In response to a question on photo.net, I was prompted to finally finish my review of the ZM Biogon 35 F2. The review is now available here: Zeiss ZM Biogon 35 F2 Review

I’ve been doing some research in anticipation of writing a review of the ZM Biogon 35. Lens reviews often use a kind of language that bears a striking resemblance to the language used in wine or cigar reviews; it’s evocative, but not necesarrily descriptive. It occured to me that a glossary of terms might advance the cause of science or least provide some common ground.

Bokeh:

Bokeh just describes the way things outside the plane of focus are rendered. Really, it’s that simple.

Clinical:

You will see every pore, line, and blemish on your subject’s face. Often said of a lens that you can’t afford as in, “I keep using the Ver. 2 Summicrud because the Ver. 4 is too clinical.”

Flare Prone:

Don’t even bother with the hood, it’s just going to flare no matter what.

Flare Resistant:

Keep the hood on.

Glow:

Often confused with bokeh, three dimensionality and pop, - for the root of the confusion see this otherwise excellent article by Mike Johnston - glow more accurately describes a high degree of pictorialiness as if every day was foggy. Think halos around everything. Not always a bad thing.

Pictorial:

Not clinical, a good thing in portrait lens and a nice way to say an older lens is not particularly sharp.

Plasticity:

I’m not sure what this one means. When I hear the word plastic I think of The Graduate and Tennessee Williams’ theory of Plastic Theatre. How that translates into optics, I don’t know.

Pop:

See three dimensional.

Three Dimensional:

Sometimes also referred to as pop or innacurately glow, three-dimensional describes the way certain lenses can make a subject seem to float or pop off the print or screen. Contrary to popular opinion the Cosina lenses are for the most part actually more three dimensional than their Leica counterparts.

For those interested in real definitions of some actual optical terms, Paul van Walree’s site, http://www.pinnipedia.org/, is a great place to start. Be sure to check out the photos section as well.

The Sigma 30 F1.4 is just too sharp for portraits particularly with the D80’s 10MP backing it up. That’s just not a complaint you hear very often, and it’s testament to just how far Sigma has come from it’s days as a low-budget, low-performance lens maker. Sometimes, too sharp really is too sharp. Casual portraits taken with the Sigma require a bit more work with the healing brush and clone stamp and a little lighter touch on the sharpening.


Nikon D80, Sigma 30 F1.4

Portrait photographers have long known that too sharp can be a bad thing. Occasionaly they’ve gone too far; the softfocus wedding portrait is often a horrid, misty mess that goes well behind obscuring that little blemishes we all have. But there is a place for lenses that render just a bit less clinical detail. The 50 Hexanon is a good example of such a lens. Up close and wide open, fine details just melt away. Looking at a print, you wouldn’t say that it wasn’t sharp, but you also wouldn’t be counting individual eyelashes.


Hexar RF, 50 Hexanon

Undoubtedly, some of this softness is the result of some of the limitations inherent in film and it’s resulting workflow, which brings up the question, “Is digital too sharp for portraits?” Probably not, but it might require some changes in technique. A softar filter might be worth investing in, or learning the appropriate use of photoshop’s blur tools. Or it might be as simple as letting the focus go a little off or using a longer shutter speed to induce a little camerashake. Sacrilege, I know, but not every picture requires every detail to be render with such aching fidelity.

I bought an OM-1 MD from KEH the other day. $60 with 50 1.8 lens. Cosmetically, it’s a bit rough, and there’s some dust in the finder, but it’s still a damn nice camera. Big, bright viewfinder with a screen that clearly shows focus. Small size. Interesting, but incredibly well thought out ergonomics; putting the shutter speed dial on the lens mount means both exposure controls can be adjusted with out chaning your hand placement. And a great lens. The lens draws more like a really good RF lens instead of like a bargain Japanese lens from the mid 70’s.



In some ways, this shouldn’t be surpising. The OM-1 was originally called the M-1 until Leica made them change the name. Despite being an SLR, the influence of the Leica M is clear particularly when you compare the little OM against it’s Nikon contemporaries. The small size of the body and the emphasis on an excellent viewfinder were both intended to seduce Leica users looking for an SLR option. As a companion to an RF, the OM gives you access to some of the benefits of an SLR without saddling you with a huge brick or compromising your ability to see your subject.



If the el cheapo 50 is any indication of the rest of the lens line, the lenses were designed with a thought towards the RF user as well. The 50 1.8 really does draw like a classic RF lens with moderate contrast, great resolution and pleasant bokeh. But it also focusses much closer than an RF could ever hope for. With the current bargain basement prices of many OM lenses, I’m planning on seeing if this holds true across the board.



If you are looking for a bargain camera with great imaging potential, the OM-1 is worth a look.

I mentioned in my mini review of the Sigma 30mm that flare was a potential issue with this lens. At the time all I had noticed was the occasional aperture blade pattern. Veiling flare has now reared its head:

That’s with the hood on! The circumstances were admittedly extreme. The light from the setting sun is pouring in through the window on camera left hitting the lens just about parallel to the front element. I’d expect some flare in this situation, but the veil was dense enough to almost completely obscure the view through the finder. I’ve been spoiled by RF lenses with their tiny front elements.

I plan on writing a more complete review of the Sigma 30mm F1.4 with examples and what not sometime over the next couple of weeks, but I thought I post a couple of thoughts on it now.

Pros

• Right focal length; depending on your DSLR 30mm works out ot 45mm or 48mm.
• Big max aperture; you can’t argue with 1.4.
• Good performance wide open; it’s not a Sumilux, but it’s also not $3000.
• Right price; $400 for a fast standard is not all that far off what Nikon an Canon charge for their 50 F1.4s.
• Fast, quiet AF motor; especially nice since neither Canon nor Nikon’s similarly priced 35’s offer an AF motor.
• Pleasant OOF rendering.
• Contrasty and pretty neutral color cast.

Cons

• Size; it’s pretty big. 62mm is a big front element. With the hood it’s down right huge.
• Flare; yeah, you really do need that big hood fairly frequently.
• Barrel distortion; add $15 for a copy of PTLens to the purchase price.
• AF errors reported by some users; mine is fine, but Sigma continues to be dogged by a reputation for sample variation. Of course Nikon and Canon have also had problems with sample variation on some of their lenses.

In my mind the Sigma competes against Canon’s 28 F1.8, Canon’s 35 F2, Canon’s 35 F1.4, Nikon’s 35 F2, Nikon’s 28 F1.4. Both the other F1.4 lenses are pricey to say the least, and Nikon’s is also currently out of production. I’ve used the Canon 28 1.8 and the Nikon 35 F2. Both are fine options and available slightly cheaper than the Sigma. Neither is quite as fast, and in my experience, neither produces images that have quite the same snap as the Sigma particularly when wide open.

Conclusion

The Sigma 30mm F1.4 is on paper superior to similarly priced offerings from the camera manufacturers. Unlike a lot of 3rd party lenses, the on paper specs actually translate into good perfromance. AF is snappy and sure. Sharpness is good wide open. Images show a lot contrast and snap without particularly nasty rendering of OOF areas. It’s a little big for standard lens, but it’s much smaller than Nikon or Canon’s F1.4 offerings in this focal range. I’d like to see Sigma produce something like a 24mm F1.4 with similar performance.

PTLens seems to work just dandy. It has a predefined setting for the Sigma 30 f1.4 - and a bunch of other lenses as well - which seems to correct the barell distortion quite well. And it slipped right into the batch actions I normally use. See the corrected photo below.

Anybody know a good tool for correcting barell distortion? One that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg? I dig this Sigma 30 F1.4, but it kind of gives things the bends.