Perhaps Bobby. I'm still trying to find a good subject and lighting set up that can really highlight the difference.
There is an easily seen color difference when it comes to skin, this is generally true for all the Canon lenses vs. Zeiss lenses. Canon tends to render an image with the reds a bit more saturated vs. Zeiss. IMO, the Zeiss images look a bit more natural (I'll post an example shortly). Though you can work around this in post. Similarly, I see a color difference in leaves, Canon tends to render them with a bit more yellow. Again I prefer the Zeiss rendering, which I would call neutral.
However, these color differences I have been able to observe, some of the other superlative terms used to describe the Zeiss lenses, the 3D look, presence, pop I haven't been able to translate into something I can actually see.
Here's what I mean when it comes to skin color. Unfortunately these were taken with two different bodies (1Ds3 and 5D2), you try getting a 2-1/2 to sit still through a lens change
The Zeiss was on the 5D2 and the 100L on the 1Ds3 which IMO actually should give the color edge to the 100L (as I find the 1Ds3 to be a bit more neutral when it comes to skin tones than the 5D2). Both at f/4, ISO 100, 1/160s, handheld.
I know that my daughter's actual skin color is it appears when you see her is closer to the Zeiss than the Canon.
Thanks for the nice comparison. Also interesting in your comparison photos is to look at the lower left edge of the paper (and the hole-punch hole); although the Canon has less LoCA, it has significantly more lateral CA, which (in my opinion) detracts greatly from the image realism compared to the much more crisp rendering of the Zeiss in the same area.
Bean, you have an adorable daughter and I love Xxxxnesian skin tones. I would be totally happy with either image, which is good since I have the L. As for sharpness and bokeh, they appear identical to me. The upper appears just a tad warmer with a touch of rose in the cheek so I prefer that skin tone. My wife says she prefers the lower because there is a touch more cream in the coffee. As for accuracy, we have to defer to you for obvious reasons. Her expressions are wonderful and I can see needing high FPS to follow those. So are the differences due to lens or camera body? They are very subtle. Thanks for sharing.
Yes, you really can't tell with any reasonable accuracy if the color rendering is coming from or caused by the lens or the camera sensor ... or both. I have always felt that the color from the APO Lanthar is more Velvia-like, and I loved that. I was a huge fan of Velvia film and C/Y lenses. I believe the Zeiss color is quite similar to the Voigtlanders i.e. colder but more vivid/vibrant.
thedigitalbean wrote:
Here's what I mean when it comes to skin color. Unfortunately these were taken with two different bodies (1Ds3 and 5D2), you try getting a 2-1/2 to sit still through a lens change
The Zeiss was on the 5D2 and the 100L on the 1Ds3 which IMO actually should give the color edge to the 100L (as I find the 1Ds3 to be a bit more neutral when it comes to skin tones than the 5D2). Both at f/4, ISO 100, 1/160s, handheld.
I know that my daughter's actual skin color is it appears when you see her is closer to the Zeiss than the Canon. ...Show more →
thedigitalbean wrote:
What subject matter and light would highlight these differences the most?
It is basically about removing everything that detracts from the quality we get through the lenses. Your comparisons, which I appreciate a lot, are already very good at that, but perhaps not all factors at the same time in all examples.
- Soft light, avoid direct sunlight
- Stationary targets. Even the slightest motion blur from a flower outside on a calm evening may impact micro contrast at 1/4 second (1/4 is the Tv used in your color comparison).
- Infinity targets are difficult because of the atmospheric effects always present. Most examples I have seen to illustrate differences in sharpness at infinity are more or less blurred by the atmosphere to begin with.
- Be careful about stopping down past f/5.6, even f/8 introduces a tiny bit of diffraction blur with a 21 MP FF sensor.
- Use a camera with weak AA-filter
- Very fine dark detail on bright background (dark lines thinner than readable printed letters) are often most revealing.
I hope I don't come across as demanding, I really appreciate all comparisons and example images you kindly provide.
SKumar25 wrote:
The look is still there when the lens is stopped down and foreground/background is Sharp. I can provide examples if you would like. Cheers.
That doesn't really explain the difference, but feel free to provide examples if you think it will help.
This was also taken with a long canon white, under different lighting and processing, to me this has the presence and 3-Dness:
The following 2 are wide angle shots, not associated with subject isolation, literally the whole frame is in focus, yet they also have a sense of depth / presence:
Thanks for the examples, but there's nothing here that can't be explained quite easily based on sharpness, background separation and lighting. You're comparing images taken under completely different conditions, and even dramatically different subject sizes. This is all IMO right up there with the wine tasting example.
charlesk wrote:
Thanks for the examples, but there's nothing here that can't be explained quite easily based on sharpness, background separation and lighting. You're comparing images taken under completely different conditions, and even dramatically different subject sizes. This is all IMO right up there with the wine tasting example.
+1
Notice that the lighting quality and direction is the most obvious difference between #1 and #2, 3, 4. In the first image, it is diffuse and frontal. In the rest, it is sideways and not diffuse. Furthermore, #2 and 3 show strong color, which further enhances and establishes figure-ground relationships. The lens isn't responsible for any of these things, which are a function of subject, composition, and lighting. Other choices of shot parameters, such as f-number, focal length, and subject distance, can further contribute to such visual identification of object depth perception and figure-ground relationships, but in fact, the examples provided are evidence to the contrary--that if anything, it is these non-lens-specific attributes that have by far the greatest impact on the perception of the image, rather than any minute differences in so-called "rendering style."
This is exactly why use of terms such as "presence" and "3D effect" are as meaningless as they are imprecise. One can justify anything with sufficiently vague language.
These are just good photography techniques you can apply to get the most out of your equipment, regardless of whether you shoot with a Canon, Sigma or Zeiss lens. You will get excellent results with good technique and decent gear. And equally important, good pp skills will make your images sing. If all of these elements fall in place you will be hard pressed to tell if the image was shot with a Canon, Sigma or Zeiss lens.
alundeb wrote:
It is basically about removing everything that detracts from the quality we get through the lenses. Your comparisons, which I appreciate a lot, are already very good at that, but perhaps not all factors at the same time in all examples.
- Soft light, avoid direct sunlight
- Stationary targets. Even the slightest motion blur from a flower outside on a calm evening may impact micro contrast at 1/4 second (1/4 is the Tv used in your color comparison).
- Infinity targets are difficult because of the atmospheric effects always present. Most examples I have seen to illustrate differences in sharpness at infinity are more or less blurred by the atmosphere to begin with.
- Be careful about stopping down past f/5.6, even f/8 introduces a tiny bit of diffraction blur with a 21 MP FF sensor.
- Use a camera with weak AA-filter
- Very fine dark detail on bright background (dark lines thinner than readable printed letters) are often most revealing.
I hope I don't come across as demanding, I really appreciate all comparisons and example images you kindly provide. ...Show more →
bobbytan wrote:
If all of these elements fall in place you will be hard pressed to tell if the image was shot with a Canon, Sigma or Zeiss lens.
It seems that we disagree here. I don't understand how your statement can be correct. It is only when all these elements fall in place, that all the optical differences will be revealed. Why is it else that perfect technique is required to conduct equipment tests giving valid results? If your technique fails, the differences in fine optical performance will be masked, and then you are really hard pressed to see the difference.
alundeb wrote:
It seems that we disagree here. I don't understand how your statement can be correct. It is only when all these elements fall in place, that all the optical differences will be revealed. Why is it else that perfect technique is required to conduct equipment tests giving valid results? If your technique fails, the differences in fine optical performance will be masked, and then you are really hard pressed to see the difference.
It is only when all these elements fall in place, that all the optical differences will be revealed.
And yet, amazingly enough, nobody is capable of showing a real example of "3D effect" or "presence" in a valid test that cannot be easily explained by phenomena that actually exist.
I may have to just buy one of the damned things myself to put this to rest.
charlesk wrote:
And yet, amazingly enough, nobody is capable of showing a real example of "3D effect" or "presence" in a valid test that cannot be easily explained by phenomena that actually exist.
I may have to just buy one of the damned things myself to put this to rest.
I never talk about 3D effects or presence. But I still think the Zeiss has better IQ than the Canon. (even if the Canon also is a good lens)
