p.5 #2 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
So is the Zeiss worth the extra $$ after seeing the comparison?
Would like to hear everyone's opinion.
Do Zeiss and Leica charge more because of their name? Of course but so do Canon & Nikon, just not to the same extent, at least with bodies, lenses are about on par price wise.
With Zeiss you get the name and build quality, with Nikon/Canon you get AF and a red or yellow ring...
Samyang costs about a third of what Zeiss does and some of the newer ones are just about as good optically, although I've read that the build quality & QC can be less than great.
p.5 #4 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
ebeasto a 30k mustang will beat a lot of cars that cost 2, 3 or even 8 times as much if you want to go drag racing but you'll boil the breaks trying to stop.
when I look at the Samyang lenses, I think what they do is admirable. they use very large designs and it looks like the put about 75% of the budget into the glass so they can bring the lenses to people who wouldnt normally be able to afford those designs.
but in the end it's a competitive market and it's hard to overprice something and move a great deal of units. and frankly, a name (and the trust that the company will do you right when something goes wrong that comes with that) DOES have a value.
p.5 #5 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
elbeasto wrote:
So is the Zeiss worth the extra $$ after seeing the comparison?
Would like to hear everyone's opinion.
...not for a m4/3 camera when you shoot middle to far distance and close the aperture some, as the comparison shows. MIght as well get a Nikon 18-70 (which is also a very decent lens on a crop body from Nikon, like D70 or D90. With D7000 it might show it's age, - have not tried that.)
using a Zeiss on a full frame body (D700, D600 or D800 or respective Canon bodies) and using all its apertures at different shooting dictances is a whole different story.
Better go look at some images at the two Zeiss image threads and form your opinion afterwards.
p.5 #6 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
If we disregard lens characteristics like speed, bokeh, color etc, my take on this is that the lens used is only important once all the basic criteria of a good photograph has been fulfilled.
Subject & Composition - If your photo isn't interesting, it doesn't matter which lens was used, because no one is going to care. Accurate focus - If you miss focus, ever so slightly, the benefit of using a better lens is zero. Post processing - If you're sloppy with your PP, or if you overdo it, lens choice isn't going to be important for the end result.
A quality lens will make a difference only when you master all of the above criteria, and even then it isn't really until you choose between two identical perfect photos, one made with a higher quality lens, and one made with a lesser quality lens, that the choice of glass used really becomes an important factor. And that's only if you're planning to print large or look at 100% crops.
Of course, given a choice, you should always choose to use the best tools available. For professionals and advanced amatures, like the crowd of this forum, the basics will be met often, and so lens choice becomes more important for that final 2% difference, and for the "just in case I want large prints".
You can make great photographs with any kit lens or cheap 50, but for consistant top notch results, which will withstand the challanges of large prints and pixel peeping, you should go with higher quality glass if your budget allows it.
p.5 #8 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Bif, re. your comparison:
I am certain that the Zeiss 21 is an awesome lens on a full-frame body, but I have no idea what it is like on an MFT body, and to be honest, I couldn't care less. It is quite a large lens, and for my E-PL3 the 12/2 is a great lens.
The difference between great and good wide angle lenses (and even so-so lenses) is mostly in the corners, and the sharpness wide open. You have avoided all trouble zones.
Disclaimer: I only got to page 2 and am too bored to read to the end
p.5 #9 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Once Bif posted the 100% crops it was rather obvious which was the zeiss but as others have said, at web size, you've got to be looking pretty close and know what you're looking for.
p.5 #10 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
+1 @ Zeiss on MFT crop ... it even renders much of the mustache distortion out of the picture. But then you've got a sharp 42mm FOV without much distortion ... not a hard task to accomplish in FF.
Even though I don't shoot the Zeiss 21, preferring the better distortion of the Oly 21/3.5 ... the value of the Zeiss is rooted in FF coverage rather than negated/equalized by MFT usage. WA/UWA excellence isn't about the central portions, it is about the edges/corners of such a wide AOV as light projection traverses the inverse square from center to edge/corner distances.
p.5 #11 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
carstenw wrote:
Bif, re. your comparison:
I am certain that the Zeiss 21 is an awesome lens on a full-frame body, but I have no idea what it is like on an MFT body, and to be honest, I couldn't care less. It is quite a large lens, and for my E-PL3 the 12/2 is a great lens.
The difference between great and good wide angle lenses (and even so-so lenses) is mostly in the corners, and the sharpness wide open. You have avoided all trouble zones.
Disclaimer: I only got to page 2 and am too bored to read to the end
You should've started at Page 3. Then it's like a mystery. "What the hell are all these people talking about?"
p.5 #12 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
It's easy to spot the Zeiss. ...just look at the micro-contrast in the foliage, and the way the transition of DOF is much smoother and natural. Anyone can see that. I only wish it was apochromatic so I can spend another thousand or two. ....where's my Bentley?
p.5 #15 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
The Zeiss 21mm is a rockin' lens. That said, it did not seem to be appreciably better than the 16-35mm VR at 21mm, when both are at f/8, wher I'm going to be using it. So I didn't buy it, and bought the Nikkor instead. Now I kinda wanna get the Sigma 12-24mm II just to go wider, as I miss my 8-16mm Sigma that I was using on crop.
What Zeiss 21mm gives you is 2.8 that's pretty sharp, nice color, ability to (easily) use filter, and above all, beautiful mechanical design. The Zeiss lenses are a joy to hold and use. And that's a big part of the photographic process. They are somewhat expensive, but they feel like you are getting your money's worth (except maybe the lens cap lol). They are just flat out *fun* and a joy to use. If I had unlimited funds, I'd have the 15 & 18 & 21 wide angles and the 50 & 100 macro lenses. Not because they are necessarily optically better than everything else out there, but just because they are so nice to use.
p.5 #17 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
There is a difference for sure. I think the difference vs cost is one of depreciating returns. In other words the difference between a 200 dollar lens and a 600 dollar lens is potentially huge. The difference between a 1,000 dollar lens and a 2,000 dollar lens... much less so. Certainly not enough for me to justify the extra cash. I guess if you absolutely must have the best, but realize that it's a 5% increase in quality for 2x the cost.
.....but then again, since when have photographers been reasonable people when it comes to gear and money. Admit it, it's mostly true.
p.5 #19 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
Lee Saxon wrote:
Andy, you're absolutely right. Unfortunately, it's that way for pretty much anything.
Intel used to sell $1000 "extreme edition" processors that were 2% faster than the $250 ones. If you were lucky.
That's a bad comparison because the Extreme Edition processors weren't really physically different from the lower end ones except for a higher clock speed. A better comparison would be a cheap AMD processor versus a more expensive Intel. Different designs, different strengths -- just like with lenses they are not made the same.
p.5 #20 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...
andyjaggy82 wrote:
There is a difference for sure. I think the difference vs cost is one of depreciating returns. In other words the difference between a 200 dollar lens and a 600 dollar lens is potentially huge. The difference between a 1,000 dollar lens and a 2,000 dollar lens... much less so. Certainly not enough for me to justify the extra cash. I guess if you absolutely must have the best, but realize that it's a 5% increase in quality for 2x the cost.
.....but then again, since when have photographers been reasonable people when it comes to gear and money. Admit it, it's mostly true. ...Show more →
I dunno.... maybe you're right.... then again, maybe not either. I think excellence is not necessarily a function of price and visa-versa. And this is probably true in the majority of circumstances.
The 125/2.5 Lanthar for example is probably the best in that length on the entire planet. Yet MSRP was only around $650 or something. And there are $1,000+ lenses in similar focal lengths & speeds which are way worse. Also many examples of $100 lenses which trounce $800+ lenses spring to my mind. Then there is also like you're pointing out where there's just not that much difference between expensive and VERY expensive lenses.
At the end of the day after all things are considered price seems to be fairly irrelevant to either/both build quality and image quality - even more-so when we begin to add alts into the mix. Rather IMO lens selection should be the result of spec-sheet analysis and example viewing with no regard towards price. After the picks are in then and only then should one go out price shopping.
Just my take... and in this particular case I can only assume a crop shooter (APS-C or µ4/3) would select the Nikon (between these three) and then afterward be pleasantly surprised to find it was 1/10th the price of one of the others. Then again these tests are by no means conclusive either. What are the lenses like at MFD? What are their widest apertures respectively? How do their respective build qualities differ? And for the zooms at least, how do they perform at other focal lengths? And many other questions as well.
My little tests here were mostly in consideration of amateur landscape shooters (on crop bodies) like myself.
Admit it, it's mostly true.