Rajan Parrikar wrote:
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.
I've seen Lloyd's results and yes I think he did get a dud. I've taken many side by side images of the 100 MP with my 100 L and the difference has never been huge (its there but you do have to go looking for it). Then again, I may have a superlative copy of the 100 L
wickerprints wrote:
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.
If I was impolite, I apologise. I did not mean to be.
I have Canon lenses and love those and I have Zeiss lenses and love those. I am faithless... :-). However my Canon lenses do render differently to my Zeisses. No doubt to me and many others.
SKumar25 wrote:
Nor the fact the Zeiss is 1 stop faster.
That is absolutely correct. I wonder whether those shots that Lars posted were all taken at that aperture. If they were, then indeed the Canon 100mmL couldn't do those shots.... Lars?
FYI, maybe you didn't read the entire thread and missed my post. I had the Zeiss f/2.0 Makro before but a ZF version and I enjoyed that lens and I am not anti-Zeiss as you think I am. As matter of fact, I still have 3 Zeiss ZM lenses that I love but that's a different matter, of course.
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".
Perception is in the eyes of the beholder. Why does it matter what SKumar sees? If he sees some quality in the images that others don't see, who cares? If he loves the way Zeiss lens render his images...then I say good for him. After all, the majority of us here use photography as a hobby which we get great satisfaction out of. If that comes from using a Zeiss lens...then it is great. If it comes from using Canon lens...that is also fine.
Why all this hostility towards one another. Buy and use the lens that make you happy and don't worry about everyone else.
SKumar25 wrote: ... as I said some people see this easily, others think those that do are nuts!
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".
chez wrote:
Perception is in the eyes of the beholder. Why does it matter what SKumar sees? If he sees some quality in the images that others don't see, who cares? If he loves the way Zeiss lens render his images...then I say good for him. After all, the majority of us here use photography as a hobby which we get great satisfaction out of. If that comes from using a Zeiss lens...then it is great. If it comes from using Canon lens...that is also fine.
Why all this hostility towards one another. Buy and use the lens that make you happy and don't worry about everyone else. ...Show more →
People are more than welcome to use whatever they want. What I resent is the haughtiness of those who think their choices are better and result in better images, when in fact, that assessment is subjective. The constant salivating over some unquantifiable "3D" look, and the snobbery of those who try to find every possible reason to look down upon other brands as inferior, is what I find highly distasteful.
Any optical differences between the 100L and the 100 MP are incredibly minor, yet people still proclaim with flowery language the superiority of the latter, even when it is not supported by any real evidence.
I don't have anything against Zeiss lenses. I do, however, take issue with the incessant evangelistic tone some Zeiss users have when speaking about these lenses. To care about these minutiae--whether real or perceived--to the exclusion of all other considerations, is utterly inane and antithetical to the essence of the photographic process.
AGeoJO wrote:
That is absolutely correct. I wonder whether those shots that Lars posted were all taken at that aperture. If they were, then indeed the Canon 100mmL couldn't do those shots.... Lars?
FYI, maybe you didn't read the entire thread and missed my post. I had the Zeiss f/2.0 Makro before but a ZF version and I enjoyed that lens and I am not anti-Zeiss as you think I am. As matter of fact, I still have 3 Zeiss ZM lenses that I love but that's a different matter, of course.
Hi Joshua, I know you are not anti Zeiss. The point I tried to make (albeit subtly) by replying to your post is that the 2 companys started with seperate design parameters. These are quite different lenses.
Yes the Canon would probably be better for macro, but in other applications the Zeiss wins. 4 stop hybrid IS can not stop subject motion or affect DOF.
Do you agree that Zeisses render differently to Canons? Even stopped down I can see classic Zeiss rendering in Lars' examples.
wickerprints wrote:
People are more than welcome to use whatever they want. What I resent is the haughtiness of those who think their choices are better and result in better images, when in fact, that assessment is subjective. The constant salivating over some unquantifiable "3D" look, and the snobbery of those who try to find every possible reason to look down upon other brands as inferior, is what I find highly distasteful.
Any optical differences between the 100L and the 100 MP are incredibly minor, yet people still proclaim with flowery language the superiority of the latter, even when it is not supported by any real evidence.
I don't have anything against Zeiss lenses. I do, however, take issue with the incessant evangelistic tone some Zeiss users have when speaking about these lenses. To care about these minutiae--whether real or perceived--to the exclusion of all other considerations, is utterly inane and antithetical to the essence of the photographic process....Show more →
I still don't understand why it bothers people so much. If you don't see any difference in the images...then you are the smart one saving money by buying the Canon. If someone else thinks Zeiss lens are the greatest things since sliced bread...be happy for them.
To me, it is sort of looking at photos. I've seen many photos posted that had great reviews...yet for me did nothing. I just move on to the next photo. I don't get into pissing matches with other people who really enjoy the photo.
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. 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.
Already did that. Take a look at my posts on page 5 of this thread:
If you choose to view the 100% crop comparisons, when the page loads, give it several seconds (depending on how fast your internet is) for both images to load.
chez wrote:
I still don't understand why it bothers people so much. If you don't see any difference in the images...then you are the smart one saving money by buying the Canon. If someone else thinks Zeiss lens are the greatest things since sliced bread...be happy for them.
To me, it is sort of looking at photos. I've seen many photos posted that had great reviews...yet for me did nothing. I just move on to the next photo. I don't get into pissing matches with other people who really enjoy the photo.
Wouldn't you be upset if someone told you that your photography isn't as good as theirs because you didn't take it with a Zeiss lens? That's basically the insinuation being levied by Zeiss fanatics who think their work has something "extra" to it.
You'll notice that in the macro forum, NOBODY gives a crap whether the picture was taken with a 100 MP. The pictures are taken with a wide variety of lenses and brands, including Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron. Many are taken with the MP-E 65mm simply because there isn't anything else like it in terms of magnification flexibility. Yet here we are, in the gear forum, having heated arguments over some mystical "rendering style" of a "macro" lens that nobody who actually DOES kick-ass macrophotography even cares about. What do you think that tells you about the stupidity of caring about such nebulous things like "3D effect?"
wickerprints wrote:
Wouldn't you be upset if someone told you that your photography isn't as good as theirs because you didn't take it with a Zeiss lens? That's basically the insinuation being levied by Zeiss fanatics who think their work has something "extra" to it.
You'll notice that in the macro forum, NOBODY gives a crap whether the picture was taken with a 100 MP. The pictures are taken with a wide variety of lenses and brands, including Canon, Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron. Many are taken with the MP-E 65mm simply because there isn't anything else like it in terms of magnification flexibility. Yet here we are, in the gear forum, having heated arguments over some mystical "rendering style" of a "macro" lens that nobody who actually DOES kick-ass macrophotography even cares about. What do you think that tells you about the stupidity of caring about such nebulous things like "3D effect?"...Show more →
I really don't care if someone sees a 3D effect from a lens. If I don't see it, then it just does not matter to me. Maybe I don't have an eye for such things or maybe I just don't care for such things...does not matter, but I don't put down someone else that may see this effect.
Same thing goes for people after that razor thin bokeh using the 85L. Does nothing for me...but that is OK. Others drool over these images...I just move on.
SKumar25 wrote:
Hi Joshua, I know you are not anti Zeiss. The point I tried to make (albeit subtly) by replying to your post is that the 2 companys started with seperate design parameters. These are quite different lenses.
Yes the Canon would probably be better for macro, but in other applications the Zeiss wins. 4 stop hybrid IS can not stop subject motion or affect DOF.
Do you agree that Zeisses render differently to Canons? Even stopped down I can see classic Zeiss rendering in Lars' examples.
Kumar,
I agree with you that the two lenses are of two different design but to a certain degree they are similar in that they are labelled as "Macro or Makro" and their forte is in the closeup range. In that respect, the Canon with its hybrid IS and greater magnification ratio is clearly a better lens. The most tangible advantage of the Zeiss is its one-stop faster speed than that of the Canon. Yes, I agree the IS cannot stop action but in the macro/closeup range, I would take a 4-stop IS anytime of the day over the faster Zeiss without any IS at all, if you are shooting without tripod. BTW, the 4-stop IS will enable you to stop down more to get more depth-of-field and still get sharp images at 2-3 stop slower shutter speed than you could with the Zeiss. As you know an extended DOF can be highly desireable in the closeup/macro range.
Except for the faster speed, what other qualifications does the Zeiss have to offer then? Well, that is exactly what is being debated here. 3D and classic rendering and other highly subjective qualities are too intangible to be noticeable on a consistent basis, if at all. I am not saying that the Zeiss does give you those qualities but they are more in the eye of the beholder. At the end, if you happy with your Zeiss lenses and you can tell the difference then that's great. Don't let other people's opinion bother you, keep on taking pictures and be happy doing that .
chez wrote:
I really don't care if someone sees a 3D effect from a lens. If I don't see it, then it just does not matter to me. Maybe I don't have an eye for such things or maybe I just don't care for such things...does not matter, but I don't put down someone else that may see this effect.
I'm not putting down those who see this "3D effect." I'm challenging them to substantiate and quantify it, or else stop bragging about having achieved it. And to date, they can't do that. Show me data, charts, measurements. But no such analysis has been done.
The Zeiss 100 MP keeps getting raves about its superb "microcontrast." And then you see from the test charts that it has more axial color than the EF 100L from f/2 - f/2.8. What does that say about how people choose to see what they want to see? If you compare the Photozone test charts, according to them, the 100 MP has as much resolving power in the center at f/2 as the 100L at f/2.8. That clearly contradicts the actual test charts from TDP showing magenta fringing in the former at f/2.
Same thing goes for people after that razor thin bokeh using the 85L. Does nothing for me...but that is OK. Others drool over these images...I just move on.
The difference is that you can measure blur extent. You can conduct controlled tests and explicitly show the blur circle diameter. You can't do that with a "3D effect."
It isn't about whether you like how a lens produces an image. It is about backing up your claims with evidence if you are going to go around telling people why your lens is "better." As I said long ago in this thread, If Zeiss users simply said, "I like Zeiss because I like the brand and I like the look," and left it at that, then that's fine. But to go around trying to explain it with pseudoscientific babble like "3D effect" and "rendering style" as if that were some kind of proof of their superiority, is dishonest hogwash.
? Not real life condition.... 
just for giggles.
.