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 →
Yes I think those are all good suggestions. Some however we can't do anything about (i.e. we're stuck with the kind of AA filter on the 5D2/1Ds3 and no I'm not going to get mine removed ).
The thing that is occurring to me is that the differences can show themselves more as you shoot subjects at varying distances. I have a lot of respect for Lloyd Chambers' testing methodology and its possible that his particular target (the front face of the Stanford Memorial church) has a combination of subject distance and fine detail that brings these differences out. I'm tempted to go try it myself, I live about 25 minutes from Stanford, but parking there is such a pain in the butt.
As an aside, I did proof reading for Lloyd's Making Sharp Images series and there's a lot of good stuff there. If one is interested in testing lenses, I would recommend checking it out.
charlesk wrote:
That's a perfectly reasonable opinion. Probably even true.
It's the mystical magical BS stuff that hits me like nails on a blackboard.
Agreed Charles. I think its possible to describe the ways in which the Zeiss lenses have better IQ (or in some cases worse, not all Zeiss lenses superb) without resorting to vague superlatives. Thats one of the reasons I picked up the Zeiss, wanted to try and see it for myself.
Sp12 wrote:
Wow, what a night and day color difference. That alone is interesting. It's also really noticeable in the OoF fence.
Hardly. Apart from a very slight difference in color/contrast the only thing that jumps out at you is the difference in framing and lighting on the child's face. The difference is most certainly not night and day.
In regard to bobbytan's images, I predict some Zeiss fanatic will counter by saying, "but the Zeiss can let you take photos like these far more frequently and easily! You don't understand, the 3D effect is much more readily obtained with the 100 MP!"
"but the Zeiss can let you take photos like these far more frequently and easily!" .... not! "Far more easily" by my definition, is being able to shoot hand-held and have a high keeper rate ... and AF and IS makes that possible.
wickerprints wrote:
In regard to bobbytan's images, I predict some Zeiss fanatic will counter by saying, "but the Zeiss can let you take photos like these far more frequently and easily! You don't understand, the 3D effect is much more readily obtained with the 100 MP!"
I have both the Canon 100L and Zeiss the 100MP. The Canon is absolutely fantastic, great sharpness, AF, and amazing bokeh for a F/2.8 lens. But the Zeiss is just better, in everyway. Not only is it sharper, it has much better tonal range than the Canon.
The Zeiss is among the best lenses I've ever used which is small list.
That list includes the Canon 85 1.2L (for bokeh), Canon 200 F/2L, 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, 17 F/4 T&S, Leica 35 1.4 ASPH, Leica 50 1.4 ASPH, and the Zeiss FE 110 F/2.
thedigitalbean wrote:
Agreed Charles. I think its possible to describe the ways in which the Zeiss lenses have better IQ (or in some cases worse, not all Zeiss lenses superb) without resorting to vague superlatives. Thats one of the reasons I picked up the Zeiss, wanted to try and see it for myself.
I also agree. However, this discussion reminds me not only of wine tasting but audio comparisons. Anybody ever read Stereophile magazine? Oy. Maybe some here would see better IQ if we replaced the ICs in the camera with tubes.
Measurements aren't everything, but many strengths and shortcomings of lenses are nicely revealed in MTF charts. Got one for the Zeiss (not that a comparison would convince anyone)? That said, I wouldn't mind having that lens either.
joeisayo wrote:
That list includes the Canon 85 1.2L (for bokeh), Canon 200 F/2L, 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, 17 F/4 T&S, Leica 35 1.4 ASPH, Leica 50 1.4 ASPH, and the Zeiss FE 110 F/2.
Assuming you don't care about niggling details like autofocus, or a macro lens actually being a macro lens.
Not only is it sharper, it has much better tonal range than the Canon.
I highly doubt you can prove that -- it is once again subjective hand-waving. In fact, I doubt you could even get a consensus here on what exactly "tonal range" means with respect to a lens.
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.
joeisayo wrote:
I have both the Canon 100L and Zeiss the 100MP. The Canon is absolutely fantastic, great sharpness, AF, and amazing bokeh for a F/2.8 lens. But the Zeiss is just better, in everyway.
Again, Zeiss bias rears its ugly head. "Better in everyway [sic]?"
1. Does the Zeiss have autofocus?
2. Does it have image stabilization?
3. Is it less than $1000?
4. Is it capable of 1:1 magnification?
5. Does it remain the same length when focusing?
Not only is it sharper, it has much better tonal range than the Canon.
"Tonal range?" Lenses don't have a "tonal range." This only further proves you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and are just parroting terminology you've heard used elsewhere without actually understanding what those terms mean and how they are applied. Lenses have transmission. The transmission of light as a function of wavelength is the only measurable characteristic of a lens as it pertains to color reproduction. One might be able to say that one lens exhibits a greater average transmission as weighted by the photopic luminosity function than another lens. But this does not consider the possibility that one lens could actually have poor transmission in some (narrow) subset of the visual spectrum, yet be superior on average. I'm not saying the Zeiss is better or worse than the Canon. What I am saying is that (1) you don't know what you're talking about, and (2) even if you did, I am fairly confident that you neither have the data to confirm your claim nor the analytical background to interpret it.
It's rather funny that some people keep repeating that over and over again
Almost as funny as people who seem to be making analytic declarations yet say that macro lens A is better "in every way" than macro lens B when A isn't even a real macro lens.
And these claims are never substantiated or backed up with some examples. Photos speak louder than words.
charlesk wrote:
Almost as funny as people who seem to be making analytic declarations yet say that macro lens A is better "in every way" than macro lens B when A isn't even a real macro lens.
I purposely picked Canon lenses (where possible) to illustrate my statement.
This look is not exclusive to Zeiss, and under the right conditions can be achieved by Canon lenses.
If you go back a few pages, you'll see I mentioned that although at times I saw this from my Canons, it is much more prevelant with my Zeiss lenses.
This does not happen in every photo, as Aravind's example shows. But it happens in a variety of light situations, including overcast.
Aravind describes this as a superlative used to describe Zeiss, I see it as a characteristic. Depending on what you want tp create artistically it can be a drawback too. There are many gorgeous photos with flat rendering that would lose thier beauty with the 3-D look. Depends what look you're after. That's why I have Canons and Zeisses.
Also Bobby, the Voightlander no doubt is an awesome lens. That said there is little point comparing the Zeiss with that lens. They are quite different. Also the parameters for the comparison change. The Zeiss is no longer competing against lens at half the prices with AF/ IS etc. Can that be bought brand new? Is it covered by guarantee. Do you have to meddle with stop down shooting? Is 125mm as useful as 100mm? Is it as fast as the Zeiss. Is it good at landscape distances?
They are different tools IMO, just as the 100L and 100ZE are.
). 
Hardly. Apart from a very slight difference in color/contrast the only thing that jumps out at you is the difference in framing and lighting on the child's face. The difference is most certainly not night and day.
