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.
And that's the crux of the matter. It's been proven several times in this thread alone, not including the various other forms of proof, that the Zeiss is not significantly better than the Canon 100L in terms of IQ yet there are individuals so blinded by brand allegiance that they cannot just simply admit to the fact that the two lenses are virtually identical. So much for objectivity.
In the end, both lenses are great in terms of optical performance. If you've got the additional cash, need f/2 and don't mind MF and the inability to shoot beyond 1:2 without tubes/TCs or if an extremely smooth MF operation and BQ is crucial then go with the Zeiss. If you favor versatility (IS, AF) without compromising IQ with the addition of weather sealing and don't feel like spending upwards of $1800 go with the Canon. Don't put any stock in what people see in the results regardless of your choice because the actual truth is 99.99999% of people will never be able to differentiate the two in print.
I don't think any profound has been proven here and the theme is the same as any lens X vs lens Y thread:
Some people see a huge difference, others see no difference. Some think the observed differences are worth the extra money, some think its a waste. Both sides claim the other is biased (or calls them fanboys).
Its funny that some people are so vested in their argument when there is no correct answer and no one-lens-fits-all solution.
Doug, you can see the comparison images and MTFs side by side--While there might be differences between the two any objectionable person would have to agree they are extremely slight and by no means significant. I guarantee no one would be able to see a set of images in print and say, without a doubt, which lens was used to produce which image.
M Vers wrote:
Doug, you can see the comparison images and MTFs side by side--While there might be differences between the two any objectionable person would have to agree they are extremely slight and by no means significant. I guarantee no one would be able to see a set of images in print and say, without a doubt, which lens was used to produce which image.
But I could tell which of Ernie's images in this thread was Zeiss just by looking at the web-sized images. It was even easier to see there than in the crops.
alundeb wrote:
But I could tell which of Ernie's images in this thread was Zeiss just by looking at the web-sized images. It was even easier to see there than in the crops.
I don't know who Ernie is or which thread you're referring to, however my point remains. If Aravind were to take a series of ten images, five images each comparing five different scenes with identical settings, lighting, framing and subject matter, and either print them for comparison or post them here with stripped exif I highly doubt anyone will be able to differentiate them, especially not after post processing. And I'm not talking about sitting there going back and forth analyzing every minute detail--if there is a significant difference you should recognize them right off the bat.
M Vers wrote:
I don't know who Ernie is or which thread you're referring to, however my point remains. If Aravind were to take a series of ten images, five images each comparing five different scenes with identical settings, lighting, framing and subject matter, and either print them for comparison or post them here with stripped exif I highly doubt anyone will be able to differentiate them, especially not after post processing.
I am a bit surprised that you have reached your conclusions without even seeing this:
I could easily do the same with Aravind's images if he made them the same way. You will be shocked to hear how I did it:
The focal length is 3% shorter.
I am embarrassed to admit that "cheating" is how I was able to tell which was which (i.e. the Zeiss images are the ones that are "shorter"). I could not tell them apart in any other way, even though others were claiming the Zeiss had nicer contrast, etc...
M Vers wrote:
..And I'm not talking about sitting there going back and forth analyzing every minute detail--if there is a significant difference you should recognize them right off the bat.
The point I was trying make is that photographers have different needs and value different characteristics in their lenses. So what one might perceive as a tiny insignificant difference could be a blatantly obvious (and worth the extra money) to someone else. This same debate about perceived differences and their worth goes on with all the 85/1.8 vs 85L, 35/2 vs 35L, 50/1.4 vs 50L threads (to no end).
It's hard to see any difference until you place the 2 images side-by-side ... and yes the colors are a little stronger and colder on the Zeiss, and the Canon color is a little warmer (better for skin tones) but this is really just a color bias ... as you would see between different brands ... and this was why I liked the Voigtlanders - because it's Velvia-like. Every lens manufacturer have their own characteristics and color bias. And I am willing to bet that the Leica color is better than either the Canon or the Zeiss.
In terms of sharpness and resolution, I could not tell them apart between these 2 lenses from the crops.
thedigitalbean wrote:
I am embarrassed to admit that "cheating" is how I was able to tell which was which (i.e. the Zeiss images are the ones that are "shorter"). I could tell them apart in any other way, even though others were claiming the Zeiss had nicer contrast, etc...
dfresh wrote:
The point I was trying make is that photographers have different needs and value different characteristics in their lenses. So what one might perceive as a tiny insignificant difference could be a blatantly obvious (and worth the extra money) to someone else. This same debate about perceived differences and their worth goes on with all the 85/1.8 vs 85L, 35/2 vs 35L, 50/1.4 vs 50L threads (to no end).
For the most part I agree with you. The point I, and various other people, have been trying to make is the difference between these two lenses, as opposed to others, in regards to optical performance is virtually imperceptible. For someone to claim one lens is far better than the other in that sense is complete bs. As I stated above there are many other differences between these two lenses that weigh much heavier than IQ.
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.
Do you have working experience with both 100mm lenses?
thedigitalbean wrote:
I am embarrassed to admit that "cheating" is how I was able to tell which was which (i.e. the Zeiss images are the ones that are "shorter"). I could not tell them apart in any other way, even though others were claiming the Zeiss had nicer contrast, etc...
I examined your landscape comparison (both lenses wide open) in the other thread, and noticed that Zeiss was noticeably sharper in the middle foreground grass, while Canon was noticeably sharper with the trees in the middle. It would be nice to see a similar comparison with both lenses at f/2.8, and with both lenses at their sharpest at the same distance. It is OK if you don't want to do it, but you own the privilege of being respected as an unbiased tester.
alundeb wrote:
Yes, at f/8 the differences are extremely minute.
I think most of the Zeiss fans are very clear about the advantage being at wide apertures.
Which further confirms the differences are extremely minute.