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.
Virtually imperceptible for you or for everyone? If for everyone, do you have any examples or hard data to back this up?
Mirek Elsner wrote:
Virtually imperceptible for you or for everyone? If for everyone, do you have any examples or hard data to back this up?
Thanks.
The sample images posted in this very thread should suffice. Again, I'd absolutely love to see someone pick out with absolute certainty which images were taken with which lens in print.
I disagree. In the center, the fine merging lines are significantly better resolved with the ZE, and the edge definition in the coarse circles and in the numbers is clearly better with the ZE. These observations are also supported by Photozone MTF 50 numbers.
thedigitalbean wrote:
Yea I'm finding that getting the focus plane exactly the same is quite a challenge (manual focus with the 100L is not the easiest).
I'll see what I can do today, unfortunately I'm stuck at home and the subjects in the back yard aren't great for careful testing.
How about using LiveView contrast detect focus with the Canon, and then try to match that with the Zeiss? Anyway, there is no rush, and thanks for your cooperative mind. That is what makes FM such a great place. Unfortunately, I don't own these lenses so I can't bring anything to the table here, but I am interested in the results beacuse both lenses are on my "to buy" list.
Thanks Anil! It is my believe that the Zeiss ... and Voigtlander ... and Leica lenses all have slightly better color and micro contrast. And they are all more solidly built.
In terms of sharpness and resolution, there is absolutely no difference between the 100L and ZE100, going by Ernie Aubert's samples.
saaketham wrote:
@bobbytan ... those images you emailed me .. those are outstanding!!
The sample images posted in this very thread should suffice.
But there are also the images posted in the alt forum thread that was linked here before. And these show differences. In that thread (and elsewhere) people were able to discern between Zeiss and other brands with statistical significance.
Mirek Elsner wrote:
But there are also the images posted in the alt forum thread that was linked here before. And these show differences. In that thread (and elsewhere) people were able to discern between Zeiss and other brands with statistical significance.
Mirek Elsner wrote:
But there are also the images posted in the alt forum thread that was linked here before. And these show differences. In that thread (and elsewhere) people were able to discern between Zeiss and other brands with statistical significance.
The other images in the alt thread, at least those I've seen that were linked here, are extremely poor comparison images while Aravind's are actually comparable, using the same lighting and similar enough framing.
bobbytan wrote:
NO! This is the only entertainment I get that doesn't cost me money.
Yay! Grab some popcorn then !
On a more serious note though.... Do you really expect one camp to agree with what the other camp is trying to persuade them to agree? I don't.... But it is entertaining alright though .
Yes, it is really entertaining to see you guys disregard conform results from 4 independent sources about sharpness at f/2.8 (TDP, PZ, LC and FM alt), and stick to only the ones in this thread, that turn out to be partly at irrelevant apertures and partly with inconsistent focus.
alundeb wrote:
Yes, it is really entertaining to see you guys disregard conform results from 4 independent sources about sharpness at f/2.8 (TDP, PZ, LC and FM alt), and stick to only the ones in this thread, that turn out to be partly at irrelevant apertures and partly with inconsistent focus.
Yeah, I guess I have to plead guilty to the irrelevant apertures portion of that. I was using the aperture that I'd typically use for that type of shot; I'll have to do another comparison at f2 & f2.8, with some subject more appropriate for large apertures. If anyone would be interested, that is...
alundeb wrote:
Yes, it is really entertaining to see you guys disregard conform results from 4 independent sources about sharpness at f/2.8 (TDP, PZ, LC and FM alt), and stick to only the ones in this thread, that turn out to be partly at irrelevant apertures and partly with inconsistent focus.
Meanwhile actual legitimate comparison images (Aravind's) don't show much, if any, noticeable differentiation...then again real photography is about pixel peeping, over exaggeration of slight optical variations on MTF charts and other shoddy/skewed testing methods.
M Vers wrote:
Meanwhile actual legitimate comparison images (Aravind's) don't show much, if any, noticeable differentiation...then again real photography is about pixel peeping and over exaggeration of slight optical variations on MTF charts.
I am interested in those seemingly small differences in resolution because I invest in lenses that will not fall apart with future high MP cameras. Call me crazy, but I want Medium Format resoltiuon in 35 mm form factor. Independently, the wishes for such cameras or such lenses may seem like exaggerations, but together it will make sense.
alundeb wrote:
I am interested in those seemingly small differences in resolution because I invest in lenses that will not fall apart with future high MP cameras. Call me crazy, but I want Medium Format resoltiuon in 35 mm form factor. Independently, the wishes for such cameras or such lenses may seem like exaggerations, but together it will make sense.
Do you honestly believe that the 100L is going to "fall apart" when used on high MP bodies? Seriously? If that is indeed the case I'll take your advice and call you crazy and while I'm shooting at extremely slow shutter speeds or focusing on quicker moving objects getting consistently sharper images you can come up with excuses as to why the images you're getting with your Zeiss aren't sharp enough because you lack the ability to make up for movement, be it subject or camera shake, or miss the opportunity because you're too busy setting up your tripod. There are trade offs for everything--I'll take versatility with excellent IQ over build with excellent IQ any day of the week. Ymmv
M Vers wrote:
Do you honestly believe that the 100L is going to "fall apart" when used on high MP bodies? Seriously?
No, it came out a bit odd that way, I don't mean it will fall apart. But a 10% difference in linear resolution is what it is. 10% bigger print size if you put it that way.
10% of superfluous resolution. I believe the 100L has more than enough resolution for a 40+ megapixel FF body.
alundeb wrote:
No, it came out a bit odd that way, I don't mean it will fall apart. But a 10% difference in linear resolution is what it is. 10% bigger print size if you put it that way.
Should we just conform to false notions and save us from logical, unbiased ideals now Bobby?
!