Lars Johnsson wrote:
All the other Zeiss ZE lenses don't have any AF. And a lot of people buy or like those.
Do you also think no AF is a big compromise in the Canon lenses? Lenses like all the TS-E or some macro lenses.
You never hear anyone complain over the MF in those.
Lars, forgive me, but I have to say that if it were physically possible without making the lens humongous, and wouldn't drive the price sky-high-er, I'd love to have the TS-E's provide AF, and even IS. I shoot these lenses at least 1/2 the time hand held. I like the option of being able to turn AF and IS off when using a tripod or doing long exposures, but lack of AF/IS is not a draw for me to buy TS-E or ZE lenses -- I buy for the camera movements, build and IQ. Just saying -- I know I'm in the minority of the larger minority to use these lenses.
The same argument could be used regarding macro lenses. Here, I love the Canon 100L with its AF and IS. I always regretted the EF-S 60 macro not having IS to match its excellent optics. I came from old school MF and had no trust of AF when it was unveiled. Now that my close-up vision is getting older and AF has proven accurate, I appreciate AF in everything within reason. But I always want the MF option -- it would be an awful day if we were forced to rely on AF with no alternative.
Mickey wrote:
I think to use the Canon TS-E lenses as the example of Canon's use of MF compared to Zeiss's is not an accurate comparison. When you consider the optical physics involved in the tilting/shifting of a lens you can understand why it would be MF. You can bet if it had been reasonably possible Canon would have made them AF. Image quality aside (we're talking AF) Sigma does it and Tamron does it. What is Zeiss's excuse?
Af standards are different and calibrations are constantly changing. Every brand has their own standard and nuances in AF performance change with practically every camera generation.
That said... so long as the mount is the same, manual focus is forever and universal. It works the same across nearly all systems. To have to reverse engineer focusing systems for multiple brands is monumental task. And to be honest, Sigma and Tamron haven't really done it that well. They have so many AF issues, it's embarrassing.
I really wish that some people understood that different photographers have different priorities regarding which aspects of lens performance and functionality are most important to them as they pertain to the manner and style in which they take photographs.
A very large segment of people not only want AF in their lenses, but in fact require it for the way they shoot. Expecting them to do their work with MF lenses is unrealistic, and to be blunt, bordering on snobbery. There are a number of members in the alt lens forum that go so far as to make thinly veiled accusations that people who "depend" on AF systems are technically inferior photographers, as if it is somehow a point of pride to use MF, or that every photo that you could take with AF you should have also been able to achieve using MF. I'm sorry, but being able to say you use MF only doesn't make your pictures better or your skills better.
And after reading this, some of these same people who hold these attitudes will deny holding them, and will express outrage and offense that they are being called out on it. They will backtrack and claim that they never gave such an impression. They see themselves as the victims of an "AF posse"--that, in their minds, they are the ones being attacked for choosing expensive MF lenses.
I think people get much too crazy about the minutiae of which gear and which lens to use. They get all fanatical about some perceived "rendering style" and go to enormous lengths to justify their choices. And the arguments and BS rage on and on, on both sides. And all I can say about it is that if some of you spent a fraction of the energy you spend on slinging mud at each other on the substantive CONTENT and AESTHETICS of your work (as in, stop taking insipid snapshots with your fancy MF lenses wide open and cooing over the microcontrast and "rendering"), not only would you become far better photographers, you'd also realize how silly you've been.
I'm sure they are lovely lenses. I'm also sure that at least half the attraction is the name "Zeiss" on the lens. (And for some, another 25% or so might be the very high price. ;-)
I'm guessing the same people buy these lenses as buy the new $6500 Hassleblad Lunar. A fool and his money...
I'd guess it's a totally different market. The Lunar is a superficial reworking of a $1000 camera, offering no technical advantages. The Zeiss appears to be an honest attempt at a level of technical perfection possible with today's technology, aimed at those for whom price is a secondary consideration to technical performance.
Certainly, the Zeiss lenses will be extremely niche, but we should applaud the options this provides and the example it sets for what is possible for modern SLR lens design. Who knows, these might even outperform certain high end rangefinder lenses...
Sep 20, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm sure they are lovely lenses. I'm also sure that at least half the attraction is the name "Zeiss" on the lens. (And for some, another 25% or so might be the very high price. ;-)
Dan
Maybe in your country. If you grew up in Europe and have lived here a long time I think it's a bit different. Zeiss have always been a common lens and lens name where I grew up. And didn't have the "name attraction" like Leica. They where as common as Canon lenses and didn't cost much more either.
It's not like you have to buy them if you don't like them. And the ZE line-up cost less than the new line-up. The ZE lenses doesn't cost much more than all your expensive L lenses
And I'm sure that at least half the attraction is the name "L" on those lenses So it's rather similar. The average price of my Canon lenses is a lot more than the average price of my Zeiss lenses
Lars Johnsson wrote:
And I'm sure that at least half the attraction is the name "L" on those lenses
But that's because of the implication of the L moniker, which indicates that the lens is of higher quality in terms of construction, material and image output compared to the non L. Those L lenses are usually faster than the non L version as well. And they sometime have a little something extra like Full Time Manual focus or special IS in the case of 100L macro.
So it's quite understandable AND easily quantifiable why the L lenses are more desirable than the non Ls.
Sep 20, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
n0b0 wrote:
But that's because of the implication of the L moniker, which indicates that the lens is of higher quality in terms of construction, material and image output compared to the non L. Those L lenses are usually faster than the non L version as well. And they sometime have a little something extra like Full Time Manual focus or special IS in the case of 100L macro.
So it's quite understandable AND easily quantifiable why the L lenses are more desirable than the non Ls.
But it's exactly the same thing with the new Zeiss high-end lenses.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
But it's exactly the same thing with the new Zeiss high-end lenses.
My apology but I'm not familiar with Zeiss lenses. However, I have heard that one of the argument for Zeiss is the high quality German engineering. Fair enough, but these new lenses mentioned in the blog linked by the OP are going to be made in Japan so there goes that argument.
And if the price is really going to be around 3000 Euro as mentioned by the blog, I failed to see how you get more for your money with these Zeiss lenses as you do with L lenses. That Distagon 55/1.4 is going to be almost double the price of the 50/1.2L which has AF as well as being a slightly faster.
Now, I'm sure this 55/1.4 lens is going to kick ass, but is it really worth that much more?
Sep 20, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
For some people it's worth it. For others not. And that is exactly the same with the L lenses. And they are also made in Japan. I can't see why you think lenses are less good if made in Japan?
Cool, look like they will have some fun products. My opinion is that the Zeiss stuff is over-rated and not as good as the Nikon and Canon products for the most part and that stuff like the 100 macro are over-shadowed by stuff like the sigma 150 OS. . . But that's just my opinion, and many really really love the zeiss stuff and see a special look with it. And that's good, photography and lenses and their "look" are very subjective. Since many out there love the Zeiss stuff, I think it's great they are putting out some more higher end products. Not all the Zeiss stuff is really that expensive, honestly. Some stuff is (15mm), but some stuff is very affordable. So really this is just a natural expansion of their product lineup.
Especially, I would say, if you read between the lines and see the DSL cinema explosion. Manual focus stuff with great mechanical quality is sought after, and Zeiss has a nice line of stuff already. This could fit into that and target the high end movie making market as well with some higher end cine versions of these new products.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
The chief argument for Zeiss lenses is the superior optical performance they deliver. That they are also well put together mechanically is a bonus.
Determination on questions of "worth" tends to be a highly individual thing.
Even if they could improve upon say the 100 f/2 Macro Planar, do you think it'll be noticeable unless doing massive prints? It's will be like audio gear, where you spend $100K on speakers and 99% of the population will be hard pressed to hear the difference between them and $10K speakers. Now they do say these lens are designed for the world of 30MP+ sensors, and maybe on the Nikon D800E especially you will see some improvement, but it will be interesting to see how much better they can make already superb glass. I don't think the 100 f/2 is holding back the D800.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Even if they could improve upon say the 100 f/2 Macro Planar, do you think it'll be noticeable unless doing massive prints?
One can take this line of argument to 'prove' whatever conclusion one has preconceived. Why not go the other way, too? A high-end point & shoot can also make prints up to a certain size virtually indistinguishable from a pro SLR.
There are people to whom that final epsilon gap in quality matters. Then there is also the joy one takes while making photos. I cannot 'prove' it to you, but making photos with a Zeiss lens gives me a kind of pleasure I don't always feel with Canon lenses. So to me, they are totally "worth" it. I understand that not everyone shares this view or the experience.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
There are people to whom that final epsilon gap in quality matters. Then there is also the joy one takes while making photos. I cannot 'prove' it to you, but making photos with a Zeiss lens gives me a kind of pleasure I don't always feel with Canon lenses. So to me, they are totally "worth" it. I understand that not everyone shares this view or the experience.
You have twisted the subject somewhat. I have never said I do not understand the value of the current lenses and I have also owned Zeiss glass and also enjoyed using the glass very much so. The question is whether or not you will see improvement or get more enjoyment by spending 2x as much on these new lenses in light of how good the current offering already are, especially if you are not using a very high MP sensor.
woos wrote:
Especially, I would say, if you read between the lines and see the DSL cinema explosion. Manual focus stuff with great mechanical quality is sought after, and Zeiss has a nice line of stuff already. This could fit into that and target the high end movie making market as well with some higher end cine versions of these new products.
Zeiss already makes very high-end cine lenses, such as the Master and Ultra families. My take on this new series is an introduction of some of their high-end cinematography capability in product aimed at discriminating still photographers.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
For some people it's worth it. For others not. And that is exactly the same with the L lenses. And they are also made in Japan. I can't see why you think lenses are less good if made in Japan?
You misunderstood me. It's not me who think that lenses are less good if they were made in Japan. It's the zealous proponents of Zeiss who implied that Zeiss lenses are "German made" and therefore superior and deserved the higher price.
I merely implied since the new ones are going to be made in Japan, there goes that argument.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
The chief argument for Zeiss lenses is the superior optical performance they deliver. That they are also well put together mechanically is a bonus.
I'm sure some of them are great optically, I wouldn't mind owning a Zeiss 21/2.8 lens when I get myself a full frame DSLR. That said, I do recall some less than glowing reviews of their lenses. For example, the Zeiss 50/1.4 lens has a weak corner performance wide open and that Zeiss lenses usually vignette quite heavily on full frame.
A German website Photozone rated the Zeiss 50/1.4 optics only slightly higher than Sigma 50/1.4, so they're not always that much better. In fact, out of the 10 Zeiss lenses they reviewed, only 2 of the Makro Planar lenses and the 21/2.8 received a truly great review for the optics and even then, the 21/2.8 still suffer a tiny bit of mustache distortion.
Key word, "mechanically". It SHOULD be easier to put together a lens with superior build quality when it's mostly made of metal with very little, if any, electronics.
Light_pilgrim wrote:
I think TS-E lenses are mainly for Landscape and Architecture and in this case you use tripod 99% of the time, so manual focus and live view is never a problem.
Lenses that you use for people photography is something different.
I would disagree. I use the focus confirm with mf and it is pretty easy. Just a few samples (50 MP and 100 MP):
Canon prices are definitely climbing. I don't mind the plastic as long as durability, IQ and performance is not compromised.
PetKal wrote:
In a way, one could say that....because of a high grade performance and a high grade build.
Here's one example for price relativity: the other day I held and inspected the 8-15L lens in "my" camera store.
What a sadly unappealing and rickety little plastic gadget that is. And yet, they want $1,500 for it.
