faremax wrote:
Scroll a few pages back. And you don't have to blame yourself for not seeing. I am sure it's not the only thing that you can't do and others can. I don't know what this 3D thing is too yet I like a lot Zeiss lenses. Not all of course but 21mm, 50MP and 100MP for example are superb.
I have been following this thread from the beginning and I went back a few pages to make sure I didn't miss anything. I still think that it was quite civil, way more civil that what I saw at some other threads in the past. If the hostility escalates, rest assured that Fred will lock the thread or delete posting with personal attacks. Sorry for being redundant to others that know this already, I had both 21mm and 100mm Zeiss lenses before and never said I didn't like them.
Can you see presence in this shot, like you are there?
No. It's a thoroughly unremarkable image. If I posted the exact same scene taken with a Canon lens, it would appear virtually identical, and you wouldn't "see presence" in it either, since "presence" is another bullshit term that people make up to make themselves feel better about their buying decisions.
Can you see presence in this shot, like you are there?
Nope, I see an image taken with the sun low in the sky that has given you more shadow detail on everything from the thick weave of the sweater to the tread on the tyre giving a sense of depth that any (decent) lens would pick up.
2 replies. One, curt, like you'd read in dpreview and the other polite. What's with all the hatred? I don't need to prove anything to anyone. I'll post more rendering shots when I get a chance. Off to bed.
I agree with you, Joshua. The arguments, although it got quite heated, has remained fairly civil with no insults or foul language being used (unlike some of the other threads) which is great.
SKumar: Those are lovely images indeed, but again, it means nothing without a comparison shot with the Canon lens under exactly the same conditions. As we all know, the 100L is similar to the ZE 100 in terms of sharpness and resolution. For that matter, even a "lowly" Sigma macro lens can replicate this type of sharpness and detail. I still need to be convinced of the "3D look" from a Zeiss lens. Unless and until someone does a side-by-side shootout to proof the point, I will remain unconvinced.
bobbytan wrote:
I agree with you, Joshua. The arguments, although it got quite heated, has remained fairly civil with no insults or foul language being used (unlike some of the other threads) which is great.
SKumar: Those are lovely images indeed, but again, it means nothing without a comparison shot with the Canon lens under exactly the same conditions. As we all know, the 100L is similar to the ZE 100 in terms of sharpness and resolution. For that matter, even a "lowly" Sigma macro lens can replicate this type of sharpness and detail. I still need to be convinced of the "3D look" from a Zeiss lens. Unless and until someone does a side-by-side shootout to proof the point, I will remain unconvinced....Show more →
There was a link posted previously that shows a side by side comparison and you definately can see a difference between the two. Whether you want to call it a "3D look" or not...you cannot deny the difference. Only you can decide if this difference warrants the extra cost for the Zeiss.
SKumar25 wrote:
2 replies. One, curt, like you'd read in dpreview and the other polite. What's with all the hatred? I don't need to prove anything to anyone. I'll post more rendering shots when I get a chance. Off to bed.
Kumar,
Don't let other people's opinion on your personal choice bother you. If you show frustration and interprete that as "hatred", somehow it may convey that you are not feeling 100% secure about your choice, at least that's the way I look at it. Those are lovely images, especially the portrait of your little girl, I assume, regardless whether the feeling of presence is there or not.
I will try to reproduce those results myself with my own copies later this afternoon when I get home.
I'm willing to entertain any other subject suggestions from folks as well, but keep in mind that only subjects that are still that I can take on a tripod are going to be meaningful (for comparison that is).
I have seen them before. And there are a difference between those shots.
Just like there are in Lloyd Chambers comparison between the different macro lenses
I don't have any doubt that Zeiss is optically better albeit ever so slightly than the Canon L, not in terms of resolution but in terms of micro contrast, at least from the comparison. It is faster by 1-stop, too. In anything else, like AF, 4-stop IS, magnification ratio, internal focusing (the Canon doesn't extend as you focus to MFD, unlike the Zeiss, a minor aspect but still) and pricewise, the Canon is better. Well, take your pick and be happy that we have the option of selecting what suits your needs better or better yet, get both , like Luka and Aravind did. Aravind, I am looking forward to your comparison, as well.
The tests done by Aravind (thedigitalbean) only proves to me that these 2 lenses are very similar. The Zeiss lens may appear to be a tad sharper on the 2nd/flower image but this could be due to inaccuracy in the focussing or a slight shake, as I do not believe for a second that the Zeiss lens is significantly sharper.
And I most definitely do not see the "3D look" ... not with my naked eye anyway. Do you do have to wear 3D glasses or what?
chez wrote:
There was a link posted previously that shows a side by side comparison and you definately can see a difference between the two. Whether you want to call it a "3D look" or not...you cannot deny the difference. Only you can decide if this difference warrants the extra cost for the Zeiss.
bobbytan wrote:
The tests done by Aravind (thedigitalbean) only proves to me that these 2 lenses are very similar. The Zeiss lens may appear to be a tad sharper on the 2nd/flower image but this could be due to inaccuracy in the focussing or a slight shake, as I do not believe for a second that the Zeiss lens is significantly sharper.
And I most definitely do not see the "3D look" ... not with my naked eye anyway. Do you do have to wear 3D glasses or what?
Then I guess the Zeiss is not for you. That's OK. I personally do not use the 100mm range much at all, so neither lens is for me.
chez wrote:
There was a link posted previously that shows a side by side comparison and you definately can see a difference between the two.
If we are talking about the test shots of a mug and a lemon on POTN, then I'd say the Zeiss images shown have a significantly better contrast, detail resolved and less general "veiling" than the 100L images. In fact, the difference is more than I would have expected .
PetKal wrote:
If we are talking about the test shots of a mug and a lemon on POTN, then I'd say the Zeiss images shown have a significantly better contrast, detail resolved and less general "veiling" than the 100L images. In fact, the difference is more than I would have expected .
Yep, those were the ones. And I agree with your assessment.
It's not for me only because AF and IS is very important to me. If the Zeiss lens has full AF + IS I would seriously consider the Zeiss, as it is slightly better (not hugely better) optically/overall ... and I always like a fast lens ... plus I have always loved Zeiss lenses!
I did enjoy (very much so) my courtship with the APO Lanthar ... until Canon released the 100L IS. The Zeiss comes very close to the CV in terms of color and micro-contrast!
chez wrote:
Then I guess the Zeiss is not for you. That's OK. I personally do not use the 100mm range much at all, so neither lens is for me.
PetKal wrote:
If we are talking about the test shots of a mug and a lemon on POTN, then I'd say the Zeiss images shown have a significantly better contrast, detail resolved and less general "veiling" than the 100L images. In fact, the difference is more than I would have expected .
Since I am in both the Zeiss and the Canon camps, perhaps I can add something of value. Before saying more, it is my opinion that 90% of the quality of an excellent picture is the photographer and the lighting, not the equipment. Many gearheads here will strongly disagree.
Also, I own the 100L macro and don’t own the Zeiss 100 MP. So I’m in the Canon camp right? Not quite.
I have owned Canon 28 f2.8, Canon 35 f2, Canon 50 f1.4, Zeiss C/Y 28 f2.8, Zeiss 35 f2.8 and Zeiss 50 f1.7, all at the same time. I also use Zuiko 21mm.
It didn’t take me one day’s use to see the differences between the Canon and the Zeiss. I know what the differences are, and I’m not even going to discuss them here. Let’s just say I use Zeiss in 28mm and 35mm (my Canon 28 f2.8 is kept only for autofocus) and in 50mm I use Canon f1.4. I paid $300 for the Zeiss 28 and $200 for the Zeiss 35, including adapters. A lot of value, very low price.
I have the Canon 100L because I need a macro and I must have a short tele with IS. I’d love to also add the ZE 100 MP, but ain’t going to happen because of it’s price and its limited and different qualities over Canon 100 L. So I’ll admire it from a distance.
Don ... you are basically summing up what most of us think. By that I mean we DO like the Zeiss lens a little more than the Canon lens ... but not enough to want to pay twice as much - and especially since the Canon offers full AF + IS + 1:1 macro. So, for many of us here, the choice to go with Canon is a no-brainer, as most of us folks are practical people!
I would like to say it again ... we DO love Zeiss lenses ... and I personally also prefer the Voigtlander lenses over Canon lenses, even though I don't own one at this time ... for practical reasons I might add.
Don Clary wrote:
Since I am in both the Zeiss and the Canon camps, perhaps I can add something of value. Before saying more, it is my opinion that 90% of the quality of an excellent picture is the photographer and the lighting, not the equipment. Many gearheads here will strongly disagree.
Also, I own the 100L macro and don’t own the Zeiss 100 MP. So I’m in the Canon camp right? Not quite.
I have owned Canon 28 f2.8, Canon 35 f2, Canon 50 f1.4, Zeiss C/Y 28 f2.8, Zeiss 35 f2.8 and Zeiss 50 f1.7, all at the same time. I also use Zuiko 21mm.
It didn’t take me one day’s use to see the differences between the Canon and the Zeiss. I know what the differences are, and I’m not even going to discuss them here. Let’s just say I use Zeiss in 28mm and 35mm (my Canon 28 f2.8 is kept only for autofocus) and in 50mm I use Canon f1.4. I paid $300 for the Zeiss 28 and $200 for the Zeiss 35, including adapters. A lot of value, very low price.
I have the Canon 100L because I need a macro and I must have a short tele with IS. I’d love to also add the ZE 100 MP, but ain’t going to happen because of it’s price and its limited and different qualities over Canon 100 L. So I’ll admire it from a distance. ...Show more →
chez wrote:
Yep, those were the ones. And I agree with your assessment.
Well, a very fine quality of those Zeiss images doesn't surprise me....after all, some experienced photographers swear by the lens.
What did surprise me was a mediocre sharpness of those 100L test shots.
So I just did a quick and dirty shoot with my 100L and 40D as follows:
* camera/lens handheld, around 1/250 sec, ISO 200, f/2.8, no good light at all.
* IS on.
* center AF sensor used in one shot AF mode, autofocusing w/o FTM.
* JPGs straight out of camera, no pp except cropping (#2 and #4) and resizing for web.
Now, this kind of 100L performance I can relate to under the conditions of the shoot.
, like Luka and Aravind did. Aravind, I am looking forward to your comparison, as well. 
.