p.4 #1 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
RustyBug wrote:
... yet they insist on arguing their staunch position of "no difference"...
Well, maybe I haven't paid that much attention, but I didn't notice many people vociferously arguing that there's no difference. A lot of people do say "Nope, can't see it, no difference to my eyes", but that's not exactly the same, isn't it?
Besides, to complicate things, there is the matter of framing. Take some wine and pour it into two bottles. Put different labels on them. Now tell your group of testers that in bottle #1 is a famous wine which sells for hundreds of dollars per bottle, it's rare and exquisite. Tell them that in bottle #2 is a common "California red". Ask them to taste, review, and rate the wines.
I am sure you can guess what the testers will taste, smell, and feel :-)
p.4 #2 · 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 µ4/3 no matter how they were cropped.
RustyBug wrote:
Hmmm ... did you just tell us the answers
I may have, yes. But hopefully everyone already knew this. I've never seen a zeiss that had soft corners on an APS-C or µ4/3 sensor. Have you?
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. ...Show more →
Yup, and that was my only purpose here. I though it was worth looking at. I hope you didn't think I was taking an adversarial position by trying to actually claim that "Zeiss [actually] isn't any different"...
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.
Well I did make the claim that I could pick a lens from another manufacturer to very closely match each of Zeiss's lenses so I can understand why you might think I was making such a silly argument here. It's not the case though. I showed these just as they are for whatever they might say to others. I get a few messages from looking at them:
1: Differences when scaled to large-ish web sizes (1350px in this case) are not very great. So if that's the main purpose then better to save your money.
2: By looking closely (even at the scaled images) one can clearly see Zeiss is better than a $200 or $100 crop lens. But in the $200 cropper's case by such a small degree it's pretty close to splitting hairs. [And really these crop lenses will look about the same on FF if designed for FF... only the prices will be $450 and $750 or something like that. - choose your model.]
3: As you already mentioned above, they can all make nice images.
4: We haven't gotten to yet but if we do it'll be that the differences between a poor lens and a good one can not be easily be reconciled in PS or the likes.
p.4 #3 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
mpmendenhall wrote:
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.
... I wonder if I should come clean with the answers or wait a bit longer?
p.4 #4 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
No worries Bif ... I know your intentions are always honorable ... it's only your methods that are deviant.
Using the wine analogy ... I can taste a wine today and find it "just right" ... tomorrow, I may revisit that same vintage and find it "too sweet" as my pallete changed, rather than the wine. +1 @ people can be swayed by suggestion ... but that is "drinking the kool-aid". This group is not about kool-aid ... it is about knowledge and nuance.
When I first stumbled upon the Alt Forum ... I didn't know the first thing about "drawing style" or CA or 3D or bokeh. I couldn't tell the difference between a Leica and a lemon.
Thanks to the proliferation of generosity of our fellow FM'ers ... I truly know what to expect (preferred/unpreferred) out of most all of my glass on any given day, for any given task. I was as ignorant as it comes to the differences when I first found the Alt Forum.
Despite the fact that it took me a while to start seeing the differences in CA, bokeh, color, sharpness, distortion, etc. ... I did LEARN from those who were so willing to share and teach ... rather than argue with them that it didn't exist and didn't matter. Instead, I'd ask why ... and they'd tell me. If I didn't "get it" I'd ask why again ... or I'd simply lurk and watch to try & figure it out ... and ask why yet again.
I'm by no means an expert @ Zeiss or anything ... but I do have a strong appreciation for our fellow FM'ers who are so willing to share. It just torques me at the likes of those who come into the Alt Forum and staunchly refute the vast array and wealth of knowledge the exists here ... clamoring about "no difference", kool-aid, etc. ... which just make me want to say:
"Yup, you're right. No difference at all."
BTW ... Bif, thanks for the exercise ... we appreciate the effort to tantalize our minds (props to the prof).
p.4 #6 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
! @ both of yous...
RustyBug wrote:
No worries Bif ... I know your intentions are always honorable ... it's only your methods that are deviant.
Damn, he really does get me... How scary is that?
OK, the answer for all sets is:
Z
N
P
Image 1 is always Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 Prime
Image 2 is always Nikon AF-S DX 18-70/3.5 IF ED Zoom
Image 3 is always Pentax SMC DA 18-55/3.5 AL v1 Kit Zoom
p.4 #7 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
My .02
I think Zeiss is #2 in the first two sets. I didn't look at all the sets critically. I would be happy with the performance of either lens #1 or lens #2 in these examples.
p.4 #9 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
woho, 66% correct, but the lesser lens performed admirable (not considering corner performance as it was dx), even in regards of the alluring "presence/3D".
p.4 #10 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Bifurcator wrote: ! @ both of yous...
Damn, he really does get me... How scary is that?
OK, the answer for all sets is:
Z
N
P
Image 1 is always Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 Prime
Image 2 is always Nikon AF-S DX 18-70/3.5 IF ED Zoom
Image 3 is always Pentax SMC DA 18-55/3.5 AL v1 Kit Zoom
Douh. I would have said that Pentax would be better than Nikon. Zeiss really stands out even from the crops when you look at it from a good S-IPS lcd. I couldn't see the difference between first two with my old ViewSonic.
p.4 #11 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Interesting, I would have guessed the Nikon was 1, Zeiss 2 and Pentax 3. To my eyes, the Nikon lens performs the best and I assumed it was the Zeiss. The Pentax contrast is a little high for my taste.
p.4 #14 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Well, pretty clear that the order of the lenses was always the same, but thought it was N, Z, P. That N18-70 is seriously underrated, far from a perfect lens but serious bang for the buck. Disappointing from the Pentax, have to say.
p.4 #15 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Hm, difference between Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 and Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not that spectacular in case camera body used for test. Considering price difference. And by Ken Rockwell he's favorite is better and cheaper 18-55. Maybe in case 18-55 there no diffrence at all Kind of frighten me away from thought about EVIL (crop body) when there no difference about kit zoom and prime.
Or is it purely body ability to bring out fine detail and GH1 is just not capable to utilise what could be bring out from one or another lens So what is final conclusion about this test?
p.4 #16 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
JaanOs wrote:
Hm, difference between Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 and Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not that spectacular in case camera body used for test. Considering price difference. And by Ken Rockwell he's favorite is better and cheaper 18-55. Maybe in case 18-55 there no diffrence at all Kind of frighten me away from thought about EVIL (crop body) when there no difference about kit zoom and prime.
Or is it purely body ability to bring out fine detail and GH1 is just not capable to utilise what could be bring out from one or another lens So what is final conclusion about this test? ...Show more →
depends on your perspective.
full frame cameras just don't cost that much anymore. if you are willing to carry around the weight and pay the price for the kit there is no question that a current FF body and a 21 distagon will provide better results than a current m4/3 and kit lens at an identical output size. the distagon would have to have to have half the lp/mm to show identical performance in terms of resolution at the same print size and what lens does the 21 distagon have half the performance of, exactly?
for people content to stay on small sensor cameras, it's probably only worth it if you love the drawing style on your camera.
p.4 #17 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
As mentioned by others already, we are seeing only a half frame. It is in the other half of the frame that we don't see that the true performance of a FF lens can be judged. The Zeiss 21 is very famous for its excellent corner to corner performance, even wide open. Something that not many lenses in that FL can achieve.
p.4 #18 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Final conclusion about this test:
Use the right tool for the right job.
Using a good crop lens (Nikon) designed for 1.5x crop/image circle to project on an even smaller 2.0X crop sensor for displaying @ small sizes where small resolutions for the web have a smaller ability to distinguish small details can produce viable images. By using the 4/3 sensor, even the edges and corners of the Nikon's 1.5X lens have been centrally cropped, such that we are unable to see the strengths / weaknesses of WA glass in the edges and corners (the bane of most WA).
Here, on 4/3 we are mostly seeing Zone A of the Zeiss projection ... Zones A&B of the Nikon and Pentax projections as they have been designed for a different sized image circle.
Great glass is known for much more than just it's central sharpness. Great glass is able to handle the entire image circle for which it is designed for ... and do so with a minimal amount of optical flaws / aberrations. Few things are tougher to do than have great "entire frame" performance in WA/UWA glass ... especially on FF (or larger) format. This is where great glass separates the wheat from the chaff.
If your needs/goals do not incorporate the use of FF sensor / glass ... then you may never be able to fully appreciate the optics of Zeiss 21 or Leica 19 (notice they don't make any "crop" glass) ... or even the likes of Canon's 24L TS-E II or the Oly 18/3.5.
As such, those who have lower needs/goals/demands ... either by application (web), format (1.5x or 4/3) or by size (small printing) may have additional alternatives that those who have more demanding requirements for FF (larger printing, publication, etc.) may not share as viable.
For many people ... they are looking for some grand "WOW !!! See this is a gazillion times sharper" epiphany.
For others, they are looking for the absence of problem areas (flare, CA, distortion, vignetting). Comparing glass in a manner (extreme central crop) that avoids the most problematic/challenging areas can render the differences seemingly minor or less distinguishable.
It is interesting to note ... my entire basis for getting involved with alts in the first place ... was that Canon made no UWA glass that was suitable to my standards. Since then, the design of the 24L TS-E II has put Canon in my bag. My Zeiss currently only go as wide as 28mm, with Oly down to 18 ... which btw, the Oly is prone to vignetting ... but on a 4/3 (or 1.5x) sensor you'd NEVER see it.
Conclusion ... be sure and understand what you are really looking at (and for), rather than what you think you are looking at (and for) ... and use the right tool for the job.
Thanks again, to Bif's efforts to tantalize our gray matter ... he loves to see if you are actually using yours ... or just following the crowd.
p.4 #19 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
wfektar wrote:
Well, pretty clear that the order of the lenses was always the same, but thought it was N, Z, P. That N18-70 is seriously underrated, far from a perfect lens but serious bang for the buck. Disappointing from the Pentax, have to say.
Yeah, from 20 to 24 the Pentax is pretty weak. It's better at 18 and again from 35 to 55.
JaanOs wrote:
Hm, difference between Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 and Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not that spectacular in case camera body used for test. Considering price difference. And by Ken Rockwell he's favorite is better and cheaper 18-55. Maybe in case 18-55 there no diffrence at all Kind of frighten me away from thought about EVIL (crop body) when there no difference about kit zoom and prime.
Yeah, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX AF-S G ED is considerably better. It's about $800 or more though and I wanted to test "cheap-ass" zooms against the Zeiss. If you want a fair test try the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 against the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8D IF-ED FX on a FF body - which at 21mm and at f/4.5 like these tests were at, will give the Zeiss a real run for it's money and really even at f/2.8 (from 17 to about 24mm). From 24mm to 35mm it wants to be stopped down a stop or so to maintain that ultra-sharpness across the frame. The FX Nikkor at 24mm has zero distortion but at 21mm there's still some slight pin-coushion remaining - and at it's 17mm setting it's quite pronounced. Oddly there's an increasing amount of barrel distortion from 28mm to it's end. You can get the FX for about half the Zeiss price (often around $800 to $900 used).
Or is it purely body ability to bring out fine detail and GH1 is just not capable to utilise what could be bring out from one or another lens So what is final conclusion about this test?
If anything it would be just the opposite. The GH1 is a high-rez crop. To match it in a FF sensor you would need a 48mpx sensor. And a 64mpx sensor if we were comparing the GH2.
The "final conclusion" is whatever your eyes and common sense tell you. There's nothing profound or hidden here. If one has the cash to burn the Zeiss on a FF body is probably the best choice for 21mm performance. If some zoom is desirable one of the Nikkor EDs or one of the Canon L's is almost as good (splitting hairs), will go wider (there's a 14, 16 and a 17 option in just Nikkor that I know to be excellent), and will save you some cash at the same time. They don't have the Zeiss name on them though. Which means a slightly lower resale value ten years from now and probably fewer Ooos and Awwwes when posting images on sites like this one.
Also as Edward points out there are not many PRIME lenses in the 21mm FL that can match the Zeiss for corner sharpness and low distortion on a FF. So if prime lenses are your thing and you want a fast 21mm (on a FF body) then the Distagon is probably the best option.
For me, on a very tight budget, I can try good lenses but I have to sell them off right away. And I can't be doing that with camera bodies - nor can I afford even $2k for a camera body. My GH1 cost me $500 initially and they go for as low as $250 these days. I recently sold my old and purchased a new (lightly used) GH1 and I think I paid $300 - while my older body sold for $350. The lower priced gear I can afford to keep for a few months before selling off. So for me (not being able to get a FF body) the Nikkor zoom here is by far the best option - same general level of sharpness as the Zeiss and about one tenth the price. Plus it can zoom from 18mm to 70mm.
Another thing I'd like to point out. I don't think it's possible to achieve Zeiss's signature look with any focal length wider than about 25mm... even on a crop camera. The 3D-isness we see from Zeiss starts at around 35mm from what I've seen. Zeiss's WA and UWA lenses are only sharp with low-ish distortion. So there are quite a few alternatives which come close enough or maybe even beat Zeiss at those FLs - especially on crop cameras.
p.4 #20 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Bifurcator wrote:
Also as Edward points out there are not many PRIME lenses in the 21mm FL that can match the Zeiss for corner sharpness and low distortion on a FF. So if prime lenses are your thing and you want a fast 21mm then the Distagon is probably the best option.
The Oly 21/3.5 ... is typically regarded as a viable "alt" option for those whose $$$ are challenged by the Zeiss. But, they have two different approaches/drawing styles. The Zeiss designs with a "mustache distortion" ... which can be less noticeable than other types ... particularly for landscape work. They Oly doesn't have as much micro-contrast, is a bit slower and vignettes more until stopped down. Or the Nikon 14-24, but now you're back into $$$.
In the case of my Oly 18/3.5 ... it is a tradeoff of distortion for vignetting. The wider you go ... there is always a trade-off somewhere ... pick your poison.
Which means a slightly lower resale value ten years from now and probably fewer Ooos and Awwwes when posting images on sites like this one.