fredmiranda.com
Login

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       3              5              end
  

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

  
 
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #1 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...


Bifurcator wrote:
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.


Ideally, that's the best strategy, but there's a limitation.

Looking at these tests, I would've picked the Zeiss. If I hadn't bothered to look at the prices of the others, I would've spent a huge amount of money and been happy.

But if I had checked all the prices, I would've decided, "Though Zeiss is the best, Nikon is 85% as good for a fraction of the price," chosen Nikon, and had money to buy my girlfriend presents..

She, at least, would prefer the second strategy :P



Dec 13, 2012 at 05:44 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #2 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...


...and you would always wonder how much better the Zeiss might be, and it would sit there at the back of your mind every time you used the one you bought, until one day, in a fit of insanity, you would pick up a Zeiss. The comparisons would follow, and you would sell of one of them, probably not the Zeiss but not for sure, and you would have lost some money by not buying the more expensive lens in the first place.

That is my experience, and I try to avoid doing things that way now. I simply buy no lens, until I can afford the dream lens, or at least that is the theory. My personal exception, because I barely use tele lenses, is that I might not buy the Leica 280/4, at least for quite some time, because the Nikon 300/4 is nearly as good, and much much cheaper. I will try to buy the latter at a price which will allow a later resale with no loss, but this is gambling, I know...



Dec 13, 2012 at 05:58 PM
Bijltje
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #3 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...


carstenw wrote:
...and you would always wonder how much better the Zeiss might be, and it would sit there at the back of your mind every time you used the one you bought, until one day, in a fit of insanity, you would pick up a Zeiss. The comparisons would follow, and you would sell of one of them, probably not the Zeiss but not for sure, and you would have lost some money by not buying the more expensive lens in the first place.

That is my experience, and I try to avoid doing things that way now. I simply buy no
...Show more

I've had the same experience, buying cheap first and at the end always selling and buy expensive. But have to say I sometimes start doubting if I did the right thing buying all those expensive lenses.

I really loved my 35 zeiss with I sold for the 35 cron. I like the 35 cron even better, but always have in mind the zeiss wasn't bad either.
At the end, I always think about if I should sell or buy my lenses. Only the 28 cron I never really doubt about. Even trough the 28 biogon ZM was by far the best zeiss ZM lens I ever had (on the M8)

Looking for the holy grail, I don't think it exists...



Dec 13, 2012 at 06:18 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #4 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...


Well, I still liken lenses to paintbrushes where each (good) one only produces different (not necessarily better of worse) results but... If a person knows the look they want then I think there is (usually) a holy grail for that look and length.

My problem is that I'm still exploring looks. I like such a variety of different renderings. The only area that's not like this for me is WA. For me there's only CA, resolution on GH2/GH3 type sensors, sharpness, and ghosts to consider. Almost every lens below 25mm and above 16mm that I've put on my µ4/3 look identical to me - no matter make or model. Only those attributes mentioned vary at all it seems. And really the vast majority I've tried (about 10 or 15 different ones) all have excellent sharpness, great resolution, very low ghosting, and minimal CA. I can't say this for UWA or normal/TF lenses but in that range for me so far, just about all lenses are identical to the point of them being humanly indistinguishable. Even with this test. Had I said the Nikon was Zeiss and the Zeiss Nikon no one would know the difference. At least I can not see any differences at all.

Also on my own, I did indeed test MTF and close focusing between the Nikon, a few other lenses, and that Zeiss where again there were just about identical results all around.

The Zeiss excels in the area of build quality but then again the Yashica ML 21/2.8 is just as good - and much smaller and lighter too! On a crop camera at least those two as well as many others, render identically! So now it comes down to stuff like prestige, or maybe resale value integrity & investment as being the only real differences. Of course if you plan to ever upgrade to a FF body then I suppose that's something to consider as well.


---
BTW carstenw,
You shouldn't be losing any money at all if you buy used lenses. Pay only what you think you can sell them for (or less) and you're out absolutely nothing. You only gain the experience of having tried both lenses IMO.




Dec 13, 2012 at 08:11 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #5 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...


carstenw wrote:
...and you would always wonder how much better the Zeiss might be, and it would sit there at the back of your mind every time you used the one you bought, until one day, in a fit of insanity, you would pick up a Zeiss. The comparisons would follow, and you would sell of one of them, probably not the Zeiss but not for sure, and you would have lost some money by not buying the more expensive lens in the first place.

That is my experience, and I try to avoid doing things that way now. I simply buy no
...Show more

I'm glad to see Bif's comparison is till bearing fruit and discussion!

Well, Carsten, you know I went the other way. Bought the ZE 21 and 35/2, as well as several CZ lenses (and Leica R's). I've pretty well divested out of the Zeiss (except for the CZ 50/1.4), and am about to sell several of my reasonably priced R lenses (keeping the 60 macro). I prefer the Leica look to Zeiss, but even so, I don't value the lenses up to the price they sell for. I've happily fallen back on the IQ and convenient features of the Canon lenses, especially the L models. I've kept the inexpensive Samyang models, but don't use them as much as AF/IS/zoom. That's just me and what I shoot, and following my own interests.

I've also wondered if the contrast of ZE lenses -- maybe being a bad match to the blazing Southern California environs. They seem to produce outstanding images in softer lighting such as Northern Europe, bring out the subtle colors and tonalities (especially with PP routines).

I still like Zeiss lenses, and may someday purchase a few. But the new Canon offerings like the 35/2 IS are capturing my attention, and it's doubtful Zeiss or Leica will ever over such features, and certainly not at a reasonable price.

I've had the most satisfaction by improving my bodies this year, up to the 1Ds3 and 5D2. These bodies have improved my whole stable of lenses. This has me hungering for a high MP/DR body if Canon will come out with one. Until then, I'm pretty happy with their offerings and not as anxious to continue exploring Alt lenses (I've still got plenty!).



Dec 13, 2012 at 09:18 PM
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #6 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...


carstenw wrote:
That is my experience, and I try to avoid doing things that way now.


You learn this lesson the hard way from your Nikon 200/2 / Leica 180/2 comparison?

That's one of the first things Google gives a person who searches the Leica 180/2, very entertaining



Dec 15, 2012 at 12:32 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #7 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...


Lee Saxon wrote:
You learn this lesson the hard way from your Nikon 200/2 / Leica 180/2 comparison?

That's one of the first things Google gives a person who searches the Leica 180/2, very entertaining


Well, I did say "try" I am not always successful in avoiding the buy/sell cycle, but I am much better since I make an effort. By the way, the Nikkor and the Leica are equally expensive, so this wasn't an upgrade cycle, but rather a cross-grade.

The story is this: I had neither, and then someone I know wanted to get rid of his 200/2, and made me a nice offer. One of the worries with a lens like this is that it has some undiscovered problem which will appear later, from which the seller will distance himself, so buying a lens like this from a friend is great.

It is a really great lens, as good as the Leica in all ways related to performance, but what I was not expecting was that it would be so quirky in operation, from the giant hood which doesn't have a bayonet, but a fastening screw, a baggie instead of a lens cap, a sharp angle right where I want to put my hand, and so on.

In the end, I prefer the Leica, in spite of its manual, stop-down aperture ring operation. It has a real lens cap, the perfect shape for handholding, and a built-in, slide-back hood. The lower weight and smaller size also factor into this, since the Leica fits in one of my regular bags, the Nikkor not.

I could imagine buying back the Nikkor one day when I am a millionaire



Dec 15, 2012 at 01:05 PM
Alan321
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #8 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...


I understood that the 3D look associated with zeiss lenses (or at least with some of them) is primarily due to the way what is in focus is separated from what is out of focus - the change from sharp to blurred is more abrupt than you get from most of the alternatives. It is further enhanced by the in-focus parts looking very sharp because of the high microcontrast of the zeiss lenses allowing it to reveal lots of tiny details that escape many other lenses. Lots of detail, lots of detail, and then suddenly it's buttery smooth. The others would handle the transition more like lots of detail, not so much detail, fairly little detail, smooth blur.

What happens in the corners is not insignificant but also is not what makes the 3D effect where the subject clearly stands apart from the background.

However, if you're looking at photos that have pretty much full DOF then you will never see this effect well. Better to use longer focal lengths and/or larger apertures to reduce the DOF and then study how the in-focus parts stand apart from the blurred parts more clearly with the zeiss lenses.

This effect is quite dramatic when you finally recognise it, and once you do you will probably never miss it again. Some of the non-believers who have posted comparisons here at FM are apparently studying only the in-focus parts and not seeing the 3D effect because in those parts considered alone there isn't one.

I have seen a few samples of the 3D effect posted here at FM but I have none of them bookmarked. One showed a person or couple on a park bench, shot at f/5.6. A second shot with a non-zeiss lens had the same settings and yet the zeiss shot had a thinner DOF and gave the subject better isolation. The DOF was thinner because the normally gradual focus transition was more sudden.


In other respects, the micro contrast offered by zeiss lenses and scopes allows us to see and capture more details in the less than ideal conditions of poor lighting that reduces contrast, such as at late dusk or early dawn. However, even such a test as that can fail if low-detail subjects or scenes are chosen.


I recently bought a zeiss makro planar f/2 only to have it reveal to me how much my eyesight had deteriorated. I could not focus it properly I had my glasses upgraded but the more powerful progressive multi-focal nature of them allows me to focus on only one small portion of the viewfinder image at a time depending on the viewfinder diopter setting. So my new single-script photography glasses will arrive soon and I'll finally be able to use my new lens. I certainly had not bargained on all this drama when I bought the lens.

- Alan



Jan 03, 2013 at 11:16 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #9 · Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ...


Alan321 wrote:
I have seen a few samples of the 3D effect posted here at FM


Then you probably missed the "What is 3D?" thread.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/829238/0?keyword=3D#7701654
47 pages over 12 months



Jan 03, 2013 at 12:16 PM
1       2       3              5              end




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

1       2       3              5              end
    
 

Welcome back
Log in to your account