Upload & Sell: Off
| p.3 #12 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L |
You seem to be very confused Dan. First of all I am not dissing any modern gear. Where did You even get that from
If by real photographers You mean sport or photojournalists then yes most of their job could be done by monkeys. Put a 600mm on a tripod, press "fire" and forget it - sports photography done. Put a wide angle on, hold your cam high above your head, get into the crowd or find a politician or a celebrity, press "fire" and forget it. That's exactly how majority of their work/photos look like. And if You shoot 5000 photos of that one event the probability of shooting an accidentally good/great picture is pretty much high. Please don't try to deny it, I'm seeing this every single day. The really great shots are not made by "professionals", they are made by great photographers and they are not necessarily the same people.
Second, nobody here wants to use this Zeiss as a sports lens. Why people keep missing this obvious point
Third, nobody here tells You to ditch modern gear (AF and what not) and move to ancient gear.
Fourth, all I wanted to say was that using MF does not require PHD nor extraordinary mental or physical skills. It is pretty easy and quite fast with right tools. And even if someone is, for some unknown to humanity reason, unable to use MF why would they complain about such lens? Just don't buy it - as simple as that.
And no Dan, You can't simulate everything in Photoshop. This Zeiss clearly destroys Canon wide open. No matter what magic You're gonna pull in Photoshop You ain't gonna compensate the sharpness difference, nor will You entirely eliminate CA or purple fringing in critical cases nor will You get the colors in any reasonable time (unless spending few hours per photo just to match the other lens is Your goal/hobby).
Again, it's not about being old school or super pro, it's just about appreciating a great manual lens. All I say is that this is perfectly awesome lens to shoot on modern DSLR. Cheers guys
EDIT: PetKal (and others), well Nikon had 300mm f/2 manual lens. Guess what, people where shooting sports and other things with it, wide open. Shocked? And if You claim that going digital made Your pictures better then I have no clue what photography is about, because I thought whether it's film or a digital sensor is the least important thing. Guess I was wrong. Also if I were You I wouldn't draw conclusion about someone's age based on nothing because You might be wrong.... very, very wrong.