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.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
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
You really missed the point there, didn't you? If they can make such distorted and exaggerated statements, why can't I? You attack me for characterizing their viewpoints a certain way, yet you let their outlandish misrepresentations slide. I knew people would immediately latch onto the wording of my post and criticize it as unjustified, yet you allow those who favor the Zeiss to use the same tactics, excusing their exaggerations as "personal opinion." That is the hypocrisy my post was intended to reveal, and has revealed.
wickerprints wrote:
You really missed the point there, didn't you? If they can make such distorted and exaggerated statements, why can't I? You attack me for characterizing their viewpoints a certain way, yet you let their outlandish misrepresentations slide. I knew people would immediately latch onto the wording of my post and criticize it as unjustified, yet you allow those who favor the Zeiss to use the same tactics, excusing their exaggerations as "personal opinion." That is the hypocrisy my post was intended to reveal, and has revealed.
Yes, but the big difference is that when people state ( exaggerate ) the Zeiss performance...it is their opinions, which is OK. When you say someone else called the Canon L lens crap...that is not your opinion. You are stating a fact...which is just a blatant lie, and bringing another person into your lie is just wrong.
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.
I think this statement nicely sums up what wickerprints is all about. No wonder he was able to rack such a big post count in just a year and a half. When you spend so much time in the forums I doubt he finds time to go out and shoot.
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.
That's just nonsense. I've never had any complaints against either my 100L or 100 f/2.8 Macro (that I still keep around) in terms of raw optical performance. On the contrary, they are very competent performers and quite good lenses.
I do prefer the 100 MP by far, but that does not imply in any way that the Canon Macro is a poor lens. Liking the 100 MP better is incidentally something pretty universal for those that own both - which explains why they got it in the first place. You may not find the difference to be worth it but plenty of people do.
I really don't get you wickerprints. You often show that you have a good, above average understanding of optics and contribute with valuable information and insights on a variety of topics. Yet when the subject turns to Zeiss you just lash out with irrational loathing and resentment. You've even sunk so low as to troll in a couple of Zeiss threads in the alt forum doing your best to provoke people. I just don't get it. Did somebody drop a Zeiss lens on you? Why this anti-Zeiss crusade on your part? It's completely at odds with your other posts.
Edit: Case in point - while I was writing this you've descended into the troll mode again. Get a grip man.
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.
That's a really stupid exaggerated comment from you. I even wrote in my post that I belive the Canon 100L is a very nice lens. And then you tell people i think it's crap
What is anyone going to do about it? Are any of you going to stop me?
I really appreciated your technical insights and comments in other threads. But I do photography for fun and relaxation. It is not fun to get insulted and it is not fun and relaxing to read FM this way. The way to stop it is to stop reading FM or hiding you.
Denoir, did you or did you not carefully show off your LC3 in this thread, as I stated on page 4? That kind of furniture has no business being shown on a photo forum.
Hehe Well spotted, it is indeed an LC3. I did not see your comment on page 4 until now but there may be more to your theory than you think.
You see a couple of months ago I used an LC4 Lounge as a subject for a first test shot of a new lens. I posted it in the Leica thread and to my astonishment it turned out not only that about half the people posting there knew about Le Corbusier's furniture but owned some, had owned some or were planning to get some. So there seems to be a strong correlation between taste in lenses and furniture
Mirek Elsner wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Not quite what I'm observing and then suggesting. I've written that there may be "differences" that are "discernible" in side-by-side back-and-forth painstaking comparisons between two samples viewed at 100% magnification on the screen.
To clarify, two important follow up points apparently need to be reiterated:
1. When two things are "different," it is not always that case that one is better and the other worse. Sometimes different is just different.
2. Probably more important, the tiny differences that we can observe (if we look long enough and convince ourselves) between two samples in obsessively compared 100% magnification crops have little to no discernible effect of final photographic prints. Not only are the differences so small, but they are swamped by other variables that are always part of shooting, and typical work in post done by critical printers makes far larger differences than the observed lens differences - and may even compensate for them.
I do not think that there are no differences between lenses. Lens A may perform really nicely in terms of parameter X while lens B may perform beautifully in terms of parameter Y.
I do think - and I believe there is plenty of evidence that this is true of the human species in general - that a significant percentage of the enthusiasm for certain vintage brands (such as Zeiss) and certain lenses (such as "L above all else") is more about a belief that such designations have the "best" quality than it is about anything that actually plays out in better photography or better photographs.
And, finally, I most certainly am not uncritical of lens performance. I understand it pretty well and I think about how lenses will perform when I acquire and use them.
Regarding the thought that people would be declaring that their expensive Zeiss lenses are crap is strange and simply, it seems to me, argumentative. It assumes that Zeiss lenses are "crap," which they are not. They are, indeed, very good lenses. But among people who feel the need to buy the most exotic and expensive thing, there is often (with some exceptions) a belief that such things are "best" and perhaps almost "magical" in some ways.
When a choice is based on "belief," it is very hard for the person to look rationally at the issue. People who buy $100,000 cars really do believe that their cars are twice as good (or more!) than $50,000 cars and four times (or more) than $25,000 cars. Objectively they most certainly are not. In some cases they have proven to be worse than the less expensive vehicle in most measurable and practical ways - but you'll never convince the owners of this.
I have a few Zeiss lenses. They are very nice. I have a few Canon lenses. They are very nice, too. Lens for lens, focal length for focal length, the Canon lenses were more expensive in each and every case. And that includes my Canon 50mm f1.8 (which cost more than my Contax f1.7). It is not all about money.
gdanmitchell wrote:
1. When two things are "different," it is not always that case that one is better and the other worse. Sometimes different is just different.
Yes it is not better or worse, it is a charteristic. As with any charteristic people have different preferences though.
gdanmitchell wrote:
2. Probably more important, the tiny differences that we can observe (if we look long enough and convince ourselves) between two samples in obsessively compared 100% magnification crops have little to no discernible effect of final photographic prints. Not only are the differences so small, but they are swamped by other variables that are always part of shooting, and typical work in post done by critical printers makes far larger differences than the observed lens differences - and may even compensate for them.
I do not think that there are no differences between lenses. Lens A may perform really nicely in terms of parameter X while lens B may perform beautifully in terms of parameter Y.
I do think - and I believe there is plenty of evidence that this is true of the human species in general - that a significant percentage of the enthusiasm for certain vintage brands (such as Zeiss) and certain lenses (such as "L above all else") is more about a belief that such designations have the "best" quality than it is about anything that actually plays out in better photography or better photographs.
And, finally, I most certainly am not uncritical of lens performance. I understand it pretty well and I think about how lenses will perform when I acquire and use them.
Regarding the thought that people would be declaring that their expensive Zeiss lenses are crap is strange and simply, it seems to me, argumentative. It assumes that Zeiss lenses are "crap," which they are not. They are, indeed, very good lenses. But among people who feel the need to buy the most exotic and expensive thing, there is often (with some exceptions) a belief that such things are "best" and perhaps almost "magical" in some ways.
When a choice is based on "belief," it is very hard for the person to look rationally at the issue. People who buy $100,000 cars really do believe that their cars are twice as good (or more!) than $50,000 cars and four times (or more) than $25,000 cars. Objectively they most certainly are not. In some cases they have proven to be worse than the less expensive vehicle in most measurable and practical ways - but you'll never convince the owners of this.
No, this does not require pixel peeping to spot. The drawing style can be seen in web sized photos and in print. Cost is not a factor. Nor is camera brand. E.g. Check out these Sony NEX mated with Zeiss C/Y 28mm examples by Akul:
AGeoJO wrote:
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 ?
This is how Bryan from TDP summed up:
"Overall image quality from both lenses is exceptional."
They are very different tools, its horses for courses. Pick whatever suits your requirements (and respect the choice of others).
SKumar25 wrote:
The drawing style can be seen in web sized photos and in print. Cost is not a factor. Nor is camera brand. E.g. Check out these Sony NEX mated with Zeiss C/Y 28mm examples by Akul:
They have the classic Zeiss rendering. Especially #1 and #2.
I looked at those pictures and to my eye they seem like snapshots that might have been taken with just about any lens/camera combination.
However, in Lars' shots at the very beginning of this thread I see a distinctive "rendering".......the rendering which a good photographer imparts to their images.....the Lars' rendering
Expensive and exceptionally good lenses are totally and absolutely insufficient on their own to produce a photograph of any merit , although such photograph might have the Zeiss or Leica or whatever look. And I stress "might".
Good photographers strive to imbue their images with their own personal aesthetic look, rather than leaving it to their lens to "draw" for them.
Even if there is such a thing as very distinctive "drawing style" of a lens, that means very little in terms of the photograph quality.
I do recognize this is a gear forum, however, I think it is a good idea to remind ourselves here and there that (un)fortunately quality/unique lenses do not guarantee quality/unique results.
PetKal wrote:
I looked at those pictures and to my eye they seem like snapshots that might have been taken with just about any lens/camera combination.
However, in Lars' shots at the very beginning of this thread I see a distinctive "rendering".......the rendering which a good photographer imparts to their images.....the Lars' rendering
You may not see it but many do.
PetKal wrote:
Good photographers strive to imbue their images with their own personal aesthetic look, rather than leaving it to their lens to "draw" for them.
Your personal aesthetic look can be enhanced by the way your lens renders.
PetKal wrote:
Even if there is such a thing as very distinctive "drawing style" of a lens, that means very little in terms of the photograph quality.
PetKal wrote:
Expensive and exceptionally good lenses are totally and absolutely insufficient on their own to produce a photograph of any merit , although such photograph might have the Zeiss or Leica or whatever look. And I stress "might".
Good photographers strive to imbue their images with their own personal aesthetic look, rather than leaving it to their lens to "draw" for them.
Even if there is such a thing as very distinctive "drawing style" of a lens, that means very little in terms of the photograph quality.
I do recognize this is a gear forum, however, I think it is a good idea to remind ourselves here and there that (un)fortunately quality/unique lenses do not guarantee quality/unique results. ...Show more →
Peter,
Are you trying to say that I cannot produce masterpieces after masterpieces by using the most expensive camera out there outfitted with an ubersharp and 4-D capable Leizeisscanik lens ? All kidding aside, that is really the essence of photography .
And I'm sure you know that also 
.