trajan wrote:
Isn't it possible that the vignetting on the 100 MP affects your perception of "the shadows"? The vignetting really works for the type of shots you made, with the subject right in the middle.
--trajan
There was no perception of shadows ...the shadow detail is evident to all, Not a matter of taste or anything else ...simply the shadow details are there. You can continue the conversation with my girlfriend if you like
Comparing an 85 to a 100 ...has anyone considered that this is rather pointless as the FL is a major factor in the render of the background. What the zeiss has done is isolate the subject, render the bg and mid ground to a softer image. Now before anyone says they prefer to soften an image by using a lower contrast lens (less sharp to everyone else) ...look at the canons, the trees and the wall on the left in the 1st image ...they have lost so much detail that they have become a distraction and destroyed the image. The trees too have lost their black. I like your L but the point is becoming lost on me, the zeiss is a high contrast lens ...it preserves detail, the L cannot but if some prefer softer lenses then thats a bit like tinned spagetti to me.
Bobu wrote:
You can see some differences between f/2 and f/1.2. But you are right, the differences are not as big as I would have expected.
Boris
In the anchor example, the subject (focus) is farther away in the f/1.2 shot. This can explain the issue.
The other two examples seem ok, perhaps the subjects and environment are not the best to show the difference between these two apertures (and also between the two lenses IMO, but thanks for the test anyway !).
If you don't equalize the framing the test isn't conclusive as DOF will be different due to different magnification. You need to shoot the 100 from further back than the 85. In the cannon (not Canon) shots the subject in the 100 shots is larger, so the DOF is going to be smaller. The anchors at f/2 are the same size, but at f/1.2 the anchor is smaller? Was it shot from further away? You can't then compare the background blur fairly.
Bifurcator wrote:
Why are you sharpening lens samples?
You've added a lot of sharpening to all of these. How does that help anyone?
If I sharpen and stuff my $200 P&S can compete with all of these. Pretty close!
Bobu wrote:
I used my standard setting for sharpness in LR (50/0.7/100). Personally I find it diffcult to judge the quality of a lens with 0 sharpening, at least with cameras with bayer-pattern and anti-aliasing-filter.
By the way without sharpening my 200$ P&S images look much better than my 5DII images (but the P&S has only 4.7MP and no bayer-pattern).
If you and some other people would really like to see the above pictures with 0 sharpening I could post them here as well.
Boris
Ah, that's kewl. No, I don't need to see the images without sharpening. Thanks for the offer. I was just thinking: "Hmm, wouldn't it be incredibly hard or harder to judge both lens sharpness and bokeh when the images were modified - especially with sharpening." I didn't understand how that was useful or as useful. I'm not sure I do even now but if that's the accepted way I guess I'll figure it out.
Thanks for the reply.
AhamB wrote:
That shot you took with the 85L with the yellow houses is terribly oversharpened. Thick white halos an all edges. Maybe that triggered bifurcator's remark. On the other shots it's not that bad. But sharpening definitely affects OOF rendition (and clarity (from LR) even more).
Yes, that's what triggered it. Then I checked the images in this and his other three threads and there was varying levels of sharpening throughout. I also think that it affects OOF/DOF as well as perceived sharpness and resolving power (it does with my equipment) so I asked about it. It's no biggy tho. I'm not in the market for this lens or anything. But it's good to keep myself educated so if I do ever see one I'll know what it is and what it's worth.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If you don't equalize the framing the test isn't conclusive as DOF will be different due to different magnification. You need to shoot the 100 from further back than the 85. In the cannon (not Canon) shots the subject in the 100 shots is larger, so the DOF is going to be smaller. The anchors at f/2 are the same size, but at f/1.2 the anchor is smaller? Was it shot from further away? You can't then compare the background blur fairly.
I tried to equalize the framing by moving further away with the 100mm lens. But since all shots were handheld and there were some other restrictions, like fences, it was not always succesfull. This was just a quick test, when I had 30 minutes spare time, waiting for someone.
For some serious testing i would use a tripod.
Bobu wrote:
I adjusted only the brightness (gamma) of some images....
This makes it difficult to compare. Had you used a slower shutter speed on the 100/2 to achieve roughly equivalent brightness, I think the comparison would be easier to make.
People whine and grief so much in this forum that it is a wonder people bothers to upload test shots.. If you don't like the premises and the results, find another thread to troll, or state your opinion humbly and soberly, stop acting like retards.
ulrikft2 wrote:
People whine and grief so much in this forum that it is a wonder people bothers to upload test shots.. If you don't like the premises and the results, find another thread to troll, or state your opinion humbly and soberly, stop acting like retards.
Which opinions did you find to be stated in either a "retarded" manner or were made in order to "troll"?
From what I've read, members are behaving both humbly and soberly. There are some legitimate questions about how the original images were processed and how such processing may alter the ability to accurately compare what each lens is actually doing. These are important questions to ask when one is trying to make an accurate comparison.
None of this commentary is a slight on Bobu, either lens, or any other poster in the thread. It's merely people discussing how to interpret the data that has been presented.
Fat Dave wrote:
This makes it difficult to compare. Had you used a slower shutter speed on the 100/2 to achieve roughly equivalent brightness, I think the comparison would be easier to make.
This would be nice, but it is quite difficult to realize. Comparing the brightness of two images on the camera screen (or the small histograms) and adjusting the exposure compensation accordingly is not easy, at least for me. The perfect exposure compensation is probably also depending on the subject. The brightness at 1.2 and 2.0 with the 85L is also different, so you would have to compensate for different f-stops too.
I don't think that a slight gamma-correction in LR has such a big effect on the bokeh. You are right, for a perfect test under controlled conditions this should be considered, but this was never the aim of my quick test.
Bobu wrote:
The brightness at 1.2 and 2.0 with the 85L is also different, so you would have to compensate for different f-stops too.
Yeah I hate that. What's the deal anyway? Recently someone wanted to trade me a DAT deck for a canon 20D body and when I went to look at the sample shots for that body/sensor the photog had used the aperture to compensate for the ISO settings. I thought to myself - what a n00b! Now because of OOF areas and focus points the comparison sets are mostly useless. Gaaah! It's like - didn't he know there was a shutter speed adjustment or such a thing as a tripod? I was discouraged.
I have a question about the images though. If some of these are supposed to be APO lenses how come all images are showing CA fringing? Or am I mistaken in thinking the Zeiss f/2.0 100mm Macro Planar ZE is an apochromatic design?
Bifurcator wrote:
Yeah I hate that. What's the deal anyway? Recently someone wanted to trade me a DAT deck for a canon 20D body and when I went to look at the sample shots for that body/sensor the photog had used the aperture to compensate for the ISO settings. I thought to myself - what a n00b! Now because of OOF areas and focus points the comparison sets are mostly useless. Gaaah! It's like - didn't he know there was a shutter speed adjustment or such a thing as a tripod? I was discouraged.
I have a question about the images though. If some of these are supposed to be APO lenses how come all images are showing CA fringing? Or am I mistaken in thinking the Zeiss f/2.0 100mm Macro Planar ZE is an apochromatic design?
I love Zeiss 100 MP for its sharpness and 3D. At the end of the day, I opted to sell it because of its CA when in macro mode. After selling it, I wish that I can afford to keep it and Leica 100 APO.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I admire the lens' sharpness almost as much as I admire your focusing ability....
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Thanks Yakim, but about 60-80% of my pictures shot wide open with this lens (or the 85L) will get deleted directly, becaue of the wrong plane of focus. Today for example on 30 pictures out of 150 the focus was correct.
So my focusing ability is probably not better than the ability of many other people. BTW with the 85L there is no difference between AF and MF, the keeper rate is nearly the same.
