deepbluejh wrote:
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.
+1. This is a can of worms they don't want to open. They only build AF lenses for Sony I believe.
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
I'd like to believe that Dan, but haven't seen evidence of this in this forum or the alt one.
woos wrote:
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. . .
Canon, Zeiss and Nikon all have weapons in their arsenal that can be classed best in class IQ wise.
With regards to thee 100 MP, it's name is a bit misleading, it is not a real macro, it only does 1:2. So yes, the sigma may be better from that POV. But as a fast short tele, the 100 MP could just as easily be compared to the 85 1.4 Sigma. Optically the 100 MP is very good. Many of the guys using Zeiss have used / still use the best Canon L's and Nikkor ED glass as well.
Zeiss are referring to IQ when they say "no compromise". Apart from that there are huge compromises. Weight, MF, size, cost etc. Even made in Japan vs. made in Germany may be a compromise, as it could be too costly to manufacture in Germany.
We have to keep things in perspective, Leica have a new 50 APO f/2 lens for their rangefinder line that cost about $8K! It is manufactured in Germany, and performance wise however at certain setting it almost reaches theoretical limits of performance!
Nikon have the D800, no doubt Canon will release a MP monster. This lens is to take advantage of those to reach MF levels of performance. The likely users are pros making money form large fine art type of work. Not necessarily you and I.
At say 40MP, would the 50 L 1.2, be as good as it is, be comparable?
Horses for courses guys. Thank God for third party lenses, as if we only had Canon lenses to choose from, life would be less interesting.
SKumar25 wrote:
Is that what you took away from what I said?
I didn't really read what you said, I just saw how many response posts you wrote and from skimming through them, well... Let's just say you're not arguing against Zeiss, so I made a deduction that you love Zeiss.
n0b0 wrote:
I didn't really read what you said, I just saw how many response posts you wrote and from skimming through them, wel... Let's just say you're not arguing against Zeiss, so I made a deduction that you love Zeiss.
Most of the posts were posted during the Australian night... these are catch up posts...
I am not obsessed with this subject or Zeiss...
Sep 21, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
n0b0 wrote:
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.
The only person that have been talking about this "argument is you
Nobody implied or wrote that they where made in Germany (only you) The OP even posted links where it say Zeiss gonna make them in Japan. Every Zeiss that I own also have "lens made in Japan" clearly written on it's side...Show more →
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?
Do they need any excuse ? People that must have AF should not buy MF lenses of course. I also own a few Voigtlander lenses with Canon mount. All their lenses with Canon mounts are MF also.
What's Canon's excuse to make a macro lens with MF then ?
n0b0 wrote:
Well obviously I didn't mean in this thread.
All the ZE lenses with Canon mount have the "lens made in Japan" written in clear white letters on the black lens also. So it's a lame excuse to post this
Lars Johnsson wrote:
All the ZE lenses with Canon mount have the "lens made in Japan" written in clear white letters on the black lens also. So it's a lame excuse to post this
Oh, are you saying Canon shooters never used Zeiss lens before the ZE mount was available?
Lars Johnsson wrote:
All the ZE lenses with Canon mount have the "lens made in Japan" written in clear white letters on the black lens also. So it's a lame excuse to post this
Oh, are you saying Canon shooters never used Zeiss lens before the ZE mount was available?
Sep 21, 2012 at 01:42 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
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.
+1 I feel the same when using many of the new plastic lenses
jffielde wrote:
I would say that enormity of size and weight are compromises as well. To match a Leica's performance with 6X arger the volume wouldn't be a miracle in my book. Always glad to have excellent options, however. But Zeiss is starting to get out of control with their size adn weight for me.
Leica lenses are not smaller and lighter than Zeiss. Compare SLR lenses against SLR lens. And Rangefinder against Rangefinder and you will see that.
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
It's rather obvious that you come to this thread just to make your Zeiss bashing. I bet you have never owned or even used one Zeiss lens ever
And it's rather obvious that you came here just to bash me without reading my earlier posts, maybe even ignoring them, so we're even.
Before responding, try reading my post about how I would like to own the 21/1.4 when I get a full frame as well as Photozone reviews on Zeiss lenses.
n0b0 wrote:
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.
Zealous proponents of Zeiss are zealous and, therefore, well aware that Zeiss-branded lenses have been made in Japan since the early 1970s. We like Zeiss lenses because they are good. Certain offerings like the Distagon 28/2.8 in Contax/Yashica mount were only made in Japan, not to mention the Aposonnar 200/2 ($6000 retail). Certain C/Y mount lenses of Germany origin are indeed coveted, but only because they are scarce, not because they are better. In this current era, I'm not sure that Oberkochen is doing such a great job versus Cosina: production delays and redesign of the Sonnar 85/2 ZM (now discontinued) was pretty embarrassing.
