wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #3 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens | |
Gunzorro wrote:
It is rude to deride people like denoir/luka/akul as unenlightened shills simply because they are enjoying the Zeiss brand and enthusiastically sharing their results. Everyone is welcome to take all these views and images with a grain of salt, including, and maybe especially, mine.
wickerprints wrote:
The truth is the truth--it is not rude to state a fact based on observed behavior, no matter how unpleasant it may sound. Some time ago, someone did a test of several fast 50mm primes, including the Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar, and the result was not favorable for this lens. But he just kept making excuses for the softness and low contrast, saying this is what a portrait-optimized lens is supposed to look like at close subject distances. Then he claimed it would be super sharp at infinity focus, when the other lenses wouldn't be. If it had been any other brand, he would've dismissed its performance as unsatisfactory.
Yes, people are just "sharing their results"--but the way many Zeiss fanatics do that "sharing" implies a great deal of smugness about other brands. It's tiresome to constantly have to hear their post-hoc justifications. It's a lot like having to listen to your evangelical nutcase distant cousin at some family gathering incessantly preaching about saving your eternal soul. I've seen beautiful results with all kinds of lenses, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Leica, and yes, Zeiss. But it is the PHOTOGRAPHER that deserves the credit, not the lens.
...Show more →
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Yes I agree that the Zeiss Planar 50/1,4 is not good wide open or close to that. But that lens has nothing to do with the 100 MP lens
Lars, I was specifically addressing the statement that I was being "rude" for claiming that certain people appear incapable of saying anything negative about a Zeiss lens, because they find ways to rationalize their biases; and that such opinions cannot be considered credible. And I cited that specific example of the 50mm tests as a counterargument, because it is not rude to state a fact, however unpleasant it may be to hear it. Read the quoted discussion again.
It's worthwhile to note that after all this time, I have zero problems with people who like Samyang, Sigma, Olympus, Minolta, Yashica, Nikon, or Pentax lenses. By a large margin, it is only the Zeiss and Leica fans that are so damned pushy about their love of these lenses, and as I alluded to previously, the closest parallel that comes to mind is religious fanaticism, like they belong to some weird sort of lens cult. Yes, they're very nice lenses. But they're not as great as their proponents want to believe they are, and when other lenses offer more for less, they jump through hoops to try to prove that their beloved brands are superior by picking apart the tiniest flaws in the competition, and barring that, they appeal to vague, subjective, and untestable claims. I feel like every time I hear grandiose claims of "microcontrast," "rendering," and "drawing style," I'm being proselytized to. And they way they are so relentlessly selective about seeing what they want to see and ignoring what they don't, is just like those nutcases who thought the Rapture was going to happen last Saturday.
Edited on May 23, 2011 at 06:20 AM · View previous versions
|
