AGeoJO wrote:
The hybrid IS works like a charm and it is worth the difference to me.
Perfectly reasonable answer. Note also that some of us who own the ZE 100MP have made a calculation similar to yours - that the incremental improvement in IQ and its other attributes are "worth the difference" (to us).
I will buy that. We all have very different value systems and preferences ... and perceptions, and we will pay a premium price to get something which best suits our individual needs ... whether it's a camera body or a lens. We are blessed with some great choices.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
Perfectly reasonable answer. Note also that some of us who own the ZE 100MP have made a calculation similar to yours - that the incremental improvement in IQ and its other attributes are "worth the difference" (to us).
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
Might be stupid question but why would anyone compare AF/IS f2.8 lens to a manual focus f2 lens? Almost as stupid would be comparing f1.2 lens to a f1.8, and complaining that at f1.8 they look almost identical.
Yes, the Zeiss 100MP offers things the Canon 100L does not, and vice versa. But that was never the original point of contention.
By and large, it's not the Canon owners who are drawing up comparisons to the Zeiss--it's the Zeiss owners who are making statements about how their lenses are "better" than the Canon, when the reality is that the notion of what is "better" is highly subjective, and that any real optical differences between the lenses is a lot smaller than the Zeiss users would like to believe.
BTW, you rarely hear from the Zeiss owners any discussion about the fact that the Zeiss only goes up to 1:2 magnification, whereas the Canon goes to 1:1. They don't want to talk about it because there is no way to "spin" that fact into an advantage. So let's be very clear about one thing--owners of the 100L aren't "complaining" that the Zeiss looks almost identical. They're complaining that users of the 100MP are claiming to see optical differences that are not supported by real evidence, as a way to support their irrational brand loyalty. They like the lens simply because it's a Zeiss, not because it really does any better than a much cheaper lens that offers several features the Zeiss does not.
And you know what? I wouldn't object if people simply admitted they like Zeiss lenses because of the brand. At least that would be honest. There's nothing wrong with brand loyalty. But to try to support it by passing off selective judgment as objective truth is distasteful. It's like creationists trying to find scientific evidence of God, because they feel this overwhelming need to prove the validity of their faith and rationalize it, rather than simply being content to accept that their beliefs are personal, subjective, and irrational.
I wonder how some Zeiss fanatics would react if Canon or Nikon decided to pull a stunt and assemble one of their own optical designs inside a Zeiss barrel. I doubt most of them could ever possibly know the difference.
I do think there is subjective qualities in a lens that are hard to measure, but still contribute to the overall image quality.
Take sound reproduction for example. You can measure two amplifiers all you want, but what really matters is how they sound. And you and I may have different opinions on which one is more accurate or sounds better.
I've heard a lot of poking back and forth about this measurement or that feature, but I've seen very few pictures on the 5 page thread as evidence.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
Perfectly reasonable answer. Note also that some of us who own the ZE 100MP have made a calculation similar to yours - that the incremental improvement in IQ and its other attributes are "worth the difference" (to us).
Thanks! I like the world "incremental" you used. Don't get me wrong, the Zeiss 100mm is indeed a great lens and it is not the issue here at all. I enjoyed that lens when I had/used it. While the use of tripod is highly recommended while working in the macro range but it could be impractical. Frankly, at my age, I do need all the help in stabilizing the camera system I can get and that's where the Canon comes in a significant way over the Zeiss. In addition, the Zeiss cannot focus down to get the 1:1 magnification ratio . If we are excluding the incremental improvement in IQ of the Zeiss over the Canon counterpart (that in itself is debatable but for sake of argument, let's assume that to be the case), I wonder what other attributes does the Zeiss offer that would make worth the difference to you? Again, I am not knocking the Zeiss down here.
Step aside, Joshua. Like me, you are an old fart with bad eyes.
For those with 20/20 vision and super-steady hands, AF and IS are not important ... and the Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses are most certainly fine pieces of glass.
AGeoJO wrote:
Thanks! I like the world "incremental" you used. Don't get me wrong, the Zeiss 100mm is indeed a great lens and it is not the issue here at all. I enjoyed that lens when I had/used it. While the use of tripod is highly recommended while working in the macro range but it could be impractical. Frankly, at my age, I do need all the help in stabilizing the camera system I can get and that's where the Canon comes in a significant way over the Zeiss. In addition, the Zeiss cannot focus down to get the 1:1 magnification ratio. If we are excluding the incremental improvement in IQ of the Zeiss over the Canon counterpart (that in itself is debatable but for sake of argument, let's assume that to be the case), I wonder what other attributes does the Zeiss offer that would make worth the difference to you? Again, I am not knocking the Zeiss down here....Show more →
I wonder how some Zeiss fanatics would react if Canon or Nikon decided to pull a stunt and assemble one of their own optical designs inside a Zeiss barrel. I doubt most of them could ever possibly know the difference.
Brings the following to mind...
Scientific research has long demonstrated the power of suggestion in perception as well as the strong effects of expectancies. For example, people expect more expensive wine to have more desirable characteristics than less expensive wine. When given wine that they are falsely told is expensive they virtually always report it as tasting better than the very same wine when they are told that it is inexpensive. French researcher Frédéric Brochet "submitted a mid-range Bordeaux in two different bottles, one labeled as a cheap table wine, the other bearing a grand cru etiquette" and obtained predictable results. Tasters described the supposed grand cru as "woody, complex, and round" and the supposed cheap wine as "short, light, and faulty." ...Show more → http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_tasting
superfrog wrote:
And Tamron did the same stunt with Canon/Nikon barrel. Or if Canon used the same optics and added a red ring?
Not so fast . Optically, you may be right but the difference is more in the faster and more accurate AF mechanism and the presence of hybrid IS in the new Canon L. I would agree with you more in the case of the older, non-USM and non-IS Canon vs. Tamron.
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
Might be stupid question but why would anyone compare AF/IS f2.8 lens to a manual focus f2 lens? Almost as stupid would be comparing f1.2 lens to a f1.8, and complaining that at f1.8 they look almost identical.
Not really stupid. Considering that the disparity in price between an f/1.8 lens and an f/1.2 lens is quite extreme, if they have the same focal length, a valid comparison can be made to determine to what extent the slower lens may be inferior (if at all). It's an aid for a consumer to determine whether the slower lens fits their needs. If an f/1.2 and f/1.8 lens looked almost identical at f/1.8, it would go a long way to say that the f/1.2 lens is needed only if they need f/1.2, as opposed to being superior at any given aperture.
The review praises the "build quality" of the ZE lens, and as I read it they liked the lens in large part because of that.
I have some problems with the review's claims about this:
1. "Build quality" is not defined. Does it mean "lack of play", "heavy", "made using simple technology", "retro style", "does not use modern materials"?
2. Whatever it is, it is not measured. If it's supposed to be lack of play in the focussing ring, they ought to measure that for this lens and other lenses. I don't see any of the lens's boosters posting disassembly pictures of it showing better bearings, weather sealing, etc. or doing tests of that chrome plating to see how soon it pits.
3. They furthermore make the leap that because of the "build quality" the lens will also have "longevity". That case has not been made properly:
3a. If the electronics or aperture mechanism in it die, it will be as much a brick as a Canon lens which that happens to. But Canon make many more lenses, and share components across models (one reason their lenses can be bulkier than they might be), which means they can keep a large inventory of spares for a long time. Zeiss is a smaller company which is less likely to stockpile parts and has probably bought components in from suppliers whose catalogue changes according to a schedule not controlled by Zeiss.
3b. The Morris Minor was probably the last major production car made using simple technology, thick panels and frame etc. No sealed bearings on those, and you had to grease everywhere regularly. Their reliability and longevity was a joke compared with a 1990s car, and was even a joke in their time. Sometimes old technology is old for a reason.
4. They claim the resale value will be good because of the longevity, without accounting for the type of buyer. I'd guess someone wanting such a lens is less likely to want a used lens, and therefore the resale value might be poorer.
Stripped of the rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims about longevity and resale value, the test result only says the lens's performance is not too different from that of the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L.
(By the way, in case anyone thinks I'm a one-eyed Canon fan, I currently use the Olympus OM Zuiko 100mm f/2 when I need a fast or close-focussing short tele. I did inspect the Nikon mount version of the reviewed lens.)
melcat -- If you buy or handle one of the new ZE lenses, it will become immediately apparent what is meant by "build quality" of the Zeiss and all those other descriptive terms.
You are overlooking the long history of Zeiss production and design when you are so flip about "longevity" -- the evidence is there for anyone with an open mind.
Same goes for retained price advantage -- you can chart any of the Contax or other Zeiss manual focus lenses that command nearly the same or greater prices compared to the modern electronic versions.
It's fine if you don't want to buy Zeiss lenses, but your bias and unfamiliarity are showing in your remarks and irritation with the brand.
Personally, I'm a long time Canon user, since 1980, and very much like their lenses, especially "L" versions. But in the last year, exploring Nikon, and now Zeiss manual lenses (initially to support Canon DSLR video), I've found a different and very pleasing color and tonal transition in the Zeiss, and to a slightly lesser extent the Nikon lenses (still excellent in many AI/AIS lenses!).
I can't deny my satisfaction and enthusiam for Zeiss, Nikon, and Canon imaging, but I don't expect anyone else to necessarily "believe" it. I respectfully ask those interested to give the lenses a try and see it they suit their needs and vision.
Nice review. That website has helped me in the past with lens selection and information. I find the reviewer to be unbiased and balanced.
As to the discussion here, you'll always get a comparisons with cheaper lenses. Happens with l lenses all the time, e.g. 85l, 50l etc. There is the law of diminishing returns. Also the lenses are quite different. Canon an zeiss had different design parameter and created 2 great lenses accordingly.
I have a foot in both camps. I needed a general short Tele to replace my 85l II and selected the ze 100. For my purposes the 100 is macro wouldn't be suitable. If I needed a dedicated macro i'd go with the canon.
I have Canon lenses with highly regarded zeiss equivalents, but to me the canons hold their own. So I'm not a zeiss zealot.
So many pages of discussion. Does anybody have samples from the Zeiss lens? I'm renting one for this weekend (will get it on Friday from lensrentals), but for Nikon mount. Let me see what the fuss is all about.
Gunzorro wrote:
It's fine if you don't want to buy Zeiss lenses, but your bias and unfamiliarity are showing in your remarks and irritation with the brand.
I'm biassed? I'm the one advocating objectivity and rigour here. As for unfamiliarity, I was still using a pair of 1940s Zeiss binoculars (yes, coated) up until a few years ago, handed down from my father and used many times as a child.
You are overlooking the long history of Zeiss production and design when you are so flip about "longevity" -- the evidence is there for anyone with an open mind.
I have one word for you: "Contarex".
If you buy or handle one of the new ZE lenses, it will become immediately apparent what is meant by "build quality" of the Zeiss and all those other descriptive terms.
I did say I had handled the Nikon mount version of the very lens being reviewed. I was careful in my post above not to express any kind of opinion about it, and I won't be baited into doing so now. If it is "immediately apparent" what those terms mean, why don't you just define them?
But, to counter the deluge of posts and sites praising the "build quality" of these lenses, here's a balancing opinion.
I've found a different and very pleasing color and tonal transition in the Zeiss
I would regard that as a nuisance and expect Zeiss to at least supply lens profiles to align them with Canon - and to work with Adobe to make this automatic.
saaketham wrote:
So many pages of discussion. Does anybody have samples from the Zeiss lens? I'm renting one for this weekend (will get it on Friday from lensrentals), but for Nikon mount. Let me see what the fuss is all about.
There's a huge thread in the Alt forum here at FM, currently up to page 384.
Specularist wrote:
However, together these features and others do lend Zeiss lenses a certain poise that excites some photographers as surely as it bewilders others
It's this type of fluffy ad-speak that boils some peoples' blood. A ballerina has poise, a lens does not; the statement is meaningless. I will just say to any Zeiss reps that might be here that this sort of thing probably alienates at least as many buyers as it convinces.
melcat -- Ha-ha! Ken Rockwell's review is certainly balancing -- in it's scathing derision of the Zeiss 50/1.4! I like that Ken is opinionated and makes no bones about it. Sometimes he's a iconoclast; other times an ass. This report has a bit more ass about it. (And I'd consider myself a KR fan -- I like his energy and visual sense.)
Good to know you are at least familiar with the current Zeiss lenses, but it still doesn't sound like you've spent much time using them or comparing them against other brands. Perhaps you have and can let us know what you've found.
I can understand the annoyance with any sales zealotry. I'm against it myself. Like SKumar25, I have a foot in several camps: Canon, Nikon and Zeiss. I'm looking for the camera bodies and lenses that best produce my "vision" meaning how I want a picture to look: detail and color. I'm closer to what I want out of digital now than at any time, using Canon 1Ds2 body and mix of Canon L and Zeiss ZE lenses. There may be more appropriate gear today and to come, but I'm happy with what I have a the moment, and Zeiss is certainly a recent part of that.
saaketham wrote:
So many pages of discussion. Does anybody have samples from the Zeiss lens? I'm renting one for this weekend (will get it on Friday from lensrentals), but for Nikon mount. Let me see what the fuss is all about.
Here are a few I shot at a temple a couple of months ago
. If we are excluding the incremental improvement in IQ of the Zeiss over the Canon counterpart (that in itself is debatable but for sake of argument, let's assume that to be the case), I wonder what other attributes does the Zeiss offer that would make worth the difference to you? Again, I am not knocking the Zeiss down here.
