fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 5 6 end

Archive 2012 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

johnahill wrote:
The 3rd shot in set 1 and 2 is showing pretty weak corner performance

yup

Apr 18, 2012 at 07:35 AM

Guest

Guest

p.3 #2 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

Let me guess.
Weak corner performance images aside, Zeiss is cooler. So Set 1 - Z=2, set 2 - Z=1 and so on. By the way I prefer warmer colors of the other sharp lens (may be it's nikon, isn't it?).

Apr 18, 2012 at 07:57 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #3 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

Bifurcator wrote:
yup

Without even looking at the image ... don't forget that Zeiss has its "plateau" points / areas of "abrupt transition" (by intentional design). When used on FF, those points usually are somewhere around Zone B or near A/B intersect. Crop that down as has been here ... and what used to be a plateau point that helped provide such transition for the pop, could now be an "abrupt transition" sitting in the (new) corner and appearing as unsharp (because it is designed for a rapid transition at that specific area of the projection as it would pertain to FF rather than a "weak corner" on a crop).

So, is the area in question a "weak corner" of a kit lens ... or a "plateau zone" of an optic specifically designed with an area of abrupt transition that helps Zeiss achieve 1) the 3D-ish / pop / separation effect and 2) sharper edges / corners @ infinity.

Kinda like torque curve vs. hp curve ... depending on which portion of the curve you are evaluating, relative to your intended application ... different opinions will arise as to whether or not it is a good thing ... or a bad thing. Some people like a flatter torque curve that comes in strong on the low end and has a broader usefulness, but doesn't peak extremely high. Others want maximum torque, even if it has a very narrow power band for its area of usefulness.

BIF is a VERY tricky one, and I for one am not as smart as he is tricky (he really is a smart cookie, just with a divisive bent and plalyful spirit for the devil's advocate)

Edited on Apr 18, 2012 at 08:20 AM · View previous versions

Apr 18, 2012 at 08:06 AM

Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

I thought this "plateau" thing was a function of subject distance, aperture, and focus distance. I don't think it has anything to do with zones - assuming we're talking about the same thing. We're talking about DOF "roundness" - the transitions between in focus and OOF areas, yeah?

Apr 18, 2012 at 08:14 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #5 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

It originates from the atypical design of the glass. We discuss it in terms of when/where/how it reveals itself in a manner that we like to use it to bring out its existence that yields that "Zeiss look". The glass hasn't changed (i.e. remap) where it is projecting the image (Zones A,B,C) just because it is on a crop capturing only Zone A or A/B, it will still have those areas of varying transition ... that's what Zeiss does that makes Zeiss, Zeiss. If you happen to have cropped an image into that area of the projection, it could look like a "weak corner", when it is an area of abrupt transition.

As to the subject distance aspect ... others have determined correction factors for a given Zeiss lens to offset when shooting it at non-optimized distances. I'm remiss to recall who has spoken well to this matter, but for those who are even more meticulous regarding the characteristics of Zeiss design, they have determined such. For me, I just know that Zeiss has such an approach, and try to harness it when I want it ... and avoid it when I don't want it.

That's why Zeiss can have such a poor showing on test charts, yet people find the pracdtical use significantly different than what the test chart might suggest. The thing to understand @ Zeiss is that by design, the transitions are not the same throughout all areas/zones... much like wearing progressive bifocals ... there are some middle areas that are not the same as the near & far. The bigger the diff, the more the effect. This intentional design difference is what makes Zeiss different from most other glass. Note: I try not to use the word "better" ... I prefer (intend to) use the word different ... because they do mfr to a different approach regarding such transitions.

If you happen to have a good optometrist that is knowedgeable @ Zeiss progressive bifocals vs. other progressive bifocals vs. regular bifocals ... it can provide a clue as to Zeiss's philosophy/approach/design regarding optics to contend with both near & far in one optic. They make intermittent/intermediate sacrifices (i.e. abrupt transitions) in strategic areas in an effort to achieve a gain in other areas. For some optometrists, they report that people can have difficulty getting used to the Zeiss transitions more than other designs, and dissuade people from using Zeiss progressive bifocals.

As one would expect, no different than photographers, some patients love the Zeiss progressive bifocals ... other's can't tolerate them ... and others don't care.

Apr 18, 2012 at 08:24 AM

dpap1978
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

if you downsample the images to web resolution, it will be impossible to tell the difference between them. I think if you provide 100% center and corner crops, it will be easier to tell them apart

Apr 18, 2012 at 09:00 AM

Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

Rusty,
hmmm interesting... i didn't know that.

But i can tell you that i never seen any zeiss to have soft looking corners on my �4/3 no matter how they were cropped.

Edited on Apr 18, 2012 at 09:08 AM · View previous versions

Apr 18, 2012 at 09:06 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #8 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

Bifurcator wrote:
yup

@ Set 1

Depends on which corner you are looking at ... bottom right foreground or top left background. Compare 1 vs. 3 and you may notice that they seem reciprocal "corner performance" relative to the subject distances involved. 2, otoh seemingly handles both fg & bg "corners" more similarly.

Apr 18, 2012 at 09:07 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #9 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

Bifurcator wrote:
Rusty,
hmmm interesting... i didn't know that.

But i can tell you that i never seen any zeiss to have soft looking corners on my �4/3 no matter how they were cropped.

Hmmm ... did you just tell us the answers

Or,

Does that suggest that in order for Zeiss to NOT have any difference, that ALL other glass must be equally sharp in the "corners" (on 4/3) and of the same color rendering ... which we clearly see is not the case, therefore, there must be a difference ...

Hmmm ...

My only point that I was getting at (originally) is that there are people who are insistent on saying that there is "no difference" in Zeiss (Leica, etc.) glass vs. other glass and that rather than try to prove to them there is a difference ... just "agree" with them, because they typically have already made up their minds so ardently that they refuse to be objective at striving to understand what those differences are ... again, I didn't say better ... different.

Of course, for those who want help to understand what those differences are ... that's a different matter.

When people take that staunch position of "there is no difference" (usually @ Zeiss) ... it only tells me they are either not being objective, or they have a lesser critical eye. I can put my Oly vs. my Nikon vs. my Zeiss (28mm shootout) and the differences are easily detectable. Not saying which one is BETTER or which one is PREFERRED ... or that I can "blind test" pick out which is which ... but the differences are detectable (color & contrast notably)

Those differences can range from sharpness to contrast to CA to corners to "3D-ishness" to color to .... The fact is that differences in optics abound, yet when someone obstinately states "there is no difference" ...

"Yup, you're right. No difference at all."

Canon, Oly, Mamiya, Zeiss, Nikon, Leica, Tamron, Vivitar, Rokkor, Voigtlander, EF, FL, FD, AIS, Contax, Schneider, Rollie, Blad, Fuji, etc. ... all the same.

And yes ... you can take a great pic with any of them (I get that). You want me to believe that you can't tell the difference or that the differences don't matter to you ... I'll agree with you all day long. But please don't try to "jack people up" by insisting that they are all the same in a forum where we specifically denote the differences among them.

Edited on Apr 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM · View previous versions

Apr 18, 2012 at 09:27 AM

mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

My take on these sample images: the lens used for the 3rd shot in all images is clearly outclassed by the other two (or has a 100% misfocus rate); it's a bit soft and smeary, even at these reduced sizes, all across the frame compared to the first two. I'd guess not the Distagon 21. The first two differ most by white balance and could be consistently differentiated just on this; I don't know which one is Zeiss based on this. Otherwise, they are very similar to me when presented in this format --- I suspect the Zeiss would be more obvious on full frame, since one of its main marks of distinction is exceptionally good edge/corner performance for a wide angle. Differences in rendering might also be more apparent in closer up and wider open shots, where differences in bokeh and focus transition are shown.

Apr 18, 2012 at 09:50 AM

KaaX
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

Well, technically speaking all lenses are different. But this is not an interesting observation. We are not really interested in all differences, we're only interested in differences that matter. And herein lies the rub, of course, for different things matter to different people.

So when people say that "there is no difference" what they really mean is "there is no difference that matters to me" -- and that's a valid statement.

Apr 18, 2012 at 10:29 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

KaaX wrote:
Well, technically speaking all lenses are different. But this is not an interesting observation. We are not really interested in all differences, we're only interested in differences that matter. And herein lies the rub, of course, for different things matter to different people.

So when people say that "there is no difference" what they really mean is "there is no difference that matters to me" -- and that's a valid statement.

I'm good with that ... to each his own.

Yet, they then try to argue that it shouldn't matter to me (et al) or that I should be compelled to prove to them the significance of the differences and/or why they matter to me and my fellow FM'ers who it does matter to. Then, we take the time, effort and energy to share with them our observations, experience and knowledge, workmanship, etc. ... yet, they are "Hell-bent" on telling us we are all full of crap, and that it's all kool-aid and none of it matters.

If it doesn't matter to them ... why are they so staunch at getting in my/our business of understanding/appreciating/sharing the differences?

Do you really think I'd go to the trouble of using a combination of Zeiss, Oly, Canon, Nikon, Leica and Mamiya (Tamron & Sigma also) glass if there was actually "no difference".

I still revert back to the basic comp @ Canon glass ... EF vs. FD vs. FL ... the differences are notable within Canon glass design alone. Why can't people accept that ... Oh gee, ... maybe different mfrs design glass differently too.

Edited on Apr 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM · View previous versions

Apr 18, 2012 at 10:32 AM

KaaX
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

RustyBug wrote:
Yet, they then try to argue that it shouldn't matter to me (et al) or that I should be compelled to prove to them the significance of the differences and/or why they matter to me (et al).

Tell these people to go jump into a lake with all their photo gear :-) If they claim the right to decide what matters to them, they necessarily must accept your right to decide what matters to you.

Apr 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

Apr 18, 2012 at 10:45 AM

KaaX
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

Yeah, lens #3 is clearly *much* worse than #1 & #2 in corners... And these are m4/3 corners.

Apr 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM

dcjs
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

KaaX wrote:
So when people say that "there is no difference" what they really mean is "there is no difference that matters to me" -- and that's a valid statement.

That statement is just as valid as stating that "there isn't any difference between these wines because they give me the same buzz", and just like that statement would be frowned upon in a forum for wine connaisseurs, all this talk about there being "no differnence between lenses" is totally out of place here because this is precisely the place where people to whom the differences matter come together to exchange opinions.

There's nothing wrong with being indifferent towards drawing styles of lenses, just be indifferent somewhere else.

Apr 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #17 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

"Yup, you're right. No difference at all."

BTW ... Bif, you are both prolific and tenacious in your abilities.

dcjs ... Bingo !!!

Edited on Apr 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM · View previous versions

Apr 18, 2012 at 10:53 AM

KaaX
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

dcjs wrote:
That statement is just as valid as stating that "there isn't any difference between these wines because they give me the same buzz", and just like that statement would be frowned upon in a forum for wine connaisseurs...

Frowned..? I don't think so. I would expect the wine connoisseurs first to express pity (publicly or otherwise) for the poor sod who's missing so much, and then try to educate him.

If, of course, the fellow loudly insists that the only difference between wines is their alcohol content, I would expect the wine connoisseurs to shrug and point him towards a bottle of Everclear and some food coloring :-)

Edited on Apr 18, 2012 at 10:56 AM · View previous versions

Apr 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM

mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

The full crops definitely show an advantage to me for Lens #1 in most of the sets, most strongly on the edge and sometimes center too. I'm now willing to hazard a guess that #1 is Zeiss on sets 2,3,4,5,6,7. And Lens #3 is definitely the Anti-Zeiss.

Apr 18, 2012 at 10:55 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #20 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...

mpmendenhall wrote:
hazard a guess

You obviously know Bif well as you have chosen your words wisely ... everything with Bif is "hazardous".

KaaX wrote:
, and then try to educate him.

Which this forum abounds in people with the proper FM spirit willing to do so ... yet the staunch "nay-sayers" insist on arguing their staunch position of "no difference", rather than embrace the nuance and the excellent spirit of Alt FM'ers willingness to share ... leaving me wanting to say:

"Yup, you're right. No difference at all."

Apr 18, 2012 at 10:57 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 6 end