p.2 #2 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
I really wonder about the value of these kinds of lens races when everyone looks at the result on a monitor which may or may not be calibrated or may be a $98 Costco special or a $2000 Eizo Double Supreme...and a full frame lens on a crop body
Isn;t this like wine tasting using styrofoam cups, sure it's fun but what's the point.
p.2 #3 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Ah, Bif! You troublemaker!!
I'm not really good enough to tell any major, obvious failures, or should I say: there isn't much practical difference between the three in these sizes of imaging and presentation.
(BTW -- I like the clock in the building of Set 3. )
But . . . I'll take a stab at it.
In looking them over, they seem to be in the same order in each set.
The last one in each set shows the telltale CA of the Nikon. I owned that lens and recall it had pretty decent amount of fringing.
The second one is the "brightest" not only in exposure, but purity of the colors. It also looks the sharpest, with very good contrast -- I'm going to say Pentax, based on the small experience I've had with Pentax 67 and older M42 SMC Taks.
The first one seems very sharp, but somewhat blotchy contrast and dark. My vote is the Zeiss.
My top choice is the second offering in each set as the best IQ, followed by the first one, and finally the last in each set: 2 (Pentax) - 1 (Zeiss) - 3 (Nikon).
I may be utterly wrong, but thanks for playing!
(Micky -- C'mon, and throw down! It's only a carnival game.)
p.2 #5 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Can you next time stick to sRGB color space? Not sure in what are these, but they look awful in every browser, except FireFox .. where are colors just tiny bit less awful.
Otherwise, pointless test. m4/3 is useless for testing FF lens which are intended to be used on FF.
If I wanted good lens for m4/3 I would choose something suitable.
Test it on 5DMK2 or D800. Then it will have some meaning.
p.2 #10 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Gunzorro wrote:
Ouch!
I'll try to improve my photography and post-production skills to meet the new paradigm.
My comment was probably a bit too harsh, sorry. What I meant was that images that you'd pick as your favorites and would hang as print on your wall would probably bring out the difference between a Zeiss and a kit lens better than random test scenes.
p.2 #11 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
The further away from those images the better they look, about 15 metres works great for me, highly recommended. And yes, they are all the same as if by some dirty deed, done dirt cheap.
The answer to the first set is #3 - a little birdy told me as he flew by ;-)
Bif, couldn't you graft these lenses on a mobile phone for a decent comparison, as MFT is simply too large?
And how do passers-by feel about the toxic sludge pond so prominently featured - and how the hell do they get plants and trees to grow there?
p.2 #12 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Thorsten wrote:
My comment was probably a bit too harsh, sorry. What I meant was that images that you'd pick as your favorites and would hang as print on your wall would probably bring out the difference between a Zeiss and a kit lens better than random test scenes.
Thorsten -- I know, it was too good to pass up though.
I don't think any of us doubt that Zeiss products are excellent overall.
AhamB -- In all fairness, how many other platfroms could Bif have used to mount these lenses on the same body? I agree M4/3 isn't a perfect solution, but it does show some results, at least for that format.
p.2 #13 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
It's not Zeiss 'doesn't matter,' it's that great lenses don't make great photographs. In the history of photography, no dull photograph has been made interesting by the "3D pop" of the taking lens.
Ran across an interesting quote from Elliott Erwitt today - in addition to Leica, he was shooting (at the turn of the oughts) a Contax G2 (horrible, unusable AF!) and EOS with the 28-135IS (kit lens! for shame - shouldn't he have known that you can't make photographs without the Red Ring or Zeiss primes?).
p.2 #14 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
miloz wrote:
a Contax G2 (horrible, unusable AF!)
It worked just fine. I never had a problem with it and it almost never missed a shot. Mind you, it wasn't a camera for sports. I am sorry to say, but in my long experience simce the camera was introduced, the people who say that about the G2, never took the time to understand the camera and how it works, and understand what it was designed for and what it wasn't designed for.
p.2 #16 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Argh... well it's really easy to spot which one is not the Zeiss in the first two (and most probably the Nikkor) as the bland colours and the awful corners gave it away.
The other non-Zeiss was very impressive though (presumably the pentax), but as others have said, on a cropped sensor and stopped down the differences are reduced (not that differences shouldn't be apparent anyway imo).
Anyway here's my guess (I had the hardest time deciding in the third one tbh).
Set One:
Image 1: 1
Image 2: 2
Image 3: 1
I can't be bothered to go through hem all, but fun test!
p.2 #17 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Gunzorro wrote:
AhamB -- In all fairness, how many other platfroms could Bif have used to mount these lenses on the same body? I agree M4/3 isn't a perfect solution, but it does show some results, at least for that format.
Nikon and Pentax fit both on a Canon crop camera. NEX would have been another possibility. Anyway, Bif has a dozens upon dozens of lenses, most of which are full frame so it wasn't necessary to use crop lenses.
p.2 #18 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Rodluvan wrote:
Now; answers god damn it!
My sentiments exactly. I think people are afraid they might mistake a $100 zoom for a $1,800 Zeiss prime. <snicker snicker> So cop outs, excuses, and complaints about the water quality aside the challenge remains:
Z: Zeiss Distagon ZE 21/2.8 - $1,800 new
N: Nikkor AF-S DX 18-70/3.5G IF ED - $200 new
P: Pentax 18-55/3.5 SMC AL (ver 1) - $100 new
And now these are in RGB color space as requested. Sorry about that. There was NO EDITING done here at all and my set up brings all files in with ProPhoto applied by default.
