Carl Zeiss Jenazoom Macro Lenses Image Reworked

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:22 am

I posted a shot (second one here) from the first time I used the 75-300mm which I had purchased many months previously, mainly as a curiosity.

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... ught+short

Here is the image processed by Noise Ninja which I didn't have when I originally posted it. I can't currently access the original image, which was over-sharpened.

I still; can't access the original image but I have done waht I can to re-work this with Topaz software:

Well, I didn't hesitate to purchase a 35-70mm model when I found one listed earlier today:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ws/eBayISAPI. ... SA:GB:1123

I thought this thread, which I have also just found today would be of interest. Although it mentions AF versions mine are MF:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-came ... CD?start=0

On page 2 it is stated that the import into the USA was banned. This might be a second chance for someone whom is interested.

Harold

ChrisRaper · Post by **ChrisRaper** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:25 pm

Interesting ... have you ever tried reversing a Zeiss lens - something around the 50mm mark?

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:54 pm

ChrisRaper wrote:Interesting ... have you ever tried reversing a Zeiss lens - something around the 50mm mark?

No. I never got into reversing lenses, having obtained enough macro lenses not to have to, although I got as far as investing in some reversing rings, which are around somewhere. With film cameras I needed the auto diaphragm to be able to see what I was shooting.

I will do some kind of performance tests with the Zeiss lenses, in comparison with other macros, with the E-P2.

Harold

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:58 pm

Harold Gough wrote:Here is the image processed by Noise Ninja which I didn't have when I originally posted it. I can't currently access the original image, which was over-sharpened.

The original image is coming up OK for me (2nd image at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... hp?t=14573).

Compared to that one, this noise-reduced one looks a lot better at first glance.

On careful study several places show the typical "plastic" appearance that I've come to expect from noise reduction. Compare versions looking at the flower between the butterfly's proboscis and its leg, and you'll see what I mean.

There have been some interesting changes in color rendition as well. In the original version, the central area of the VFW has the definite orange cast that is common to many sulfur butterflies. In the new one, that has become much lighter. A lot of the "dusting" and fine patterning of the scales has disappeared also, perhaps as a result of the noise reduction.

--Rik

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:28 pm

This is one where I have (again by reworking the posted image, not the original) just given one dose of Noise Ninja and adjusted nothing else (brightness and contrast untouched):

This would seem to be what I did before, with the above image, but I wanted to be sure.

The effect looks rather like additional use of Unsharp Mask. I prefer the reproduction of the furry clothing of hairs more of the original posting, before such treatment. I should add that I just let Noise Ninja set a profile then apply it. I'm sure more subtle use is possible but I don't yet know how.

Harold

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Harold Gough wrote:I prefer the reproduction of the furry clothing of hairs more of the original posting, before such treatment.

I think you're looking at another place that I would describe as "plastic".

Subjects like this one are very tough for noise reduction methods because the real detail of the subject and the random character of the noise are so much alike. It's pretty much inevitable that when you crank up reduction far enough to make the OOF background smooth, some of the real subject detail is going to disappear too.

One approach that I've used on occasion is to combine the original and noise-reduced versions using a hand-drawn mask so that I get to decide what's noise and what isn't. I always have mixed feelings about that. The problem is that I have this recurring vision of somebody looking at the background to estimate noise levels for the whole image, then mistakenly applying that estimate to figure out what the subject must have looked like. But then I suppose that's not really a vision; it must be a fantasy. Nobody takes images that seriously......do they?

--Rik

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:52 am

rjlittlefield wrote:I think you're looking at another place that I would describe as "plastic".

I didn't see any areas at the magnification as posted but I recall very clearly the sort of thing you mean in some of my first images, soon after getting the E-P2, on large areas of cuticle on a damselfly or something like that.

rjlittlefield wrote:Subjects like this one are very tough for noise reduction methods because the real detail of the subject and the random character of the noise are so much alike. It's pretty much inevitable that when you crank up reduction far enough to make the OOF background smooth, some of the real subject detail is going to disappear too.

It was really an exercise to remove the fine but rather intense specklng in the background of the posted original second image, which would have already had one despeckling in PS after a couple of Unsharp Mask treatments. The actual butterfly was fine for my purposes but I was hoping to get the noise levels of the darkish background a bit closer to that of images from higher spec sensors.

rjlittlefield wrote:One approach that I've used on occasion is to combine the original and noise-reduced versions using a hand-drawn mask so that I get to decide what's noise and what isn't.

Judging by the number of attempts it takes me to do cloning around a subject, that is not for me.

Thanks for you comments.

Harold

Craig Gerard · Post by **Craig Gerard** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:15 am

Harold,

Layer masks are your friend.

When 'sharpening', it is not always desirable to sharpen OOF background elements, it tends to increase noise. The same goes for water, etc; there are some areas of an image that do not benefit from sharpening.

Any 'global' sharpening can be controlled using layer masks. A layer mask can also be used to adjust the amount of noise reduction applied to specific areas of an image. Duplicate the layer, apply adjustments (noise reduction and/or sharpening), apply a layer mask, then paint with either black or white. Painting the layer mask using 'black' reveals the detail in the non-adjusted, underlying layer. White can be used to hide portions of the underlying layer.

Craig

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:25 am

Thanks, Craig.

There is hope yet for developing my PS skills.

Harold

ChrisLilley · Post by **ChrisLilley** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:58 am

rjlittlefield wrote: One approach that I've used on occasion is to combine the original and noise-reduced versions using a hand-drawn mask so that I get to decide what's noise and what isn't.

Noise Ninja has a noise brush, to allow this sort of selective blending of original and noise-reduced images.

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:15 am

The 35-70mm has arrived. Just a quick try out showed the closest focus (WD: distance from front of lens) and minimum field width (FW) on the E-P2 to be ca 280mm and 90mm, respectively.

This compares with the lens I would typically use for film work, my Tamron SP 35-80mm, on the E-P2 giving WD ca 130mm & FW 45mm.

Clearly, the minimum working distance is the limiting factor here. Any comparisons will have to be with the same field width. The Tamron 90mm macro should be included, as it is more widely used.

My expectation is that the Zeiss 35-70mm will supersede the Tamron 35-80mm for non-macro work, just as the 75-300mm did with the longer zoom. That will not be decided until I do the comparisions.

Harold

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:59 am

Here are some test shots. Rather than place them side by side I have left them big to give maximum detail.

I used a printed test chart, shooting a similar selected area with each lens. (The two-tone circular feature is 45mm diameter). The paper chart was not totally flat (+/-2mm or so) and the lenses may not have been perfectly horizontal, although sharpness across the frame suggests that they were level enough. The camera was on a firm tripod and the shutter fired with 8 seconds delay.

Zeiss 35-70mm at 70mm f8

Tamron 35-80mm at 80mm f8

Tamron 90mm at f8

Zeiss 35-70mm at 70mm f5.6

Tamron 35-80mm at f5.6

Tamron 90mm at f5.6

So, what does that tell me?

Firstly, my disappointment with the few macro shots I have taken with the Tamron zoom on the E-P2 are not borne out by the results. I will be using it more.

Although the lighting, mostly diffuse sunlight, was rather variable during the session, the Tamron 90 is definitely 'warm'. (Both Tamrons had a Skylight filter and a hood*).

On the other hand, there is no outstanding excellence in the Zeiss tested without a hood), although it is far better than various blogs would lead you to believe.

* For those who say that using a filter measurably affects performance I reshot without the hoods and filters. I missed the focus slightly with the 90mm and have now lost the light for today:

Tamron 35-70 at f8, no hood or filter

I see no difference due to the filter.

All images were given on Unsharp Mask treatment in PS and were resized. The final image was rarther blue so I adjusted the colour balance to remove this distraction.

I hope there is something here of interest.

Harold

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:28 am

I can't see a significant difference between any of them.
Would you expect to see much in a 0.75 megapixel images?
Traditional 100% crops do have an advantage!

Harold Gough · Post by **Harold Gough** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 11:40 am

ChrisR wrote:Would you expect to see much in a 0.75 megapixel images?

Perhaps I am missing something but anything (comparative) which doesn't show up here, in the maximum width of image permitted, seems to me to be of no practical consequence.

Harold

ChrisRaper · Post by **ChrisRaper** » Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:01 pm

I think what Chris means is that these are fine for assessing the overall contrast but most people would be interested to see how clearly these lenses resolve and they are so close on images like this that it would be better if they were perhaps done as 100% crops of the same area, so we can see how they resolve the finest of details