charlesk wrote:
Right. But you wouldn't say "Sam Adams is a very nice beer. But it can't touch the flavor and quality of Sierra Nevada Pale", would you?
And if you did, wouldn't you expect someone to contest that claim? Especially if you posted it in a forum where people go to discuss and debate beers?
The issue isn't, and never has been, personal preference. It is the attempts by people to generalize their subjective preferences into objective conclusions without any reasonable evidence.
There's plenty of reasonable evidence. You just choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your agenda.
With respect to "can't touch the flavor and quality", that is a subjective opinion. Not being able to touch something could happen if you are a thousand miles away or an inch out of reach. You choose to believe all Zeiss fans argue in favor of a thousand mile difference in the lenses. To me the differences are noticeable but both Canon and Zeiss are fabulous. I happen to prefer the Zeiss. The Canon "can't touch" the quality of the Zeiss. That doesn't mean it's not in the same 90210 zip code, however (for those not familiar with that zip code, it's Beverly Hills and that means I'm saying Canon lenses are great too).
ghozer wrote:
There's plenty of reasonable evidence. You just choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your agenda.
I don't speak out against the Zeiss lens hysteria because I have some agenda against Zeiss lenses, but simply because I don't like pseudoscientific bullshit like "3D look" and "presence". I'm also not a big fan of snobbery of any sort, and much of Zeiss fanboi-ism is little more than that: people who like being members of a "club".
ghozer wrote:
With respect to "can't touch the flavor and quality", that is a subjective opinion. Not being able to touch something could happen if you are a thousand miles away or an inch out of reach. You choose to believe all Zeiss fans argue in favor of a thousand mile difference in the lenses.
The phrase was taken from a post on the front page of this thread. I think the meaning of the phrase "can't touch" is pretty self-evident and parsing it to this extent is really trying so hard that it kinda makes the opposite point.
At any rate, your beer analogy used the word "different". The Zeiss acolytes tend to use the word "better". The second word is much more prone to cause arguments than the first, and that was my point.
charlesk wrote:
I don't speak out against the Zeiss lens hysteria because I have some agenda against Zeiss lenses, but simply because I don't like pseudoscientific bullshit like "3D look" and "presence". I'm also not a big fan of snobbery of any sort, and much of Zeiss fanboi-ism is little more than that: people who like being members of a "club".
The phrase was taken from a post on the front page of this thread. I think the meaning of the phrase "can't touch" is pretty self-evident and parsing it to this extent is really trying so hard that it kinda makes the opposite point.
At any rate, your beer analogy used the word "different". The Zeiss acolytes tend to use the word "better". The second word is much more prone to cause arguments than the first, and that was my point....Show more →
I think Zeiss is different and better. Does that make me a snob and/or an elitist?
ghozer wrote:
I think Zeiss is different and better. Does that make me a snob and/or an elitist?
That is a very generalized statement. In what aspect is Zeiss better? Based on your statement, it sounds like Zeiss is better in all aspects, regardless of the individual lenses. If your answer to that without any qualification is "yes", then that would make you a fanboy. Plain and simple. You have to answer the question whether you are a snob or elitist yourself though .
AGeoJO wrote:
That is a very generalized statement. In what aspect is Zeiss better? Based on your statement, it sounds like Zeiss is better in all aspects, regardless of the individual lenses. If your answer to that without any qualification is "yes", then that would make you a fanboy. Plain and simple. You have to answer the question whether you are a snob or elitist yourself though .
For the Zeiss lenses I own, I think the sharpness, micro-contrast and color rendition is better than the Canon equivalents. That makes those Zeiss lenses overall better in my eyes.
Gunzorro wrote:
Seldom mentioned, but it is equally possible to not see, or to ignore, differences that are readily apparent to others: Reverse-Emperor.
Ah, but there is a reason that the story is about people seeing things that are not there rather than failing to see things that are...
Mirek Elsner wrote:
When you create that personal style, you build it out of combination of available elements. A specific film, specific processing or specific lens selection, all may contribute to that style. Some people like Tri-X (or Velvia) and make it part of their own style, because they simplify (or exaggerate) reality in some way. Some people do not care about films, because their style is based on something else. Same with lenses, I think. So for somebody certain qualities of a lens can be important to help create the style they envision. I never studied any photographers, but my guess would be that HCB did not care much about his lens' drawing style or film look, but Galen Rowell probably did. ...Show more →
Virtually every fine photographer I know and speak with finds the "debates" like this one to be somewhere between pathetic and laughable.
It is not that they don't care about gear and about how their lenses work. It is that they recognize the difference between obsessing about minute and inconsequential differences between things that work very well and obsessing about the quality of one's photographs.
I often think that it would be good for some forum gear heads to find out what some of their photographic heroes actually use to produce their work.They are most certainly not all using the latest or the most expensive bodies, nor are the always shooting the most expensive or exotic lenses.
As an example, I know a handful of pretty highly regarded landscape photographers who use Canon gear. Some (but not all) folks around these forums would have you believe that if you want to produce (or should I write "draw?") excellent photographs of such subjects that you must use exotic speciality lenses (like the Zeiss gear under discussion here) and probably primes. Some will even insist that "if you are serious" about this stuff you'll use T/S lenses and that real landscape lenses are wide angle. Among the group of folks I mentioned in the first sentence of this paragraph, perhaps the most commonly used lens is - wait for it! - the EF 70-200mm f/4 non-IS zoom. Others are quite fond of the EF 17-40 f/4.
More time obsessing about photographs and less obsessing about gear for gear's sake can be a very productive thing. :-)
ghozer wrote:
I think Zeiss is different and better. Does that make me a snob and/or an elitist?
Snobbery is not about preferences. It's about attitude.
The guy who decides to buy and drive a Mercedes because he likes it and feels it provides the best value for him is not a snob. The guy who drives the Mercedes but feels the need to make snide comments to his Chevy-driving neighbor about how much better Mercedes cars are, is.
I really don't care one way or the other if you or anyone else prefers Zeiss lenses. That's great -- it's good that we have choices, and some alternatives are better for some people.
The problems comes in with two issues. First, the attempts to make objective claims based on subjective assessments, as has been thoroughly discussed -- lenses can have different styles but claiming that one makes images "more 3D" than another is bullshit. Second, the proselytizing about these lenses, which has become the FM equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses who won't take "no thanks, please go away" for an answer. Fred made the Alt forum for a reason, and I really wish the people who are in love with these lenses would just use it instead of coming here to preach about how Canon lenses "can't touch the image quality of Zeiss". We've heard it all a thousand times. We know where the Alt forum is if we really want to read it for the thousand-and-first. If people insist on proselytizing here, they should expect the same treatment as other religious missionaries who won't leave people alone. (Frankly, I think they get better treatment than they deserve.)
Frankly, Charles, this thread has been a one-way street dumping on whoever happens to think that one or more Zeiss lens(es) may have an advantage over one or more Canon lens(es).
And now, you make the claim that the same people should be excluded from the Canon part of the gear forrum, even though they use Canon cameras.
I respectfully suggest that, when you see such an insufferable offender, you can use the "hide" button, which is IMHO designed for just such cases.
If you feel that even more redress is required, then a note to Fred seems in order, to see where he stands on banning or at least ghettoizing some people as you suggest. Doing that publicly would give us all the benefit of knowing the lay of the land on this, for it is Fred's forum after all.
charlesk wrote:
Snobbery is not about preferences. It's about attitude.
The guy who decides to buy and drive a Mercedes because he likes it and feels it provides the best value for him is not a snob. The guy who drives the Mercedes but feels the need to make snide comments to his Chevy-driving neighbor about how much better Mercedes cars are, is.
I really don't care one way or the other if you or anyone else prefers Zeiss lenses. That's great -- it's good that we have choices, and some alternatives are better for some people.
The problems comes in with two issues. First, the attempts to make objective claims based on subjective assessments, as has been thoroughly discussed -- lenses can have different styles but claiming that one makes images "more 3D" than another is bullshit. Second, the proselytizing about these lenses, which has become the FM equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses who won't take "no thanks, please go away" for an answer. Fred made the Alt forum for a reason, and I really wish the people who are in love with these lenses would just use it instead of coming here to preach about how Canon lenses "can't touch the image quality of Zeiss". We've heard it all a thousand times. We know where the Alt forum is if we really want to read it for the thousand-and-first. If people insist on proselytizing here, they should expect the same treatment as other religious missionaries who won't leave people alone. (Frankly, I think they get better treatment than they deserve.)...Show more →
This is the Canon mount forum. Not the Canon forum. Zeiss ZE lenses have Canon mount and belong in this forum
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 →
Well I deliberately left Leica out of the equation as IMO their prices are so absurd I would not even buy one even if money were no object. Zeiss are positively bargains compared to them and from what I've seen and experienced (I have owned Zeiss), in most cases as good or better for a fraction of the price. Given the superb build quality alone I think the Zeiss demand a premium price.
I agree that you really do need to own one to see what the fuss is about. They definitely rival L glass for IQ and have much better manual focus ability (as you'd hope) and better build quality.
Speaking of the name of the forum, I still don't get why these forums are called "Canon-mount SLRs" and "Nikon-mount SLRs". What does the "-mount" component of the titles contribute? Do any other camera manufacturers make SLRs with Canon or Nikon mounts?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I agree that you really do need to own one to see what the fuss is about. They definitely rival L glass for IQ and have much better manual focus ability (as you'd hope) and better build quality.
Not many would argue with that.
Although I am pleased with 100L performance, I am not happy at all with its build and feel in hand. The lens feels like an empty eggshell, and to me it looks like an economy grade kit lens. Now, the MF ring is lacklustre too, probably reasonably functional but far from solid. Yet, there are L lenses which have even a worse feeling MF. Again, MF is generally a backup feature in EF lenses although macro lenses are a bit different that way.
So, yeah, I can readily accept the suggestion that Zeiss 100 f/2 creams 100L when it comes to build, manual operation, fit and finish. The Zeiss is probably even better built than 180L which is one of the best constructed black lenses by Canon.
The zeiss seemed to stand out a bit more on the photozone.de tests,
it really put in some insane numbers there and none of the other macros could touch it.
the canon L does seem to score pretty well though and holds up better stopped down a bunch compared to some of the other macros (i wonder if at say f/18 some actually hold up better for a given DOF or whether or not the DOF and true aperture delivered vary from lens to lens a bit?)
the 100L looked better than the 100 non-L on the DPR
the zeiss has a steep price though almost double the already steep 100L and no AF or IS
I saw some real world test photos taken with zeiss 21mm and canon 24 1.4 II and I was surprised that the zeiss really did have something about it and the difference was there even after extensive downsizing for web (and I won the canon and not the zeiss so not being biased by ownership), that said I've seen other Zeiss lenses that honestly seemed no better or different than the canon and yet the zeiss had no AF and cost a lot more (although they did all do MF better).
charlesk wrote:
Snobbery is not about preferences. It's about attitude.
The guy who decides to buy and drive a Mercedes because he likes it and feels it provides the best value for him is not a snob. The guy who drives the Mercedes but feels the need to make snide comments to his Chevy-driving neighbor about how much better Mercedes cars are, is.
I really don't care one way or the other if you or anyone else prefers Zeiss lenses. That's great -- it's good that we have choices, and some alternatives are better for some people.
The problems comes in with two issues. First, the attempts to make objective claims based on subjective assessments, as has been thoroughly discussed -- lenses can have different styles but claiming that one makes images "more 3D" than another is bullshit. Second, the proselytizing about these lenses, which has become the FM equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses who won't take "no thanks, please go away" for an answer. Fred made the Alt forum for a reason, and I really wish the people who are in love with these lenses would just use it instead of coming here to preach about how Canon lenses "can't touch the image quality of Zeiss". We've heard it all a thousand times. We know where the Alt forum is if we really want to read it for the thousand-and-first. If people insist on proselytizing here, they should expect the same treatment as other religious missionaries who won't leave people alone. (Frankly, I think they get better treatment than they deserve.)...Show more →
I tend to think when people say it has a more 3D look they are referring to a certain je ne sais quoi and that is perhaps the best way they've come up with describing it. But, really, why should someone's reasoning cause such an uproar? I've been following chunks of this thread, not all though, and I haven't seen anyone that's been elitist or snobbish about Zeiss. The rudeness that I've seen has come from the "other side of the aisle."
charlesk wrote:
Snobbery is not about preferences. It's about attitude.
The guy who decides to buy and drive a Mercedes because he likes it and feels it provides the best value for him is not a snob. The guy who drives the Mercedes but feels the need to make snide comments to his Chevy-driving neighbor about how much better Mercedes cars are, is.
You missed the point again. This is not about snobbery.
The example I gave with the sony / Zeiss combo was not to demonstrate the best examples of the rendering. It was to illustate it was independent of cost.
This is a characteristic, and people have personal preferences.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Ah, but there is a reason that the story is about people seeing things that are not there rather than failing to see things that are...
There is most definitely something there. The most easily identifiable "something" is corner sharpness followed by microcontrast. Refusing to acknowledge it doesn't make it go away.
As to the point in your following post that can be boiled down to the differences being meaningless, evidenced by some professional photographers that are not using exotic lenses, you are ignoring the fact that successful professional photography isn't always about the best image quality. And, someone shooting a near/far wide angle landscape will almost certainly have a better image if a lens is used that has, for example, better corner sharpness. Whether that makes the image sell better isn't the point. There are tons of images that sell well which are technically a mess.
And now, you make the claim that the same people should be excluded from the Canon part of the gear forrum, even though they use Canon cameras.
That's not what I said.
I've been following chunks of this thread, not all though, and I haven't seen anyone that's been elitist or snobbish about Zeiss. The rudeness that I've seen has come from the "other side of the aisle."
A good example of how two people can look at the same thing and see it very differently. I see plenty on both sides.
charlesk wrote:
I've been following chunks of this thread, not all though, and I haven't seen anyone that's been elitist or snobbish about Zeiss. The rudeness that I've seen has come from the "other side of the aisle."
A good example of how two people can look at the same thing and see it very differently. I see plenty on both sides.
.