I'd be interested to hear what you have to say after your rendezvous with Zeiss. Remember that good processing counts for a lot. With good pp skills, you can make any good lens sing.
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.
All this controversy makes me feel very good about the $400 that I paid for my EF100mm f/2.8 Macro. It is nearly as good as either the L or the Zeiss, at a fraction of the price!
bobbytan wrote:
I'd be interested to hear what you have to say after your rendezvous with Zeiss. Remember that good processing counts for a lot. With good pp skills, you can make any good lens sing.
If anybody cares, I can post samples here after I shoot with the lens (which is on the way), but with a Nikon body. And let me see if I can post a few RAW files somewhere so folks can download and try their hand at PP.
saaketham wrote:
If anybody cares, I can post samples here after I shoot with the lens (which is on the way), but with a Nikon body. And let me see if I can post a few RAW files somewhere so folks can download and try their hand at PP.
Anil,
If you take images of the Zeiss lens with a Nikon body, you may want to post them there on the Nikon forum and not here. Again, we are not debating the ability of Zeiss lenses to take amazing images but the main question is more centered on whether you can tell the difference between images taken with a Zeiss macro lens and a Canon macro lens of the same focal length.
AGeoJO wrote:
Anil,
If you take images of the Zeiss lens with a Nikon body, you may want to post them there on the Nikon forum and not here. Again, we are not debating the ability of Zeiss lenses to take amazing images but the main question is more centered on whether you can tell the difference between images taken with a Zeiss macro lens and a Canon macro lens of the same focal length.
AGeoJO wrote:
If you take images of the Zeiss lens with a Nikon body, you may want to post them there on the Nikon forum and not here. Again, we are not debating the ability of Zeiss lenses to take amazing images but the main question is more centered on whether you can tell the difference between images taken with a Zeiss macro lens and a Canon macro lens of the same focal length.
The only way to settle this issue is for someone to do a side-by-side test/shootout between the ZE100 and 100L, and I guess this can only be done on a Canon body. I was really only interested in Anil's impressions ... as a standalone Zeiss image posted here means absolutely nothing if there is no identical shot taken with the Canon lens to compare it to.
The rendering between Zeiss and Canon is different. Some of Lars' sample demonstrate the 3D look. It is the subject popping out of the background. It is not subject isolation with large aperture, as it can also be created stopped down (E.g. Lar' 6th example with buddha in fron of orange sheet). It almost looks like the photos have been photoshopped.
Some people like this look, some don't. Some people see this easily, others think those that do are nuts!
My canon lens do at time create this look, but with the Zeiss it is much more prevelant. I studied 1000s of similar pictures taken with the 85L II and this lens, and saw this a lot.
Not sure how the 100L II renders. I noticed the 70-200L II has this look more than other Canons of similar FL.
SKumar25 wrote:
The rendering between Zeiss and Canon is different. Some of Lars' sample demonstrate the 3D look. It is the subject popping out of the background. It is not subject isolation with large aperture, as it can also be created stopped down (E.g. Lar' 6th example with buddha in fron of orange sheet). It almost looks like the photos have been photoshopped.
Some people like this look, some don't. Some people see this easily, others think those that do are nuts!
My canon lens do at time create this look, but with the Zeiss it is much more prevelant. I studied 1000s of similar pictures taken with the 85L II and this lens, and saw this a lot.
Not sure how the 100L II renders. I noticed the 70-200L II has this look more than other Canons of similar FL....Show more →
These are exactly the kind of things that people say that provokes the response I've given in this thread. It is really tiresome to hear "the Zeiss renders differently and demonstrates more '3D' effect, but not everyone can see it." What is bothersome about such statements is the implication that those who can see this imaginary difference are somehow more refined and discerning when viewing images.
Earlier on, bobbytan said to me, "You've made your point, let it rest." And I did let it rest for a time, but clearly I have NOT made my point, because people still persist in making these claims that cannot be substantiated, and then turn it around and basically say "well it's because you're too blind to see it."
I have to agree with wicker. Those are some super average as hell shots. Zeiss just means LOOK AT ME I PAID TOO MUCH FOR AN AVERAGE LENS! Damn you old folks are starting to forget to take your crazy pills.
There's definitely differences in how lenses render. Zeiss tries to make all their lenses render similarly. http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=37129 For example. Those are difficult attributes to quantify in test charts.
SKumar25 wrote: ... as I said some people see this easily, others think those that do are nuts!
wickerprints was trying to be polite and constructive. Let me be more direct: you see this "easily" because it's what you want to see. Other people can't see it not because of a lack of perception, but because it's in your imagination. There is no such thing as a magic "Zeiss 3D look".
Wow. Anyone who thinks Lars' examples "are super average as hell shots" should, by all means, step up and authenticate the bluster. Enlighten us, please, with some web sized images of extraordinary photographic vision.
charlesk wrote:
wickerprints was trying to be polite and constructive. Let me be more direct: you see this "easily" because it's what you want to see. Other people can't see it not because of a lack of perception, but because it's in your imagination. There is no such thing as a magic "Zeiss 3D look".
I was being polite too.
There is no magic in this. Do you realise there are people who see the Zeiss look, recognise it for what is it, and yet prefer a flatter look
There is a difference. If you can't see it perhaps it is you monitor, or something else.
There is no magic in this. Do you realise there are people who see the Zeiss look, recognise it for what is it, and yet prefer a flatter look
There is a difference. If you can't see it perhaps it is you monitor, or something else.
Generally speaking, the last people to know what impoliteness is, are the ones who are impolite.
I made my point, which is that your claims are unsubstantiated.
I was called out for being offensive when I compared such behavior to religious fanaticism, yet as we have seen here, the analogy is quite apt. You are so convinced of your faith that you can't even begin to consider the possibility that there is room for doubt.
bobbytan wrote:
The only way to settle this issue is for someone to do a side-by-side test/shootout between the ZE100 and 100L, and I guess this can only be done on a Canon body.
Diglloyd has this comparison but (a) it is behind a subscription wall so I don't want to post it, and (b) He may have gotten a particularly bad copy of the Canon 100L Macro.
... as I said some people see this easily, others think those that do are nuts! 