denoir wrote:
i.e to see if there was such a thing as Zeiss/Canon drawing style.
Can you please offer a definition of the term, "drawing style?"
I'm adding this to the list of undefined terms that folks toss around as if they have concrete meaning. From this gigantic thread there are now two:
"per pixel sharpness" "drawing style"
I'm still looking forward to meaningful definitions of either or both.
SKumar25 wrote:
Here is another example relating to "look". This is by the 21 ZE on a 5DII.
From my experience, Canon's seldom render like this under the conditions, regardless of PP.
[photograph used without permission of owner not included here]
So, this is the amazing 3D effect and color and contrast that only comes from the Zeiss lens? Really?
SKumar25 wrote:
I have not come across any rule related to linking. Go ahead and report me...
You did not "link" to the images. You embedded the images themselves in a post without permission. That is quite a different thing.
For an analogy consider this: You could write a book that includes the suggestion the reader obtain and then read another book. You cannot write a book that simply includes the chapter from the other author's book in your own without first getting permission.
Without going through all the testing and results with a fine-toothed combed histogram, I'm inclined to agree with your conclusion that the lenses have a particular style that can be picked out. Thanks for posting.
Specularist wrote:
In this case we know field curvature, astigmatism, etc., are low, so we can estimate from the MTF curves that the Canon has more lateral chromatic aberration. LCA reduces the contrast of tangential structures but not sagittal structures, worsens with image height, and isn't affected by stopping down the aperture. And as the MTF charts of the Canon show a poorer improvement in tangential structures in the field when the lens is stopped down, yet the sagittal structures improve strongly, LCA is likely to blame.
My point is that it cannot be assumed simply by looking at the MTF curve. How do we "know" other aberrations are not significant? On what basis does one arrive at that conclusion?
If someone with the two lenses does a test for lateral chromatic aberration, the differences will be obvious to all.
That is not in dispute. I said in my very first post in this thread that the Canon has more lateral color than the Zeiss, did I not? Go back to page one if you don't believe me.
The proper way to examine MTF curves is to ignore any preconceived notions of what you think the lens is supposed to do. To do otherwise would be unscientific. You can't assume that just because it is called a macro lens, that it should have a distortion free, flat field. You can only look at the curves for what they show. It is not the same thing to say that you cannot infer the presence of CA from MTF, versus saying MTF does not reflect the effects of CA.
Furthermore, without knowing the testing methodology, you don't know if the data was even collected or calculated using monochromatic light, in which case CA would be entirely absent.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Can you please offer a definition of the term, "drawing style?"
I'm adding this to the list of undefined terms that folks toss around as if they have concrete meaning. From this gigantic thread there are now two:
"per pixel sharpness" "drawing style"
Sure, "drawing style" or "rendering style" or simply "look" is the encompassing term that includes all aspects of the optical signature of the lens. Colors, contrast at different resolutions, sharpness, bokeh etc all form the drawing style.
Per pixel sharpness is simply the MTF for lp/mm at base sensor resolution. Or if you prefer a non-technical answer - how sharp (micro contrast + resolution) a 100% crop looks.
I can recommend a text for you that will clarify a lot of these terms for you:
If someone with the two lenses does a test for lateral chromatic aberration, the differences will be obvious to all.
I don't have both lenses to shoot side by side test anymore, but you are right, the Canon has stronger lateral CA (while the Zeiss has stronger longitudinal CA).
The best person to answer all these questions like "who's got the longest lens", etc is the Lensrentals guy. Where's he? Roger ... please take a few identical shots with the two lenses in this fight and clear up the matter.
I had been considering the 100mpze before i even acquired the 21ze and of course the Canon 100/f2.8 was and still is a viable alternative IMO and not just due to the reduced cost.
From some past reviews i recall the 100mp ze does suffer from CA wide open under certain lighting conditions and the below clearly substantiates that claim unless folks will as usual reply once again its just this photographers 100mp ze copy:
The 100 CZ I rented ... CA was visible clearly when using LiveView. Very clearly visible. I was indeed shooting in ambient lighting outdoors at a park.
saaketham wrote:
The best person to answer all these questions like "who's got the longest lens", etc is the Lensrentals guy. Where's he? Roger ... please take a few identical shots with the two lenses in this fight and clear up the matter.
Actually I've followed the thread and don't have a lot to add: two great lenses that are a bit different without one being better or worse. But I've been doing some experimenting with trying to demonstrate the difference. If you don't want to read a long article, you can skip down to the mid point where the yellow dots start, but basically a comparison of the Canon 35 f1.4 (lens B) with the Zeiss 35 f2 (lens C).
The very preliminary conclusion is that lens designers are canceling the various inevitable aberrations in very different ways and that would certainly account for why we see differences in an images appearance, even with two excellent lenses.
I'm doing some similar stuff with a number of lenses and the Zeiss-Canon 100 comparison is on the pretty soon list.
I've gotten a bit side-tracked though because it turns out that chart is detecting lenses with decentered elements better than any other tool we have, so I've gone off on that tangent for a bit.
Awesome Roger, I really enjoy reading your articles (all the ones on the history of cameras and lenses have been fantastic) and also enjoyed the article you linked to here.
Very much curious to see what you find when it comes to the ZE 100 vs. 100L.
"Several powerful forces are at work here. In the lineage of the "emperor's new clothes," few want to admit that they don't see the difference that everyone else sees, much less the difference that the really smart people claim to see. Sometimes though, especially in areas like wine and sound equipment and photographic equipment, where a certain percentage of people use the field as a way to demonstrate their superiority by acquiring "the best stuff," certain people are really, really invested in having the best stuff. And another issue is that once one invests (mentally and financially) in "the best," it is very, very difficult to see rationally when owning the best makes no discernible difference in the final product. Making things more complex is the fact that the quality of the stuff does matter - though not quite in the way that these folks imagine." ...Show more →
Dan -- Really? It has come to you quoting yourself?!
I'd say the next time you get that impulse, it's time to step back from the keyboard and take a short walk.
wickerprints wrote:
You just don't get it, do you? We are NOT comparing other pairs of lenses here. We are saying, show everybody a situation in which the 100 MP will take an image with this desired "look" but the 100L, under the same conditions, will not.
I suggest you cinch up your pants, and start doing these tests yourself and providing us with the results that support you positions, instead of the constant barrage of criticism and negativity, with no photographic contribution.
This is one of those "put up, or shut up" scenarios I so often find you lacking in. Plenty of verbiage, and little or no photography.
gdanmitchell wrote:
You did not "link" to the images. You embedded the images themselves in a post without permission. That is quite a different thing.
For an analogy consider this: You could write a book that includes the suggestion the reader obtain and then read another book. You cannot write a book that simply includes the chapter from the other author's book in your own without first getting permission.
Dan
That is not against the rules here. When people post they fully expect their image may be linked. The rules here relate to IP. If I claimed the photo was mine then that is wrong.
SKumar25 wrote:
That is not against the rules here. When people post they fully expect their image may be linked. The rules here relate to IP. If I claimed the photo was mine then that is wrong.
In short I posted in the spirit of the forum.
No, I think what you did is violate copyright. You may provide a link to the photograph but not reproduce the photograph elsewhere without the express permission of the photographer. Furthermore, you did not even cite the name of the photographer. Sorry, this is wrong.
Gunzorro wrote:
I suggest you cinch up your pants, and start doing these tests yourself and providing us with the results that support you positions, instead of the constant barrage of criticism and negativity, with no photographic contribution.
This is one of those "put up, or shut up" scenarios I so often find you lacking in. Plenty of verbiage, and little or no photography.
Dudemanppl played the role of the resident troll. His posts were ignored till the posts started getting vulgar and provocotive. Fred deleted one such post. To Dudemanppl's actions Wickerprints' comment was "he was bored".
Just a couple of pages back the rendering differences were analogised to the emperor with no clothes, or clueless HI FI "afficianfos" / wine tasters along with other back handers.
In response I posted some samples to at least get everyone to agree on the rendering differences and Wickerprints spits the dummy.
He's happy to tolerate the ignorant or useless / inflammatory posts as long as they support his position, but when someone posts examples to illustrate a contrary point he gets all upset.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
No, I think what you did is violate copyright. You may provide a link to the photograph but not reproduce the photograph elsewhere without the express permission of the photographer. Furthermore, you did not even cite the name of the photographer. Sorry, this is wrong.
Fair enough, point taken, let's not launch off on an unnecessary tangent here.
Includes the following: The highlights below are my formatting.
Do not violate copyright laws, or misrepresent someone else's work as your own. You may not use or publish any of the photographs displayed on these pages without express permission from the original photographer. No exceptions.
Includes the following: The highlights below are my formatting.
Do not violate copyright laws, or misrepresent someone else's work as your own. You may not use or publish any of the photographs displayed on these pages without express permission from the original photographer. No exceptions.
Roger ... please take a few identical shots with the two lenses in this fight and clear up the matter. 