Aravind, your leaf shot reminds me of the Banana Leaf Curry House in Singapore. The banana leaf plate is where you set the food down, and you eat off it with your fingers. Yummy.
PetKal wrote:
Get a shot similar to this with Zeiss 100 f/2 and I'll give you $100 CDN,
(1DMkIIN + 100L)
Mail me a ZE 100/2 and a duck, and I'll give it a try.
The keeper rate may not be so good, but it might be worth my time to take 99 failed blurry shots to the get one for $100.
If I can get 18 good duck shots, could I just keep the ZE?
mpmendenhall wrote:
Mail me a ZE 100/2 and a duck, and I'll give it a try.
The keeper rate may not be so good, but it might be worth my time to take 99 failed blurry shots to the get one for $100.
If I can get 18 good duck shots, could I just keep the ZE?
I tell you this, Mendenhall: do a little practice first. Use any suitable AF lens at your disposal. However, gotta find your own duck or a similar size bird and capture it in flight. Then, when happy with the results in the AF mode, flick the lens switch to MF and give it a shot. See how that goes.
PetKal wrote:
I tell you this, Mendenhall: do a little practice first. Use any suitable AF lens at your disposal. However, gotta find your own duck or a similar size bird and capture it in flight. Then, when happy with the results in the AF mode, flick the lens switch to MF and give it a shot. See how that goes.
I just checked the fifty or so lenses that I own, and I can't find the "AF" switch on any of them. What am I supposed to do? Also, birds are sometimes disturbingly hard to find around here (except for the flock of wild parrots that will sometimes find a tree outside your bedroom window around the crack of dawn...), but I'll see what I can find.
mpmendenhall wrote:
I just checked the fifty or so lenses that I own, and I can't find the "AF" switch on any of them. What am I supposed to do? Also, birds are sometimes disturbingly hard to find around here (except for the flock of wild parrots that will sometimes find a tree outside your bedroom window around the crack of dawn...), but I'll see what I can find.
AF is the most wonderful technology almost as seminal in nature as the advent of digital imaging. I started using an MF camera/lens and film in the early 60s...obviously, there was nothing else. What a cumbersome, inert and slap-dash process that was.
Today, despite my failing eyesight, I can get shots like this even with a rather slow AF lens such as EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro.
Therefore, I must say I do view manual lenses as an anachronism. (For sentimental reasons I still keep my high precision wood core/laminated Faber Castell rechenschieber from my student days. However, all my calculations I do on an electronic hand calculator these days.)
That's why I keep repeating myself here: that Zeiss 100 f/2 IQ would have to be significantly better than anything else I've got in that application range before I'd consider stepping back in time with it.
bobbytan wrote:
And these claims are never substantiated or backed up with some examples. Photos speak louder than words.
I don't support the "better in every way" view, but I also cannot stand the ingorance and bashing towards the member who has published a lot of the most accurate photo comparisons ever made on FM, and who also has the ability to link his results to objective descriptions and even MTF curves, to explain his findings.
Please open the "Test series B" for Canon and Zeiss at f/2.8 in separate tabs and flip between them. I can assure you that his copy of the Canon lens is excellent, because he has also published comparison images with the same two lenses where the differences are a wash.
alundeb wrote:
I don't support the "better in every way" view, but I also cannot stand the ingorance and bashing towards the member who has published a lot of the most accurate photo comparisons ever made on FM, and who also has the ability to link his results to objective descriptions and even MTF curves, to explain his findings.
Please open the "Test series B" for Canon and Zeiss at f/2.8 in separate tabs and flip between them. I can assure you that his copy of the Canon lens is excellent, because he has also published comparison images with the same two lenses where the differences are a wash. ...Show more →
I looked at the comparison you mentioned (the crazed mug). I see very little substantive difference in color rendition. Sharpness is slightly better with the Zeiss but that is to be expected given that it is being shot one stop slower than its maximum relative aperture, and that it is designed to go to only 1:2, rather than having to correct for aberrations all the way up to 1:1.
And yet, the same person doing the testing is using these results to claim:
Seriously? I have both and there is no comparison. I mean IMO the difference between a 18-135 kit lens and the 100L is smaller than the difference between the 100L and the 100MP. The Canon 100L colors are dull, bokeh mediocre and while it is sharp, it's not nearly in the same league as the 100MP.
That is why I criticize him. It is clear, unequivocal evidence of Zeiss bias. It's snobbery, plain and simple. And I am not one to say these things lightly. I challenge anyone to find a single statement he has ever made that is critical of a Zeiss lens, or where he openly admits that a non-Zeiss lens shows a clear advantage over a Zeiss.
I've made plenty of complimentary statements about certain Zeiss lenses (e.g., 21/2.8 Distagon). I've also made very critical statements about certain Canon lenses (e.g., 50/1.2L). But you won't get that kind of balance from denoir because he sees only what he wants to see, despite his attempts to be objective.
Now we are on a good track discussing the differences we see in the example images. The sharpness / micro contrast also gives more saturated colors in fine detail, and that could be a valid interpretation of "better colors".
Sometimes I want to hear someones opinion even if it is biased. Heck, I could never imagine myself as an unbiased person either, even though I try.
alundeb wrote:
I don't support the "better in every way" view, but I also cannot stand the ingorance and bashing towards the member who has published a lot of the most accurate photo comparisons ever made on FM...
You know, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this *until* you linked to that thread. What I found there was both evidence of extreme bias (as wickerprints said) and also very sloppy, shoddy comparison testing.
The top of the thread he starts in with the ladybugs. Here's what he says about the Canon:
Look at the colors on the ladybug. See that metallic specular look on the 100MP that is so dulled on the 100L? These images were all taken within three or four minutes and the light was identical.
Of course the actual shots he took were completely different. Someone challenges him on this and he responds:
Yes, the 100L ladybug is not entirely in focus (shallow DOF, this is at MFD, f/2.8). Don't compare sharpness - only colors in those images.
Well gee, do you think the shot not being "entirely in focus" just might have something to do with the "dulled metallic specular look"? And if the Canon shot was at MFD, why is the ladybug barely larger than the Zeiss ladybug shots, when the Zeiss only goes 1:2?
Then as I read on he does a series of tests where he mixes up the photos. And then edits the post and tells people to look again. Etc.
If you consider this to be evidence of "the most accurate photo comparisons ever made on FM", then you have lower standards for photo comparisons than I do. Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt in saying that he wasn't deliberately trying to make the Zeiss look better -- and that would be generous given the bullshit statements about "3D look" he made in that thread -- the testing methodology seems sloppy.
And if the Canon shot was at MFD, why is the ladybug barely larger than the Zeiss ladybug shots, when the Zeiss only goes 1:2?