denoir wrote:
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.
So, as I suspected, it doesn't really have a "meaning" in any concrete sense. It is just a fancy sounding way of saying "the look" of images made with the lens.
The use of the verb "drawing" seems to suggest some relationship to the aesthetic or techniques of other forms of visual art. The lens does not "draw" anything though. I projects. It suppose that unless one is trying to affect erudition though the use of fancy terms like "drawing style" that it would make sense to get over it and simply write "the look" or else come up with something more effete like "projection 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.
Again, that is a quite meaningless concept when it comes to describing lens performance per se. MTF is MTF and lp/mm is lp/mm. There is no way to rank something called "sharpness" for a lens or the sensor on a "per pixel" basis. Although this term gets bandied about quite a bit, it seems to be a thoroughly useless term that simply confuses things. (You could, I suppose speak of "per pixel sharpness" when it comes to printing, though terms like "dot gain" already serve a more useful purpose since "pixels" aren't generally the issue there.)
A pixel cannot be sharp or "not sharp" in camera or lens terms. A pixel simply refers to a value that reflects luminosity at a photosite. The lens has no effect on "sharpness" at this level whatsoever. Whether I remove the lens entirely and project light directly onto the photosite or project the light onto the photosite through the "sharpest" lens in the universe, the "pixel" will still end up sensing a luminosity value and will be equally "sharp."
The complex notion of MTF for lp/mm at base sensor resolution (by which I presume you actually mean something like photosite density or pixel pitch) is fairly meaningless as a way to rate lenses since it "complexifies" the system by including the variable of which format size and which sensor type you use. In other words, it only makes sense to then speak of lens X on camera Y with sensor Z.
I can recommend a text for you that will clarify a lot of these terms for you:
Thanks, but no thanks. I do know how to read MTF charts, and I understand what they represent.
I'm not a fan of using fancy and confusing terms where a simple and direct one will do. I'm especially not a fan of using fancy and confusing terms that don't really mean much.
gdanmitchell wrote:
So, as I suspected, it doesn't really have a "meaning" in any concrete sense. It is just a fancy sounding way of saying "the look" of images made with the lens.
On the contrary, it appears that you recognize the word has a perfectly good "meaning": a term for "the look" of images produced by the lens.
The use of the verb "drawing" seems to suggest some relationship to the aesthetic or techniques of other forms of visual art. The lens does not "draw" anything though. I projects. It suppose that unless one is trying to affect erudition though the use of fancy terms like "drawing style" that it would make sense to get over it and simply write "the look" or else come up with something more effete like "projection style."
You seem offended by the fact that photography might involve aesthetic and artistic elements? Or that the choice of lens drawing style might involve aethetic/artistic choices in addition to bare reductionist objectivity? Perhaps for you, photography is a purely mechanical process with no aspirations to be a "real" art with many parallels to "real drawing"; however, I suspect that there are plenty of photographers who do care about the artistic/aesthetic components of their creations. Also, "projection style" would be a bad choice --- too easily confused with other technical meanings of "projection" in imaging systems (e.g. rectilinear vs. fisheye vs. anamorphic projections).
I'm not a fan of using fancy and confusing terms where a simple and direct one will do. I'm especially not a fan of using fancy and confusing terms that don't really mean much.
Welcome to the English language; we're sorry if your initial visit here is disorienting. English, like other languages subject to a long and twisted historical development, is prone to accumulating awkward cruft and complexity, generating a complicated tangle of partially-redundant words separated by ill-defined shades of meaning. Technical subjects especially develop their own sub-optimal jargons. For improved linguistic simplicity, I recommend you move to the photography discussion sites in Esperanto or Newspeak. Or, use your time machine to prevent initial uses of unsavory terms. While you are conducting your time-traveling crusade to eliminate the nuances and complexity of English, please make sure that "your" and "you're," "there" and "their" end up as something that sound nothing alike --- teh internetz will thank you.
Dan, those are standard terms used by photographers as well as engineers working with optics. One of the reasons why I gave you the link was so that you can familiarize yourself with the terms that you apparently don't know. Whether you like them or not is beside the point. You can call it "look" if it makes you happier. Saying that a lens "draws" or "renders" is a standard expression.
As for the per pixel sharpness, of course it depends on both the camera and the lens - not to mention the demosaicing and other post processing. The pixel unit in "per pixel sharpness" is of course not the photosite but the data part in the final (software) image. That you find the term useless does not mean that other people do.
My sincere advice to you would be to try to to learn some of the language usually used to describe the attributes of lenses and cameras. It will allow you to participate in discussions on a more meaningful way. And don't assume that just because you don't understand an expression that it does not mean anything or nobody will take you seriously.
Anyway, I've answered your questions and the questions regarding the blind Zeiss/Canon test. So I'm out of here.
And Now For Something Completely Different An off-topic aside to the peanut gallery.
Do you remember this wonderful thread from a couple of months ago (yeah, right around April Fool's): Incediary Gear Topics
And the first post: PetKal wrote:
Here is some light reading/participation fare which should hopefully help us in some ways.
Which gear topics have traditionally caused most controversy and heated arguments ?
I can think of only a few now:
* 85L vs. 85 f/1.8
* 1DMkIII AF and Rob Galbraith's test results
* 50 f/1.2 focus shift anomaly
* USA instant rebates
Help me out here, but no bickering please.
Some of you may remember my incredibly perspicacious reply: SeverianTL wrote: 3D
Zeiss "rendering" vs. any lesser lens (and they're all lesser)
Filter vs no filter (UV)
"Film-like" 5D vs. "digital" 5DII
FF vs. crop
Can I call 'em or can I call 'em? Pardon me while I pat myself on the back.
Some will also note another currently active thread involving a certain "classic" camera.
(And lest my lighthearted parenthetical remarks quoted above lead some to think me in the Z camp, let me state for the record that I own and thoroughly enjoy using the 100L macro.)
Yes, Peter (PetKal), there are some topics that never fail to amuse.
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming . . . . . .
gdanmitchell wrote:
Can you please offer a definition of the term, "drawing style?"
Dan
No reason to get upset when others discuss what is know to them and unknown to you .. and some things are understood to have meaning without being quantified and defined. Like a good sense of humor, or poor taste in cars.
SeverianTL wrote: And Now For Something Completely Different An off-topic aside to the peanut gallery.
Do you remember this wonderful thread from a couple of months ago (yeah, right around April Fool's): Incediary Gear Topics
And the first post:
Some of you may remember my incredibly perspicacious reply:
Can I call 'em or can I call 'em? Pardon me while I pat myself on the back.
Some will also note another currently active thread involving a certain "classic" camera.
(And lest my lighthearted parenthetical remarks quoted above lead some to think me in the Z camp, let me state for the record that I own and thoroughly enjoy using the 100L macro.)
Yes, Peter (PetKal), there are some topics that never fail to amuse.
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming . . . . . . ...Show more →
gdanmitchell wrote: I'm not a fan of using fancy and confusing terms where a simple and direct one will do. I'm especially not a fan of using fancy and confusing terms that don't really mean much.
mpmendenhall wrote:
Welcome to the English language; we're sorry if your initial visit here is disorienting. English, like other languages subject to a long and twisted historical development, is prone to accumulating awkward cruft and complexity, generating a complicated tangle of partially-redundant words separated by ill-defined shades of meaning.
Mr Mendenhall, I hope you earn part of your living as a writer. Your posts on this thread display an uncommon grasp of language, and a firm grip of the ideas at hand. Well done.
rrxjon wrote:
Mr Mendenhall, I hope you earn part of your living as a writer. Your posts on this thread display an uncommon grasp of language, and a firm grip of the ideas at hand. Well done.
Thanks, but it turns out that my present living primarily rests on my avoiding writing. Should I actually get around to writing (a thesis on my physics research), I'll get fired (to ease the blow, they call it "graduation"). FM forums is a great help in keeping me employed.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Yes it's funny that people always assume that. My five Zeiss ZE lenses has a much lower average price than the average Canon lens that I own. My ZE 100 MP lens is a low priced lens compared to many Canon lenses that I own
Not compared to the Canon comparable FL however. Apples to apples.
They are beautiful lenses, almost works of art IMO, and deliver superb IQ, and although they are a bit overpriced again IMO, I can easily understand why they are highly prized in some cases at least. Until recently I had some older Zeiss lenses and although I have sold them, I hope to get at least 1 Zeiss lens in the near future.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not compared to the Canon comparable FL however. Apples to apples.
They are beautiful lenses, almost works of art IMO, and deliver superb IQ, and although they are a bit overpriced again IMO, I can easily understand why they are highly prized in some cases at least. Until recently I had some older Zeiss lenses and although I have sold them, I hope to get at least 1 Zeiss lens in the near future.
Yes some of the Zeiss with comparable FL have lower price. Just a sample here:
Canon 85/1,2 $ 2100
Zeiss 85/1,4 $ 1280
But that was not the reason here. The reason for the post was that some people here have comments like these:
"" Zeiss just means LOOK AT ME I PAID TOO MUCH FOR AN AVERAGE LENS"
" "emperor's new clothes""
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Yes some of the Zeiss with comparable FL have lower price. Just a sample here:
Canon 85/1,2 $ 2100
Zeiss 85/1,4 $ 1280
Lars,
While you are in the price comparison mode you might as well throw in the Canon 85mm f/1.8 at what? $400, $500 max? We all understand that the faster the lens the more expensive it gets and that the difference in speed is not directly correlated to the difference in price, however. I believe the difference in the price (almost double) of the Zeiss 100mm MP Makro relative to the Canon 100mmL Macro IS is not the point of contention. I am not saying that the Zeiss is not worth it though. I know to some for sure, it is.
Like I said before I enjoyed that Zeiss MP lens when I had/used it. Because of this thread, I went back and look at the images I took with this lens and indeed they are very, very nice. As matter of fact, since I felt my PP skill has improved since then, I reprocessed some of them. Especially, those that were taken at f/2.0 are spectacular. Smooth bokeh, shallow depth-of-field, making the sharp target jump out more, and the colors that are to die for, etc. Are we equating a sharp target, shallow depth-of-field with smooth bokeh as 3D rendering then? Wow, may be I was wrong the 3D rendering was there in plain eyesight and I missed it?
So, I also looked at more recent images taken with the Canon 100mmL macro and my gosh! They also look spectacular. Did I see the difference between those shots taken with the Canon and Zeiss? Yes, I did but the objects were not the same and the shooting conditions were completely different. Like going around in circle, I finally arrived at the same conclusion. These two lenses are really, really excellent in the IQ department. You cannot go wrong with either one, but we all know that already, huh ?
AGeoJO wrote:
You cannot go wrong with either one, but we all know that already, huh ?
wickerprints wrote:
Some people in this thread would disagree with that assessment--they think the Canon is crap.
The impression I got is more that the difference is definitely there in favor of the Zeiss and to some folks, the difference is sufficient enough to justify the purchase of the Zeiss, which is faster by 1-stop but without AF, IS and without getting the real 1:1 macro magnification the Canon lens offers. Of course, I could be wrong though and it won't be the first time .
AGeoJO wrote:
The impression I got is more that the difference is definitely there in favor of the Zeiss and to some folks, the difference is sufficient enough to justify the purchase of the Zeiss, which is faster by 1-stop but without AF, IS and without getting the real 1:1 macro magnification the Canon lens offers. Of course, I could be wrong though and it won't be the first time .
AgeoJO, I think you assessment is right. I don't see anyone saying the 100L is crap ( other than wickerprints imagining that ). I see most people saying the Zeiss is different and to them they see a "3Dish rendering" which is worth the extra cost. Nothing wrong with that...it is their money.
AGeoJO wrote:
Lars,
While you are in the price comparison mode you might as well throw in the Canon 85mm f/1.8 at what? $400, $500 max? We all understand that the faster the lens the more expensive it gets and that the difference in speed is not directly correlated to the difference in price, however. I believe the difference in the price (almost double) of the Zeiss 100mm MP Makro relative to the Canon 100mmL Macro IS is not the point of contention. I am not saying that the Zeiss is not worth it though. I know to some for sure, it is.
Like I said before I enjoyed that Zeiss MP lens when I had/used it. Because of this thread, I went back and look at the images I took with this lens and indeed they are very, very nice. As matter of fact, since I felt my PP skill has improved since then, I reprocessed some of them. Especially, those that were taken at f/2.0 are spectacular. Smooth bokeh, shallow depth-of-field, making the sharp target jump out more, and the colors that are to die for, etc. Are we equating a sharp target, shallow depth-of-field with smooth bokeh as 3D rendering then? Wow, may be I was wrong the 3D rendering was there in plain eyesight and I missed it?
So, I also looked at more recent images taken with the Canon 100mmL macro and my gosh! They also look spectacular. Did I see the difference between those shots taken with the Canon and Zeiss? Yes, I did but the objects were not the same and the shooting conditions were completely different. Like going around in circle, I finally arrived at the same conclusion. These two lenses are really, really excellent in the IQ department. You cannot go wrong with either one, but we all know that already, huh ?...Show more →
To be fair I belive we have to compare those Zeiss ZE lenses with the Canon L lenses. And not with Canons lower priced consumer lenses.
Yes the Canon is a little bit faster. But the Zeiss has better build (all metal) and include 3 years warranty also.
If comparing it should be against canon lenses like14L, 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 100L
Not compared to the Canon comparable FL however. Apples to apples.
The point is not whether they are more expensive than comparable FL from Canon, but whether they are the most expensive lenses that people own. Dan suggested there are no discernible differences and people are just making it up to justify that they purchased the most expensive and exclusive lens. However, there are people who own $4500 35mm Summilux and $1000 35mm Zeiss, $4000 28mm Summicron and $1000 28mm Zeiss and still see the specific clarity and better sense of space in the Zeiss lenses. If Dan was right, I would expect that people would be saying that their Zeiss lenses are crap compared to Leicas or their more expensive Canons. I only hear that from people who DO NOT have the Zeiss, though.
Sven Jeppsen and denoir both think the 100L is nowhere near the 100MP in imaging performance. That's what I mean by "crap." And all direct comparisons, whether done on test charts or real-world subjects, has shown this opinion to be grossly exaggerated, to put it mildly. If they are entitled to their hyperbole, I should be entitled to mine.
wickerprints wrote:
Sven Jeppsen and denoir both think the 100L is nowhere near the 100MP in imaging performance. That's what I mean by "crap." And all direct comparisons, whether done on test charts or real-world subjects, has shown this opinion to be grossly exaggerated, to put it mildly. If they are entitled to their hyperbole, I should be entitled to mine.
Nowhere near is not at all the same as crap. The lens can even be good when it's nowhere near another lens.
My 200/2,8 is nowhere near my 200/2. But it's not crap because of that. It's a rather good lens
Some will also note another currently active thread involving a certain "classic" camera. 
