wickerprints wrote:
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....Show more →
SKumar certainly isn't the only one on this thread who claims to see differences between the Zeiss and Canon where you don't. Several other experienced photographers have posted images from the ZE100 on this thread (including Philber and Lars Johnsson around pages 4-5); I doubt those people spent $1800 on a lens without having seen some compelling reasons to do so. Along with those who have posted images, there are plenty who have chimed in with positive remarks from their own experience with the ZE100 or similar Zeiss lenses in comparison to Canon and other makes.
There have been multiple links to side-by-side comparisons posted where, even if the differences were not so great in your eyes, they were certainly present and reliably distinguishable to many people here. There have been many comparisons (of this and other lenses) posted to the Alt forum, including fairly well controlled blind tests / surveys, in which plenty of viewers (often the majority) reliably identify the traits that you consider illusory; this includes the fairly recent comparison cross-posted on the Canon board in which a large majority of responders consistently identified/preferred the Zeiss lens, even based on web-sized images of several stopped-down shots.
You seem to be overly eager to dismiss the observations of anyone who actually does see a difference. It's reasonable to say where you don't see differences, or that in your opinion the differences are far too trivial to outweigh the other advantages of the 100L, or to point out more precise technical explanations where differences are expressed in unclear/subjective terms. However, to outright dismiss the piles of evidence, often based on subjective but scientifically repeatable evaluations, both from the individual experiences of photographers who have worked with many lenses and from the collective conclusions arising from (blind) comparison tests, is foolish and contrary to the facade of rational objectivity that you attempt to project in your posts.
Here's another series I did comparing the two. Nothing new to be learned here but I managed to do it yesterday while my daughter was down for a nap so I figured I'd throw it out there. There are links to compare 100% off that page.
You can present points to him till the cows come home; you might as well be talking to one of those proverbial brick walls that are the subject of many other debates. He doesn't employ receive mode, just transmit and stand-by; he presents his fixed viewpoint, period. Why bother with him? Even before this thread, I'd recognized his attitude: He's the all-knowing, all-important one, who always has to be right. Thank Fred for "Hide Me."
Thanks for doing this, Aravind. The results are pretty consistent with your previous test, and with Ernie's test as well, in that the Canon colors are definitely warmer - which is more appealing or works for a shot like this ... and for portraits/people photos.
thedigitalbean wrote:
Here's another series I did comparing the two. Nothing new to be learned here but I managed to do it yesterday while my daughter was down for a nap so I figured I'd throw it out there. There are links to compare 100% off that page.
thedigitalbean wrote:
Here's another series I did comparing the two. Nothing new to be learned here but I managed to do it yesterday while my daughter was down for a nap so I figured I'd throw it out there. There are links to compare 100% off that page.
I photographed some Chrysanthemum very briefly this morning while it was still a little cloudy. I managed to swap the lenses quick enough to avoid any light changing. The framing difference is because the Zeiss extends as you focus closer. I only swapped the lens and didn't bother reframing to account for this.
And finally because if I've done too much tests shots and not enough real photography I start feeling a little icky, here's an actual image made with the Zeiss.
This was done hand held, with a Zacuto Z-finder attached (I am seriously digging it for live view based photography). f/2 1/400s. A burst of 9 images were taken which were then focus stacked in Photoshop CS 5.1. No color work was done, some tone curve tweaking and a cooler white balance was used. Oh and at this point the sun was on the verge of coming out and clobbering all that soft light I was having.
...the pair of images he posted in this thread are plenty enough to get a general idea of how the two lenses perform...
That sounds great, but I owned both lenses side by side and my experience is different. I found differences big enough to give up AF, IS and weather sealing and keep the Zeiss and sell the Canon. We all have different preferences and I don't mean to imply that the Zeiss is better for everyone. I just don't agree that the differences are virtually imperceptible for everyone.
M Vers wrote:
Thanks again for the examples, Aravind--puts everything in perspective...where it should be.
+1
My thanks as well. This is exactly the kind of comparison that we've been asking for all along. It shows that there is very little difference between the two lenses, and in fact, it even supports TDP's test chart results showing more axial color in the Zeiss. If you look very closely at the specular highlights on the stuffed dog's nose, eyes, and collar, you will see that there is just the slightest bit more color fringing in one lens than the other. Furthermore, because the fringing is more magenta on the nose and more green on the eyes and collar, it must be concluded that this cannot be accounted for by differences in focus precision.
But as I have already stated, the differences are minuscule--I absolutely do not consider the axial color differences to be field relevant, even at high enlargement ratios. As for the color rendition, the differences are again very minor and which to choose is entirely subjective.
The stuffed dog is really adorable btw.
Addendum: I just noticed the axial color testing Aravind also performed, using a printed sheet of text shot at an angle. It very clearly shows more axial CA in the Zeiss. I still find it quite acceptable, but in this context, I must admit I would prefer using the 100L if I were to use it in high-contrast situations such as this.
bobbytan wrote:
10% of superfluous resolution. I believe the 100L has more than enough resolution for a 40+ megapixel FF body.
My experience with the 46 MP pixel density equivalent 7D suggests that differences you can barely see on the 5DII become obvious on the higher density sensor.
alundeb wrote:
My experience with the 46 MP pixel density equivalent 7D suggests that differences you can barely see on the 5DII become obvious on the higher density sensor.
Yup. I guess I could try them out with my wife's T2i, but not until next weekend
mpmendenhall wrote:
SKumar certainly isn't the only one on this thread who claims to see differences between the Zeiss and Canon where you don't. Several other experienced photographers have posted images from the ZE100 on this thread (including Philber and Lars Johnsson around pages 4-5); I doubt those people spent $1800 on a lens without having seen some compelling reasons to do so. Along with those who have posted images, there are plenty who have chimed in with positive remarks from their own experience with the ZE100 or similar Zeiss lenses in comparison to Canon and other makes.
There have been multiple links to side-by-side comparisons posted where, even if the differences were not so great in your eyes, they were certainly present and reliably distinguishable to many people here. There have been many comparisons (of this and other lenses) posted to the Alt forum, including fairly well controlled blind tests / surveys, in which plenty of viewers (often the majority) reliably identify the traits that you consider illusory; this includes the fairly recent comparison cross-posted on the Canon board in which a large majority of responders consistently identified/preferred the Zeiss lens, even based on web-sized images of several stopped-down shots.
You seem to be overly eager to dismiss the observations of anyone who actually does see a difference. It's reasonable to say where you don't see differences, or that in your opinion the differences are far too trivial to outweigh the other advantages of the 100L, or to point out more precise technical explanations where differences are expressed in unclear/subjective terms. However, to outright dismiss the piles of evidence, often based on subjective but scientifically repeatable evaluations, both from the individual experiences of photographers who have worked with many lenses and from the collective conclusions arising from (blind) comparison tests, is foolish and contrary to the facade of rational objectivity that you attempt to project in your posts....Show more →
thedigitalbean wrote:
Here's another series I did comparing the two. Nothing new to be learned here but I managed to do it yesterday while my daughter was down for a nap so I figured I'd throw it out there. There are links to compare 100% off that page.
thedigitalbean wrote:
I photographed some Chrysanthemum very briefly this morning while it was still a little cloudy. I managed to swap the lenses quick enough to avoid any light changing. The framing difference is because the Zeiss extends as you focus closer. I only swapped the lens and didn't bother reframing to account for this.
SKumar25 wrote:
Were these both at f/2.8? Where were you focussing? Thanks.
Exif reads f/2.8 for both images. The first seems focused slightly to the rear while the second a bit more on the larger flower to the right (look at the center of each 'main' flower).
Mirek Elsner wrote:
That sounds great, but I owned both lenses side by side and my experience is different. I found differences big enough to give up AF, IS and weather sealing and keep the Zeiss and sell the Canon. We all have different preferences and I don't mean to imply that the Zeiss is better for everyone. I just don't agree that the differences are virtually imperceptible for everyone.
+1
I did the same after using my friends Zeiss a weekend.
