Oliver tells us that a “Sturdy and precise mounting system that aligns the lens in the exact position“ is important and that “Unfortunately in the Android world the variety of phones is too big to offer solutions here.“

So, if you’re listening, Samsung, Google, HTC, LG, OnePlus … (yeah, right) please take note : if you want to compete on photo-related arguments, maybe you need to take serious third-party add-ons into consideration.

If you’re not the owner of a phone compatible with one of the brackets, cases or edge clips provided (see website), you can test your patience by holding the lens in front of your phone’s camera.

But I wouldn’t bother. It’s pretty easy to live-view when you’re centering and when you’re decentering but it’s a very hit (orchid, above) and miss (daffodil, below) affair. With plenty more of one than the other

Since my phone isn’t physically compatible with the mounting bracket, co-author Philippe took on the hard task of making photographs with his iPhone 6 and providing his insights, below …

Shooting with Zeiss Exolens (Philippe)

The promise is simple: a trio of add-on Zeiss lenses for smartphones. What Zeiss do is deliver “other” focal lengths than the native one. One wide, one long-ish, one for macros.

Let’s face it, I was more than skeptical, because I couldn’t see how mounting glass in front of my iPhone 6 was going to make it other than what it is, a very average camera-phone, as high-end smartphones go (Pascal’s Samsung Galaxy S6 runs rings around it, both for IQ and UI/creative software). But it could conceivably make it worse, as many add-on lenses do on high-end camera systems.

iPhone 6 with Exolens Wide

Up to now, I thought if someone has the “right” idea on how implement real camera IQ  on a smartphone, it is Sony with the Qx and DxO with the One. Meaning putting a real camera with APS-C sensor onto the smartphone. The Sony bombed, and I can’t say that I’ve seen the One set the world on fire. Thus the Zeiss sounded like a bad idea: bound by the limitations of the iPhone 6 IQ, and further burdened by the weight (and cost) of the Zeiss add-ons.

iPhone 6 without Exolens

iPhone 6 with x2 Telephoto Exolens

To be honest, to a large degree, I have to eat my own words. I still don’t understand how, but the fact is, my iPhone with Exolens delivers vastly better IQ than without it. Not just marginally better, vastly. It definitely puts it in the Galaxy S7 category in many ways, and ahead of it in some ways. Astounding, shocking even…

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Wide

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Wide

More specifically, and here I am talking about the wide and the long lens add-ons, because a shot with the macro add-on is so different from without it (its range is very close-up indeed) that the two cannot be compared, my phone has more dynamic range (its most frustrating limitation) and vastly better colors than without the add-on.

iPhone 6, no Exolens. Harsh and uninteresting.

iPhone 6 & Zeiss Exolens Tele plus minimal post processing? Night and day …

With such improvements, my phone’s ability to handle contrast and less-then-easy situations, just where it usually falls apart, is transformed. Pascal and I went to the Grau-du-Roi on a very sunny day. I took a few shots with the short tele mounted, and showed them to Pascal. He just went ”wow” at how the “system” handled the massive light and glare of a sunny day in Provence. He even asked me to re-shoot some scenes without the Exolens, just to make sure we weren’t seeing things, the way you do after too much rosé de Provence. Then he tweaked the image with a modicum of PP (30 seconds worth) to make it even better. The shadows are no longer just dark and colorless blotches, and the highlights no longer feel screechy. The picture is no longer a pain to look at. Many would consider it mildly attractive. And, remember, we are talking just about maximum contrast conditions, the sort of light that makes any smartphone cry “uncle”, and which is a challenge for any “serious” camera.

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Wide

So, in a nutshell, look at the results, and I can’t see how you can fail to be a convert, as am I.

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Macro

There is a catch, however. You know the story about things that are too good to be true …

The catch is the material implementation. The extra hardware takes a bit too much time and effort to screw and slide on. Then it can slip off all too easily. The extra weight makes the iPhone ridiculously top-heavy, making it impossible to keep it in my breast pocket where it usually sits. Because weight and finish-wise, the Exolens is real Zeiss. Metal construction and all the hallmarks of German quality, including a “convincing” amount of weight.

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Macro

So, in conclusion, I find Exolens to be conflicted. A brilliant feat of optical wizardry that puts better IQ at the disposal of anyone who shoots iPhone 6 and 7 (you’re talking a 9-digit number of people!). But clunky implementation which, while not ruining a smartphone’s simple and elegant way to take pictures and zip them online, to my mind, makes carrying one or more Exolens around a less than attractive proposition.

iPhone 6 with Zeiss Exolens Macro

Pascal concludes

From a scientific point of view, it’s hard to explain how a passive system (lens) can have an impact on digital aspects of photography such as dynamic range. But the fact are there. On every comparison we’ve made on the iPhone 6, shadows are less murky and highlight roll-off is more gentle. Colours are just better to look at. It’s possible this wouldn’t be the case on other cameras but we can’t deny what we saw with this one.

At the end of the day, there are 2 ways of looking at a product like this, if you’re interested in photography.

(1) You already own and use a camera and your Smarpthone is just your selfie accessory or a documentation tool. Forget about the Exolens system. It won’t make your phone better than your camera (except if that’s a few generations old and your phone is very recent). And you’ll probably not be interested anyway because “traditional” photographers tend to shun phone cameras.

(2) You started photography with your Smartphone and have outgrown the feeble possibilities of its digital zoom. You want to step up to a more mature system without breaking your back, the bank or the Smartphone shooting process. Or you’re convinced that Smartphone photography has something to offer as a complement to the more traditional approach but are reluctant because of the usual IQ issues.

iPhone 6 & Zeiss Exolens Wide processed in MacPhun Tonlity CK

In that second case, the Exolens system makes a lot of sense. The relative size and weight of the lenses (compared to the toy-category competition) and the asking price are less than a new camera.

With your bracket permanently attached to the phone and the lenses packed in their pouches in a bag, you’re just seconds away from a lens change at any moment (heck, that’s actually how co-author Paul carries and handles his Fuji / Leica / Zeiss kit). Although we can’t help thinking a clipping system would be quicker than a screw mount, changing your Exolens isn’t that much more cumbersome than changing a lens on a traditional camera and you never get dust onto your sensor. You save weight, a lot of money and retain the great screen, on the fly editing and social sharing capabilities of phones that somehow continue to boggle the minds of traditional camera makers in 2017 …

For a traditional generation of photographers, it probably all sounds ridiculous. For the younger person that wants to get into serious photography making no compromises in convenience or optical quality, it’s simply brilliant. You already know what camp you fall in. Or do you ?

Posted on DearSusan by pascaljappy.