cogitech Offline Buy and Sell: On
|
p.2 #4 · ZE 50 versus Canon's 50L: your predictions? | |
DoubleNegative wrote:
I think the notion of bolting a Zeiss lens natively to a Canon digital body is apparently lost on a lot of people. Sharpness is not everything. And if you don't care about the image qualities beyond that, what the Zeiss offers - then they're clearly not the lens for you. People used to these types of lenses are often very interested in the drawing of the lens, the bokeh characteristics, the tonality and transitions of OOF areas, micro-contrast, etc.
Comparing ANY L lens MF action to a Zeiss (or other MF lens for that matter) is just silly as there is no comparison. I have plenty of L lenses and they all exhibit some form of play in the ring (mostly seen when changing direction) and I got most of them new (so they're not "worn" or anything like that). Canon EF lenses are simply not designed for real MF use - it feels more like an afterthought to be totally honest. And I love my EF lenses, don't get me wrong. The 85L is an entirely different beast as well.
I'd also wager to say that the people complaining about these lenses being MF just aren't the demographic that Zeiss is pursuing in releasing these lenses. Landscape, portrait and studio shooters often prefer MF, for example. Surprise - these same people rarely use any automated modes; M is typically the rule, not the exception.
All true, but with one exception; Av mode is very, very popular with MFers (stop-down metering).
|