Mike, I am not sure I draw quite the same conclusiosn as you do from what has so far been written on this thread.
Point 1 through 4: agreed. Point 6 agreed
Point 5 is very much in dispute. Obviously, if it were easy and simple to do in PP whatever a lens cannot do, why bother to buy an expensive MF lens, or even any expensive lens? I challenged this by saying that this argument also applied to Canon lenses, and thus anybody denying that an expensive lens, Zeiss or other, could do something that a cheaper lens couldn't when aided/corrected by PP ought to own cheap kit lenses and not "L" lenses.
I note that no-one chose to respond to this argument, maybe because someone who owns "L" lenses and argues that Zeiss lenses cannot make a meaningful difference finds himself sitting uncomfortably on both sides of the fence at the same time. Just as no-one responded to Denoir's blind test or display of relevant MTF charts that show the scientific expression of the visual one that some see in pictures produced with various lenses.
philber wrote:
Mike, I am not sure I draw quite the same conclusiosn as you do from what has so far been written on this thread.
Point 1 through 4: agreed. Point 6 agreed
Point 5 is very much in dispute. Obviously, if it were easy and simple to do in PP whatever a lens cannot do, why bother to buy an expensive MF lens, or even any expensive lens? I challenged this by saying that this argument also applied to Canon lenses, and thus anybody denying that an expensive lens, Zeiss or other, could do something that a cheaper lens couldn't when aided/corrected by PP ought to own cheap kit lenses and not "L" lenses.
I note that no-one chose to respond to this argument, maybe because someone who owns "L" lenses and argues that Zeiss lenses cannot make a meaningful difference finds himself sitting uncomfortably on both sides of the fence at the same time. Just as no-one responded to Denoir's blind test or display of relevant MTF charts that show the scientific expression of the visual one that some see in pictures produced with various lenses....Show more →
While personally, I don't disagree with you at all, I was trying to summarize without taking sides, thus lack of contest suggested at least partial consensus. Suggest an edit, I am not attached to what is written.
Mike K
charlesk wrote:
Not all pictures are worth a thousand words. I don't see how those images -- which were already posted previously -- advance the discussion in any way.
Where did I post the crops before? For you nothing will advance the discussion.
Guys, may I suggest we stay on topic. I reckon half the stuff here could be posted in an L v. Non-L / gear v. talent / general gear discussion type of thread. This thread will reach 100,000 posts if we carry on down this path.
I've got a sidebar question... if Denoir is still reading this thread. To what extent (if any) does your sharpening workflow for web sized images affect the Zeiss vs Canon comparisons you posted in the double blind test?
I've read your threads about how you've worked out a quite effective sharpening action involving multiple downsizing and sharpening steps. I've used the same approach and it does a great job of accentuating micro contrast and fine detail for a web image.
Do you think that this could be adding to the differences seen between the Canon and the Zeiss lenses?
Just a thought that this might be a factor for web sized images, especially if the sharpening workflow was developed around your use of Zeiss lenses.
philber wrote:
Mike, I am not sure I draw quite the same conclusiosn as you do from what has so far been written on this thread.
Point 1 through 4: agreed. Point 6 agreed
Point 5 is very much in dispute. Obviously, if it were easy and simple to do in PP whatever a lens cannot do, why bother to buy an expensive MF lens, or even any expensive lens? I challenged this by saying that this argument also applied to Canon lenses, and thus anybody denying that an expensive lens, Zeiss or other, could do something that a cheaper lens couldn't when aided/corrected by PP ought to own cheap kit lenses and not "L" lenses.
I note that no-one chose to respond to this argument, maybe because someone who owns "L" lenses and argues that Zeiss lenses cannot make a meaningful difference finds himself sitting uncomfortably on both sides of the fence at the same time. Just as no-one responded to Denoir's blind test or display of relevant MTF charts that show the scientific expression of the visual one that some see in pictures produced with various lenses....Show more →
The L lenses that I own I bought because of sharpness, AF, USM, bokeh, aperture, re-sell-ability.
But L lenses are not always worth the extra cost - for a while I owned the 135L and the 100 f/2. I sold the 135L - why? Because the IQ difference was tiny, easily made up by a little PP.
The difference between the Zeiss and Canon's best lenses is for the most part easily bridged by a little PP.
If you know what your doing with PP you can make fantastic images with even the lowly 18-55 IS kit lens.
michael49 wrote:
The difference between the Zeiss and Canon's best lenses is for the most part easily bridged by a little PP.
I would love to know how this can be done. How would you go about fixing a blurred corner in PP so that it was as sharp as another lens that isn't blurred in the corners? Or, how would you go about creating improved resolution from a less sharp lens?
ghozer wrote:
I would love to know how this can be done. How would you go about fixing a blurred corner in PP so that it was as sharp as another lens that isn't blurred in the corners? Or, how would you go about creating improved resolution from a less sharp lens?
I think ghozer misquoted. Canon's finest are sharp across the frame. Lesser Canons are not.
SKumar25 wrote:
I think ghozer misquoted. Canon's finest are sharp across the frame. Lesser Canons are not.
No, I didn't misunderstand him SKumar. Take the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, for example. It is sharper in the corners than the Canon 16-35 II at larger apertures, and perhaps all apertures. No amount of PP is going to change that.
michael49 wrote:
[The difference between the Zeiss and Canon's best lenses is for the most part easily bridged by a little PP.
Don't want to incite the "Captain Canon"s here, but these are things to note:
1) Many Zeisses don't have equivalents in Canon and vice versa. The lens discussed here does not have a Canon equivalent. People campare the 100L, but the 85 L could just as fairly be compared. The closest is probably 100 f/2, but that does not focus close.
2) Canon has best in class lenses, as do Zeiss / Nikon etc.
3) Generalising here - out of the box, ignoring other factors, Zeiss have more contrast and microcontrast. Microcontrast gives the appearance of additional detail to the subject and seperates it from the background, regardless of if the background is in focus or not. The 2 contrasts make Zeiss have more pop, 3-D, presence, depth etc. This can be seen in 100% crops, web sized pictures and prints. Lighting plays a huge part and PP will enhance this. In PP, contrast is easy to compensate for, microcontrast is not. Contrary to what the guys here with no Zeiss experience say, this is accepted. To me, this is a characteristic. It can be desirable at times, and not so at others.
charlesk wrote:
Not all pictures are worth a thousand words. I don't see how those images -- which were already posted previously -- advance the discussion in any way.
ghozer wrote:
No, I didn't misunderstand him SKumar. Take the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, for example. It is sharper in the corners than the Canon 16-35 II at larger apertures, and perhaps all apertures. No amount of PP is going to change that.
Thats a valid point. But I rarely care if my corners are super sharp (that is very rarely the focal point of my images) and that is especially the case if shooting at large apertures.
Very sharp, no doubt, but...
1. With a good Canon lens and a little USM I'm sure I could get very close to that level of sharpness.
2. When your dealing with sharp vs "ultra-sharp" I don't think the difference makes a substantial difference in most images.
Why is this thread still going on dammit? And I don't like the "Zeiss look" it's no fun. Well behaved lenses are so boring, I don't get why you would want that.
michael49 wrote:
Very sharp, no doubt, but...
1. With a good Canon lens and a little USM I'm sure I could get very close to that level of sharpness.
2. When your dealing with sharp vs "ultra-sharp" I don't think the difference makes a substantial difference in most images.
Cheers Michael. I actually didn't post them for the sharpness, rather to illustrate the rendering.
SKumar25 wrote:
Cheers Michael. I actually didn't post them for the sharpness, rather to illustrate the rendering.
Kumar, seriously, as far as I am concerned, based on those "rendering" considerations, those shots might have been taken with little Canon 18-55 IS zoom or 50 f/1.8 MkI which are also sharp enough lenses.
However, either the St. Mary's cathedral roofline is crooked or your Zeiss lens has a nastily distorted drawing style.
SKumar25 wrote:
...rather to illustrate the rendering.
here we go again...
Do you honestly believe there is something unique about those images? (that's rhetorical, btw)
Seriously though I think it's time for a lock on this thread--there is good discussion and then there is ridiculousness. If you want to share images made with any lens, be is Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, etc etc start a separate thread.
Open the images in separate tabs and flip between them. Observe that it's not a question of saturation - increasing the saturation on the Canon won't help a bit.
I was really trying to give you benefit of the doubt on this "color separation" thing, but your comparison images are so ridiculous that I can't believe I bothered. Both images are both overexposed and oversaturated, and the Zeiss image is *more* overexposed *and* more oversaturated than the Canon image.
In short, these images prove absolutely nothing about anything, other than neither one of them was taken and processed properly.
The problem is that similar colors simply blend together while the other lens keeps the nuances distinct. There's almost like a "haze" over the EF 50 shot - and that's the effect of the 'spreading out' of light inside the lens elements.
This is a classic example of the sort of technobabble that Zeiss fans are famous for: attempts to ascribe magical qualities to images when there are very simple explanations for what is being seen.
The "haze" over the EF 50 shot is because it has less contrast. This is clearly visible by comparing the luminosity histograms of the two shots. The mean and standard deviation luminosities for the Canon are 33.81 and 43.96; for the Zeiss, 35.15 and 47.35. Higher deviation from the mean in luminosity means more contrast. The brightness of the image is also 4% higher. These alone explain most of why the images look different in terms of colors.
Now if you want to say the Zeiss is a more contrasty lens, fine. That I can agree with. Of course, in this case -- assuming the images haven't been processed -- that extra contrast has only served to *degrade* image quality by causing color channel clipping. Regardless, I see absolutely nothing here to support any contention of superior "color separation".
Where did I post the crops before? For you nothing will advance the discussion.
You posted one on page 8. Maybe you posted more on other pages, I don't know -- if you couldn't be bothered to check what you already posted, I'm sure not looking through the whole thread.
Really, who cares? Do you really think posting any number of random images is going to make any sort of a point, other than that you really like your Zeiss lens(es)? You said you posted them to "illustrate the rendering". How do they illustrate it? A picture is only worth a thousand words if it conveys information. Random snapshots don't.
It is sharper in the corners than the Canon 16-35 II at larger apertures, and perhaps all apertures. No amount of PP is going to change that.
As I like to say: "If people are examining the corners of my images for sharpness, my images suck". In the Landscape forum, "Very sharp!" is what people say when the image bores them and they are trying to be positive.
here we go again...