Jump to content

Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 4/18mm ZM


Recommended Posts

Hi all,


I recently acquired a Zeiss ZM 18mm f/4 for use on my X-E2s via Fuji's own M-mount adaptor (which I chose so as to be able to dial in any necessary in-camera corrections).


It turned out that only a very minor correction is required for distortion ("barrel weak"), while some more pronounced tweaking of the vignetting and corner colour shading controls is required to clean up those aspects of the lens' performance.


Here's the corner shading and colour cast without correction...




..and then after dialling in the right amount of in-camera corrections:




With that out of the way, I then set out to take some test shots.


Here's a 100% original resolution file below.

Shot at f/8 as JPEG with "Astia" film simulation and circular polarizer, focused at the f/4 hyperfocal markings (i.e., assuming a stringent 0.015mm CoC, rather than the standard 0.030mm).

The white plumage in harsh midday light made this a good test bed for any chromatic aberration or purple fringing - gladly, there is none whatsoever of either.

Post-processing was limited to some minor lifting of shadows and some added vibrance; no other corrections were applied, and no additional sharpening (in-camera sharpening was set to 0 = default).




Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • As @Greybeard wrote, there is more going on than just saving a changed setting. Even if it were only that, it would still be tricky. Different settings take up different size spaces in the file. Trying to overwrite that can easily wreck the file. Early computer based EXIF editors would not do more than report settings for the raw files they would allow users to read. Your Velvia image file may take 2MB more storage than the Provia one, but changing from one to the other seamlessly would be difficult to pull off without a massive amount of processing. All while doing other camera stuff. RAF is vastly different in what it does than JPEG or TIFF or ...
    • I didn't know about that JPG. But for me it would be handy if the "RAW including that JPG" could be updated. I don't want to bother about editing photos on a computer. I just use the computer for archiving them and I "use" the photos on the tablet where I have my viewing archive. Just ideas. Digital photography could be so "easy" or "convenient" if all those things were possible. I want the pictures, good pictures. I don't want to bother with software. Sometimes it is a little detail which can make your experience so great, or which can spoil everything.
    • Yes I used that software years ago with an X100F, but  then it stopped working, because the new software no longer worked on my computer (32 vs 64 bit). At the moment I am a Linux user on a 10 year old machine. My most modern "computer" are my phone and tablet.
    • Its a little more than just the metadata - there is also a 13MP jpg stored in the RAF file - if the RAF file was to be updated I'd probably prefer another copy.
    • Have you tried using the Fujifilm X Raw Studio software on a computer? You can still use the camera for the actual conversion and it would solve most of your problems in naming and batch conversion.
  • Create New...