charlesk brings up a perfectly valid point. If you want to say that sharpness (and "microcontrast" if that's what you want to call it) is a factor that contributes to color rendition, then you can't say that an out of focus image will produce comparable color. You can't have it both ways.
I keep having to say this over and over again: when you conduct a test with an expectation of a particular result, you will (consciously or unconsciously) bias the analysis to favor that result. It is such a strong and consistent effect that scientists take great pains and extraordinary measures to avoid it.
chez wrote:
14 pages later...there must truly be something to these Zeiss lens or interest in this thread would have died long ago.
The only reason why this thread is as long as it is, is because there is a very vocal but illogical contingent of Zeiss owners who refuse to accept the possibility that their beloved brand is not necessarily as miraculous as the money they paid for it.
14 pages later...there must truly be something to these Zeiss lens or interest in this thread would have died long ago.
If you actually think the length of this thread says anything about the quality of Zeiss lenses then.... well, I don't even know what to say.
If I started a thread in the Alt group claiming that Sigma lenses were clearly superior to Zeiss lenses in every way, posted some flawed tests, and defended them vigorously, how many pages would it go?
charlesk wrote:
If you actually think the length of this thread says anything about the quality of Zeiss lenses then.... well, I don't even know what to say.
If I started a thread in the Alt group claiming that Sigma lenses were clearly superior to Zeiss lenses in every way, posted some flawed tests, and defended them vigorously, how many pages would it go?
Not long--you would promptly be trolled by a horde of rabid lens collectors, and the thread would either be locked, or your posts would be reported and deleted. The fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has, is a testament to the relative calmness (or is it stoic resignation) of Canon lens users in the face of evangelical fervor for a particular brand of lens.
chez wrote:
14 pages later...there must truly be something to these Zeiss lens or interest in this thread would have died long ago.
I don't think it is the particular lens in question which has sparked up much debate. It is the comparison methodology (often flawed) and far fetched attributes assigned to lenses which stem largely from people's imagination.
However, I do not think it does any harm if Zeiss aficionados see 4D in its renderings (the fourth dimension being the time......the longer one looks at the image, the more animated it becomes ) or "presence" or "magic", since photography is a sophisticated and subjective craft/art as well, and not all of it can be quantified nor put into words well.
As long as we understand and accept that some of us may not see that "magic", or at least we do not see it in the same way. Faith conversions of that type do not always work, particularly if based on questionable tests and comparisons.
This thread is like those 85 1.8 V 85 L II lens threads. The comparison is pretty pointless.
If L users believe they have scored a bargain, good on them.
The review, on which this whole thread is based on is by a guy who has tested every L under the sun. If he thought the ZE was crap, or that you can save money by buying the L, he would have said this. He has reviewed a few Zeisses, not all received glowing reviews. Perhaps you can trust a neutral reviewer.
The Zeiss is blisteringly sharp wide open, the 100% sample I attached is unsharpened. If I sharpened it my daughter's skin would look like a granny's. At this aperture you can create images that you simply can't with the Canon.
Charles, I linked to that thread as way to access the very specific comparison with the cracked mug, without embedding the images directly in this thread, as the images are not mine. Whatever else you may read in that thread is not of interest to me.
wickerprints wrote:
The fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has, is a testament to the relative calmness (or is it stoic resignation) of Canon lens users in the face of evangelical fervor for a particular brand of lens.
As far as I recall, the members posting is this thread who are usually contributing more in the alternative forum, have been more calm and tolerant than the average of what you see in the Canon forum in general.
SKumar25 wrote:
This thread is like those 85 1.8 V 85 L II lens threads. The comparison is pretty pointless.
No, this thread is nothing like a comparison between two Canon lenses, because in that case, people aren't making fanatical claims about "magic" and "3D look" just because the lens is a particular brand.
If L users believe they have scored a bargain, good on them.
This is not about bargains or value. This is entirely about the distastefulness of biased individuals who attempt to cloak their biases and irrational exuberance for Zeiss under a shroud of objectivity, when they are not in fact being objective.
The review, on which this whole thread is based on is by a guy who has tested every L under the sun. If he thought the ZE was crap, or that you can save money by buying the L, he would have said this. He has reviewed a few Zeisses, not all received glowing reviews. Perhaps you can trust a neutral reviewer.
Nowhere does Bryan say that the Zeiss 100 MP produces "images that you simply can't with the Canon." Furthermore, the style in which he reviews equipment is such that he focuses on the specific item in question, rather than attempting to draw comparisons between items. Thus, any comparisons tend to be based on specifications, rather than relative imaging performance. Yes, he gives a glowing review, but he does the same for the 100L, if you had bothered to read it.
The Zeiss is blisteringly sharp wide open, the 100% sample I attached is unsharpened. If I sharpened it my daughter's skin would look like a granny's. At this aperture you can create images that you simply can't with the Canon.
You are biased and you refuse to admit it. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that this claim is true. But you can't, so you speak in generalities to mask the fact that you cannot substantiate your viewpoint.
alundeb wrote:
Charles, I linked to that thread as way to access the very specific comparison with the cracked mug, without embedding the images directly in this thread, as the images are not mine. Whatever else you may read in that thread is not of interest to me.
If the person who took the images has demonstrated a clear bias in their interpretation and defense of his methodology, as well as through exaggerated claims far in excess of what is actually in the images, then it stands to reason that the production of those images may have been skewed to favor the desired lens. This is known as confirmation bias. Thus, it is not possible to accept the images in isolation, since we know that the person who produced them already had the expectation that one lens would outperform the other.
alundeb wrote:
As far as I recall, the members posting is this thread who are usually contributing more in the alternative forum, have been more calm and tolerant than the average of what you see in the Canon forum in general.
One guy has been banned because of this thread. This topic has ruffled a few feathers.
wickerprints wrote:
Not long--you would promptly be trolled by a horde of rabid lens collectors, and the thread would either be locked, or your posts would be reported and deleted.
Unfortunately, you're probably right. Years ago, I was basically told by a moderator that I shouldn't post there any more because I was upsetting people and risked being banned from FM. I posted a lot of comparisons between Canon and Contax lenses in the 2005-2006 timeframe, but I didn't adhere to the Faith and was labeled a Heretic. [tm]
alundeb wrote:
As far as I recall, the members posting is this thread who are usually contributing more in the alternative forum, have been more calm and tolerant than the average of what you see in the Canon forum in general.
I don't contribute on the alternative forum for the same reason that I don't contribute to evangelical Christian forums: the people there are comfortable with their delusions and don't take kindly to differing viewpoints.
SKumar25 wrote:
One guy has been banned because of this thread. This topic has ruffled a few feathers.
You are more than welcome to cease participating in this thread, if you don't like what you are reading.
Again, can you prove that someone was banned because of this thread? Who was it, and for what reason? Not surprisingly, your claims lack evidence.
If Zeiss users don't like hearing that their lenses aren't as good as they think they are, or that other brands of lenses can have excellent performance in their own right and offer things Zeiss can't, then perhaps they should keep to themselves. That's why they have an entire alt gear forum dedicated to them. The fact that this thread was posted in the Canon forum shows that they can't keep to themselves, and it never belonged here to begin with. It's not everybody else's fault that the fanatics feel such a compelling urge to proselytize that they can't stay in their own forum.
It's all rather odd, anyway. If you are so convinced of the superiority of your choice of lenses, why would you want to try to convince anybody else? Wouldn't you want to keep that knowledge to yourself, so that you would have an advantage in terms of producing better photos? The vehemence with which Zeiss gets pushed from some users is so intense--and often so derisive, condescending, and smug--that I do not believe altruism alone could be responsible for such passion. Thus, the only conclusion I can draw is that such fervor is actually a need to alleviate one's insecurities, and to receive assurance that it was worthwhile to spend more money for less functionality.
SKumar25 wrote:
One guy has been banned because of this thread. This topic has ruffled a few feathers.
That is what i don't understand. Why do so many people get their panties into a knot when someone who owns a Zeiss thinks it renders better than a Canon. I personally think they are way o ver priced including thé Canon versions. I use thé tamron 90, but i don't get all excited when peuple rave about their L's or Zeiss.
wickerprints wrote:
If the person who took the images has demonstrated a clear bias in their interpretation and defense of his methodology, as well as through exaggerated claims far in excess of what is actually in the images, then it stands to reason that the production of those images may have been skewed to favor the desired lens. This is known as confirmation bias. Thus, it is not possible to accept the images in isolation, since we know that the person who produced them already had the expectation that one lens would outperform the other.
Wow. By this it is not possible for your opponents to ever back up their claims with evidence that you will accept.
chez wrote:
That is what i don't understand. Why do so many people get their panties into a knot when someone who owns a Zeiss thinks it renders better than a Canon.
To be fair, why do so many Zeiss users get their panties in a knot when other people say the differences are not significant? It goes both ways.
wickerprints wrote:
To be fair, why do so many Zeiss users get their panties in a knot when other people say the differences are not significant? It goes both ways.
Yep, both ways, like a couple kids in a playground claiming their dad is stronger than the others.
"my dad is stronger than yours"
"no, mine is"
"no mine is. He can beat up your dad with one hand tied behind his back."
Just substitute lens for dad and you get the picture how foolish you and everyone who argues here really looks.
I'm perfectly okay with being called foolish and childish, if that is how others wish to see me. But to be viewed as inferior, ignorant, or less able, is not something I take lightly.
The fact that this thread has gone on as long as it has, is a testament to the relative calmness (or is it stoic resignation) of Canon lens users in the face of evangelical fervor for a particular brand of lens.
) or "presence" or "magic", since photography is a sophisticated and subjective craft/art as well, and not all of it can be quantified nor put into words well.