Upload & Sell: On
| Re: Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L |
Seems like this same debate rages each time a new lens is announced. There are those who claim that it will set new standards of excellence, and there are those who question if it will make a visual difference in their output. In reading various posts, I find merit in both arguments. This new Zeiss lens tests very well in the lab and should be an excellent performer in the field. To many photographers, however, the difference between the 135ZE and 135L will be negligible because, as Dan states, even at large print sizes, minute differences between the images made by the two are probably imperceptible. Notwithstanding that, there are some photographers who don't make prints, but prefer to view their work at critical resolution on high-quality digital displays. In that case, the difference may very well be perceptible. In either case, talking about comparing two very high-quality optics, not a disposable polaroid and a Canon 1DX. So, it probably wouldn't be reasonable to think that the Zeiss (or any comparable lens in the 135mm range) could best the Canon by a huge margin in every facet of lens performance.
Some photographers may find value in a 135ZE because for them, part of the joy of photography lies in the equipment being used to make the images. Yes, in the end, all cameras and lenses are tools, but we all have different reasons for our photography. Some of us don't care what we use to make the final image, and some of us do. Along that same line of thinking, some photographers prefer to use lenses and cameras that minimize work required in post, while others have no problem with making digital adjustments for things like CA, distortion, etc.
I can agree with either side of the argument depending on the end user and what his reasons for photography are and how to intends to view his photographs.