p.1 #2 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
And you needed a new thread to say that? Well, let's give it some girth at least:
There are three lenses posted here:
One of them is the Zeiss 21/2.8 which EVERYONE says is the best WA lens on the planet - peroid. $1,800 new
One of them is the Nikkor AF-S DX 18-70/3.5G IF ED which people who shoot APS-C Nikons say is OK-ish. $200 new
And one of them is the Pentax 18-55/3.5 SMC AL (ver 1) which only a few Pentax users know is awesome. $100 new
All set to 21mm at f/4.5 to make it as fair as possible and all with no preferential processing at all - basically SOOC conversions - saved as JPegs from ACR without ever entering PS. All using a tripod and taken within a 2min. time span!
Tell me which one is which - if you can... Muahahahaaa.
p.1 #8 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Bifurcator wrote:
And you needed a new thread to say that? Well, let's give it some girth at least:
There are three lenses posted here:
One of them is the Zeiss 21/2.8 which EVERYONE says is the best WA lens on the planet - peroid. $1,800 new
One of them is the Nikkor AF-S DX 18-70/3.5G IF ED which people who shoot APS-C Nikons say is OK-ish. $200 new
And one of them is the Pentax 18-55/3.5 SMC AL (ver 1) which only a few Pentax users know is awesome. $100 new
All set to 21mm at f/4.5 to make it as fair as possible and all with no preferential processing at all - basically SOOC conversions - saved as JPegs from ACR without ever entering PS. All using a tripod and taken within a 2min. time span!
Tell me which one is which - if you can... Muahahahaaa.
Absolutely sure about 711 (Nikon).
Now I'd agree that the difference in 709 / 710 is not huge at all, and I may be wrong.
It should be noted though that you are shooting on MFT, and "the best WA lens on the planet" is cropped to its center. It's not a WA anymore!
p.1 #10 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
The Zeiss is probably 2, possibly 1, and potentially 3 if you have a really crummy adapter.
I think this brings us to a FM top tip: if you have an m4/3rds camera don't bother with Zeiss primes.
Im not going to pretend I see much value in comparing a full frame coverage lens on anything other than a full frame body. Or buying a 1800 dollar lens for such a camera in the first place.
p.1 #14 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
i like #2 best in the first set, haven't looked at the rest yet. but i haven't used any of the lenses and don't have any particular desire to get any of them either.
p.1 #18 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
redisburning wrote:
I think this brings us to a FM top tip: if you have an m4/3rds camera don't bother with Zeiss primes.
Im not going to pretend I see much value in comparing a full frame coverage lens on anything other than a full frame body. Or buying a 1800 dollar lens for such a camera in the first place.
That's a total cop out for not being good enough to tell. I can in almost every example without even having to look at my key. It's pretty obvious is some of the sets - if you know what you're doing. But I will agree that the zeiss would take a more obvious lead if this were all FF lenses being tested on a FF sensor. But not that much more. The differences here are pretty close to the differences one would see if comparing FF lenses of similar ilk on a FF sensor. Is the difference worth the money? Everyone has to answer that for themselves. Probably people shooting a µ4/3 camera are concerned with $money$ and budgets more-so than FF shooters so for many µ4/3 shooters and even many APS-C shooters, the price won't be worth the slightly better IQ.
RustyBug wrote: chopping out the portions of where the differences are most evident ... hardly constitutes a "fair as possible" comparison.
It's as fair as possible for us crop shooters. And we're the majority here I believe!
It's pretty obvious is some of the sets - if you know what you're doing. But I will agree that the zeiss would take a more obvious lead if this were all FF lenses being tested on a FF sensor. But not that much more. The differences here are pretty close to the differences one would see if comparing FF lenses of similar ilk on a FF sensor. Is the difference worth the money? Everyone has to answer that for themselves. Probably people shooting a µ4/3 camera are concerned with $money$ and budgets more-so than FF shooters so for many µ4/3 shooters and even many APS-C shooters, the price won't be worth the slightly better IQ.
chopping out the portions of where the differences are most evident ... hardly constitutes a "fair as possible" comparison.