It seems that we have had too much talk on this lense, how good it is, how ridiculous its price is, it's all hype, etc, etc. Instead of sitting here and arguing if it's worth $4K or not, why don't we just go out and shoot some pictures with it. Please don't forget, a lense is just a tool, no matter how much you paid for it, if it's only carefully wrapped and sits on shelf, it's worthless.
Can I ask a simple question....not wanting to be challenging or anything like that...
But why do you keep fanning the flame of touting the Zeiss 21 when you yourself have found the Sigma 20/1.8 to be VERY very close to the Zeiss in quality, yet the Sigma if a full $3500 LESS than the Zeiss.?
The more I get familiar with this forum, it really seems more geared toward the consumer user, and few have the need or the budget or the skill level to warrant such an extremem expenditure for something that only gets you a small improvement in the corners of prints...
I agree with you completely that the Zeiss is the best, but that's been covered over and over and over and I'm getting curious to what is motivating the CONTINUAL posting of this lens' performance when in truth there ARE others that fare pretty darn well. (Sigma 20/1.8 and Sigma 15-30...on a 1Ds they are quite good, especially for their cost)
Just curious, and please don't take any kind of offense...I'm new.
Guy has helped a lot of people with their lens choices over the last couple of years - myself included. Cost me a bunch of money too
When I first bought the 1Ds mk2, I was struggling with lens performance on that camera. Quite simply, over half of my lenses were essentially unusable below f5.6, a place where I do a lot of work. These were lenses that had worked fine on my 1D mk2 and 35mm for years.
Along came Guy, Son and a few others talking about Zeiss and kindly doing comparisons for the rest of us. The idea of a Zeiss lens, obvious as it is, had not occured to me. Once I saw the potential, I was all over it, and believe me it is a big difference with a lens like the 21mm/15mm etc...
I used to shoot Zeiss 20 years ago, and I loved the clarity, color, and contrast associated with these lenses back then. Today, I have Canon FF digital with the previously mentioned Zeiss quality and the advantage of the Canon glass on the long end.
Sometimes, what a lens brings to the table can only be shown in the image, MTF as valuable as it is, does not illustrate the 3C's as I call them - hence the need to post photo's - yes the web is limiting, I know, but it's all we have. The Sigma is an absolute bargain for the price, I know as I tested three copies extensively, but it is nothing like the Zeiss. It is this difference that we are discussing, evaluating, and for some of us, an absolute necessity.
I'm one of those that appreciate threads like these. Before spending the kind of dollars needed to acquire a lens like this, it's helpful to have others share their experiences and opinions. Learning from others is a very large part of what this forum means to me. Without the advice and encourangement of experienced users like Guy and Son I'd never have bought my first "exotic" lens, and I would have missed out on a very exciting and rewarding aspect of photography.
Without weighing in one way or the other on the Zeiss glass issue I can only say that viewing 800-pixel-wide resizes on the Web doesn't really tell you much. Pretty much any lens can produce sharp results at that resolution. --c
You mean "results that you can't tell how sharp it really is", . OTOH you can get a bit of an idea of the evenness of the sharpness factor.
I have unfortunately gotten into the habit of printing tabloid as my basic print for any of my images I sort of like and it gets a bit pricier than making web images . But it's the only way to really appreciate this stuff.
I am just SO GRATEFUL I'm not doing wet 11x14s & 16x20s any more! I disconnected the water plumbing to my darkroom last week, after 5 years of non-use. Now I can think of what to do with that room, after the huge clean-up of course! I found I still had 2 gals of RA blix in the cannister . EEEWWW!!
I don't own any Zeiss lenses, but I sure do enjoy reading threads about experiences folks have with their Zeiss lenses. I actually enjoy reading many of the threads here and often click into topics that I have no knowledge about, just to get a litlle more insight on those various lenses.
What I appreicate about Guy M. is his willingness to try other brands and report back on them based on his experience.
It wasn't long ago I was reading about a Tamron lens that had some good feedback. It's all good
Like I said...DON'T take offense, as it would only be a matter of choosing to be offended as I clearly mean NO offense...which is why I said "take no offense" lol.
My point though is that why do these posts KEEP turning up? People can work the search function, and if they can't, then they're not educable anyway, so more and more and more "convincing" just seems pointless, and it just seems to generate "ruts" of topics. I'd just like to see more photography and less gear chatter when that gear chatting has been done to DEATH. Zeiss ROCKS!...but...now it's a four thousand dollar lens...and unless there is some motivating force to your posting the "greatness of Zeiss", I'm just at a loss for why the topic is constantly fueled.... (no innuendo meant...I'm just as tired of reading about the Zeiss as you say you are of getting PM's about it....but why keep posting more fuel if the PM's bug ya?)
I agree the Zeiss is the best lens, even out to the corners..I've seen it in person. BUT...if someone can't fathom the difference (and it's not HUGE..but it's significantly observable) and decide by NOW whether the lens is now worth four grand when it used to be worth fifteen hundred...then there is some kind of comprehension issue at work.
I appreciate your posts Guy..and this isn't a post necessarily aimed at you...it's just me rantin out loud as the constant redundancy of "lessons already learned" kinda keep this forum in a cycle of kindergarten level conversations sometimes. A fact is a fact and it's a fact that the Zeiss is superb...if someone doesn't understand that then let them not understand.....the world doesn't hang in the balance if they don't care enough to "get it".
Just wanting to help elevate the topic talk to be more about choosing glass....it's gotten old and any interested hobbyist could easily discern the short list of great glass if they'd just do a little homework.....that's all.
All thoughts welcome, as I'm just thinkin out loud contributing my OWN two cents,
Why is it that whenever I post a thread like this the moderator moves it to misc or something else? I had a post on pics I did with a 28-90 and its gone to the misc. Oh well
That's a beautiful shot with the fields in the foreground...and clearly an excellent execution technically (no pun intended with "clearly" lol) with it looking sharp from edge to edge. The lens is nice too.
And "thanks" for the tip about the landscape forum Guy, I peruse that forum too and actually LOVE great landscape photography. Parts of this earth are far more beautiful than any man made thing, and FAR more intriquing to consider I think.
Enjoy your stuff you guys, like I said, it's not an attack...but it IS a bit tiring to see the 85's compared past ad nauseum, the Zeiss mentioned more than Elvis sightings lol, and all the other basic-level queries that have been well resolved in a matter of three or four good threads from previous posting.
PLEASE let this be one of the last threads on a topic ...it's starting to look like a marketing campaign more than "shop talk" trying to help others. NOT an accusation...I'm just talking loosely with a grin..
Guy for me your shots are the ones that set the standard. I was wondering on your f11 shot of the 2 girls if you had to bring extra lights to get such a nice exposure, or use off camera flash?
Thx/Anna
. OTOH you can get a bit of an idea of the evenness of the sharpness factor.
. But it's the only way to really appreciate this stuff.
. EEEWWW!!
