wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.19 #16 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens | |
SKumar25 wrote:
Can you back this claim with evidence? 
Your own words in this thread serve as the evidence for my claim. Specifically, your use of vague terminology such as "presence" and "3D effect," without addressing specific and controlled testing, as well as a complete disregard for the counterpoints that others including myself have raised, are among the reasons why I find you biased.
Not that I expect you to acknowledge or accept this--people don't like to be called biased, or told that their opinions are merely expressions of subjective preferences. You haven't been able to provide any objective comparison that conclusively demonstrates this "presence" thing that you speak of. Nobody else in this thread has seen what you see.
Not everything can be measured. Can you measure if food tastes good? Similarly with Zeiss and Canon there is a difference and it is up to peoples personal preference. If you don't see any difference then that is your prerogative.
See, that's a cop-out. You want to put forth this claim that your lens is better because of some vague characteristic that you call "3D effect" or "presence," and then proceed to defend your viewpoint by saying such a thing is intangible and unmeasurable, and visible to only some people. If you want to state your subjective opinion, you should qualify it as such and use more balanced language, rather than trying to pass it off as objective fact, which is what you have been doing throughout this thread. Then, when confronted with this, you ignore and deflect, trying to accuse others of bias in the opposite direction. And that is the reason why I take exception with your posts.
The hypocracy in this place cracks me up. If someone posted a crop of the 85 1.8 against the 85 II, and said "don't know what the fuss is about, they look the same", most of the the guys here would roll their eyes. Talk about missing the point. 
It's spelled "hypocrisy."
And it's not hypocritical to point out when others are making exaggerated claims which are not supported by actual evidence. It is, however, hypocritical to accuse others of being biased in order to draw attention away from your own inability to produce evidence to support your case.
As for comparing the 85/1.8 and 85/1.2L II, I have owned both lenses. From about f/2.8 and slower, the differences are negligible. From f/1.8 - f/2.8, the L is very very slightly sharper, with less vignetting (to be expected given their designs), but again, unlikely to be of much consequence in practice. Almost the entire purpose of owning the 85L is to shoot it at apertures faster than f/1.8, where one cannot make a comparison with the 85/1.8 because it doesn't go that fast. I wouldn't have bought the 85L if all I wanted to do was shoot f/1.8 or slower. Each lens has its advantages and disadvantages, and even the most ardent supporters of either lens acknowledges that. But what we're getting from Zeiss users is that the 100MP is supposed to be some miracle lens with some vague "rendering" characteristic that only they can see, and does something much better than the 100L; and ignoring everything else that is different about these two lenses, to the point of refusing to acknowledge the 100MP's clear shortcomings. That's not a balanced assessment.
|
