This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016The mystery of the Zeiss look?
p.17 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
You are correct ...with as single lens "3D" is a perception but not reality. To get true 3D you need two images of the same object from different angles projected into a single image using a stereoscope.To me, 3D in this context is the ability to sense distance or perceive something as real looking.
It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.
***************************
OK, so that's learned or implied 3D ... that is controlled by the perspective and DOF and is not unique to any particular lens, Zeiss, Nikon, or otherwise.
The exception is that in certain circumstances increased field curvature can be used to give false 3D effect ... but field curvature is not generally on my list of desired characteristics.
Andre Labonte wrote
akul wrote
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.
***************************
OK, so that's learned or implied 3D ... that is controlled by the perspective and DOF and is not unique to any particular lens, Zeiss, Nikon, or otherwise.
The exception is that in certain circumstances increased field curvature can be used to give false 3D effect ... but field curvature is not generally on my list of desired characteristics.
Mar 07, 2016 at 02:26 PM
p.17 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
robgo2 wrote:
Yup, I went down the Zeiss road myself, never saw any magic that wasn't already there in the scene to begin with. In fact, I ended up selling my Zeiss and sticking with Nikon - I actually like the way Nikon renders better (not that there's really much of a difference).I have to disagree. Back in my film camera days, I shot with a Nikon camera and good quality Nikon prime lenses. Then, on a whim, I purchased a Contax G2 rangefinder with several Zeiss-Contax G lenses. When I got the first set of prints back from the lab, my jaw practically dropped to the floor. The images were so much more lifelike and 3D with richer colors than anything that I had ever gotten from my Nikon gear. That was all that it took to convince me that Zeiss was doing something different. At the time, I knew nothing...Show more →
Whatever works for you is fine by me
And, as Andre says, I was talking about modern glass in my original post. If you think the Zeiss glass is giving you better images, knock yourself out. I tried it and while it does render differently, I like the look of the Nikon glass better. At this point, there's no sense arguing about it. I like what I like, and other people will like what they like.
Steve Perry wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.Whatever works for you is fine by me
And, as Andre says, I was talking about modern glass in my original post. If you think the Zeiss glass is giving you better images, knock yourself out. I tried it and while it does render differently, I like the look of the Nikon glass better. At this point, there's no sense arguing about it. I like what I like, and other people will like what they like.
Mar 07, 2016 at 02:47 PM
p.17 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
snapsy wrote:
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.
Mar 07, 2016 at 02:52 PM
p.17 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Steve Perry wrote:
Yup, I went down the Zeiss road myself, never saw any magic that wasn't already there in the scene to begin with. In fact, I ended up selling my Zeiss and sticking with Nikon - I actually like the way Nikon renders better (not that there's really much of a difference).I have to disagree. Back in my film camera days, I shot with a Nikon camera and good quality Nikon prime lenses. Then, on a whim, I purchased a Contax G2 rangefinder with several Zeiss-Contax G lenses. When I got the first set of prints back from the lab, my jaw practically dropped to the floor. The images were so much more lifelike and 3D with richer colors than anything that I had ever gotten from my Nikon gear. That was all that it took to convince me that Zeiss was doing something different. At the time, I knew nothing about a so-called "Zeiss look." I just liked what I was seeing.
I subsequently moved on to Pentax digital cameras for about 6 years using FA Limited lenses (the three amigos), which I loved. But now, I am shooting Sony FF mirrorless, and I have rediscovered the beauty of Zeiss glass, including vintage C/Y lenses. They remind me of the fabulous Contax G lenses that I adored in the past. I truly prefer my C/Y glass to the more modern Batis lenses. Pictures just look better overall.
RobWhatever works for you is fine by me
And, as Andre says, I was talking about modern glass in my original post. If you think the Zeiss glass is giving you better images, knock yourself out. I tried it and while it does render differently, I like the look of the Nikon glass better. At this point, there's no sense arguing about it. I like what I like, and other people will like what they like.
I like what you like about what you like, and because of that, I shall deem your post likable.
robgo2 wrote
Steve Perry wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.I subsequently moved on to Pentax digital cameras for about 6 years using FA Limited lenses (the three amigos), which I loved. But now, I am shooting Sony FF mirrorless, and I have rediscovered the beauty of Zeiss glass, including vintage C/Y lenses. They remind me of the fabulous Contax G lenses that I adored in the past. I truly prefer my C/Y glass to the more modern Batis lenses. Pictures just look better overall.
Rob
And, as Andre says, I was talking about modern glass in my original post. If you think the Zeiss glass is giving you better images, knock yourself out. I tried it and while it does render differently, I like the look of the Nikon glass better. At this point, there's no sense arguing about it. I like what I like, and other people will like what they like.
I like what you like about what you like, and because of that, I shall deem your post likable.
Mar 07, 2016 at 02:55 PM
p.17 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.
The thread linked in sebboh's post that I quoted here goes into some detail about it.
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.The thread linked in sebboh's post that I quoted here goes into some detail about it.
Mar 07, 2016 at 02:59 PM
p.17 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.
For the lens I have, 55OTUS and 135APO, I see simply better glass which is better than Nikon equivalent (or any other manufacture) on pretty much everything other than AF. I also believe there is no Nikon lens can compete Zeiss OTUS in 28mm.
Zeiss as a brand name, simply has a proved track record to bring best image lenses in the world. Is it anything wrong to say they are special?
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.For the lens I have, 55OTUS and 135APO, I see simply better glass which is better than Nikon equivalent (or any other manufacture) on pretty much everything other than AF. I also believe there is no Nikon lens can compete Zeiss OTUS in 28mm.
Zeiss as a brand name, simply has a proved track record to bring best image lenses in the world. Is it anything wrong to say they are special?
Mar 07, 2016 at 03:01 PM
p.17 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
Yup, I went down the Zeiss road myself, never saw any magic that wasn't already there in the scene to begin with. In fact, I ended up selling my Zeiss and sticking with Nikon - I actually like the way Nikon renders better (not that there's really much of a difference).I have to disagree. Back in my film camera days, I shot with a Nikon camera and good quality Nikon prime lenses. Then, on a whim, I purchased a Contax G2 rangefinder with several Zeiss-Contax G lenses. When I got the first set of prints back from the lab, my jaw practically dropped to the floor. The images were so much more lifelike and 3D with richer colors than anything that I had ever gotten from my Nikon gear. That was all that it took to convince me that Zeiss was doing something different. At the time, I knew nothing about a so-called "Zeiss look." I just liked what I was seeing.
I subsequently moved on to Pentax digital cameras for about 6 years using FA Limited lenses (the three amigos), which I loved. But now, I am shooting Sony FF mirrorless, and I have rediscovered the beauty of Zeiss glass, including vintage C/Y lenses. They remind me of the fabulous Contax G lenses that I adored in the past. I truly prefer my C/Y glass to the more modern Batis lenses. Pictures just look better overall.
RobWhatever works for you is fine by me
And, as Andre says, I was talking about modern glass in my original post. If you think the Zeiss glass is giving you better images, knock yourself out. I tried it and while it does render differently, I like the look of the Nikon glass better. At this point, there's no sense arguing about it. I like what I like, and other people will like what they like.I like what you like about what you like, and because of that, I shall deem your post likable.
I like the way you think
Steve Perry wrote
robgo2 wrote
Steve Perry wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.I subsequently moved on to Pentax digital cameras for about 6 years using FA Limited lenses (the three amigos), which I loved. But now, I am shooting Sony FF mirrorless, and I have rediscovered the beauty of Zeiss glass, including vintage C/Y lenses. They remind me of the fabulous Contax G lenses that I adored in the past. I truly prefer my C/Y glass to the more modern Batis lenses. Pictures just look better overall.
Rob
And, as Andre says, I was talking about modern glass in my original post. If you think the Zeiss glass is giving you better images, knock yourself out. I tried it and while it does render differently, I like the look of the Nikon glass better. At this point, there's no sense arguing about it. I like what I like, and other people will like what they like.
I like the way you think
Mar 07, 2016 at 03:03 PM
p.17 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.
here is the summary from the blind test: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/2&year=2011#9331028
basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 03:06 PM · View previous versions
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.here is the summary from the blind test: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/2&year=2011#9331028
basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 03:06 PM · View previous versions
Mar 07, 2016 at 03:05 PM
p.17 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Steve Perry wrote:
Yup, I went down the Zeiss road myself, never saw any magic that wasn't already there in the scene to begin with. In fact, I ended up selling my Zeiss and sticking with Nikon - I actually like the way Nikon renders better (not that there's really much of a difference).I have to disagree. Back in my film camera days, I shot with a Nikon camera and good quality Nikon prime lenses. Then, on a whim, I purchased a Contax G2 rangefinder with several Zeiss-Contax G lenses. When I got the first set of prints back from the lab, my jaw practically dropped to the floor. The images were so much more lifelike and 3D with richer colors than anything that I had ever gotten from my Nikon gear. That was all that it took to convince me that Zeiss was doing something different. At the time, I knew nothing about a so-called "Zeiss look." I just liked what I was seeing.
I subsequently moved on to Pentax digital cameras for about 6 years using FA Limited lenses (the three amigos), which I loved. But now, I am shooting Sony FF mirrorless, and I have rediscovered the beauty of Zeiss glass, including vintage C/Y lenses. They remind me of the fabulous Contax G lenses that I adored in the past. I truly prefer my C/Y glass to the more modern Batis lenses. Pictures just look better overall.
RobWhatever works for you is fine by me
And, as Andre says, I was talking about modern glass in my original post. If you think the Zeiss glass is giving you better images, knock yourself out. I tried it and while it does render differently, I like the look of the Nikon glass better. At this point, there's no sense arguing about it. I like what I like, and other people will like what they like.
I liked your post because you are polite and open minded regrading personal choice and give good reason for what and why you like Nikon based on PERSONAL EXPERIENCE FROM USING THOSE GEARS.
robgo2 wrote
Steve Perry wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.I subsequently moved on to Pentax digital cameras for about 6 years using FA Limited lenses (the three amigos), which I loved. But now, I am shooting Sony FF mirrorless, and I have rediscovered the beauty of Zeiss glass, including vintage C/Y lenses. They remind me of the fabulous Contax G lenses that I adored in the past. I truly prefer my C/Y glass to the more modern Batis lenses. Pictures just look better overall.
Rob
And, as Andre says, I was talking about modern glass in my original post. If you think the Zeiss glass is giving you better images, knock yourself out. I tried it and while it does render differently, I like the look of the Nikon glass better. At this point, there's no sense arguing about it. I like what I like, and other people will like what they like.
I liked your post because you are polite and open minded regrading personal choice and give good reason for what and why you like Nikon based on PERSONAL EXPERIENCE FROM USING THOSE GEARS.
Mar 07, 2016 at 03:05 PM
p.17 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
A Ford guy posts in a Ford forum a question about a Chevy. Somehow that post gets cross posted into a Chevy forum. "Ford better!" "No, Chevy better!"
The end.
The end.
Mar 07, 2016 at 03:10 PM
p.17 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
When I went digital, I opt for Fuji and bought Nikon glass. I upgraded my system to FX Nikons over the year. I had great Nikon glass: 14-24, 135/2.0, 85/1.4 and some good Sigma's.
That said, I was blown away with Zeiss, the simple Planar (85/1.4) did it. The rendering, the handling, the feeling of the image made me choose more of Zeiss and in the end I sold all my Nikkors.
At the other hand, I also love the look of DP3m, a sigma.
I guess every lens has it's character and it is up to us to get the best out of it.
That said, I was blown away with Zeiss, the simple Planar (85/1.4) did it. The rendering, the handling, the feeling of the image made me choose more of Zeiss and in the end I sold all my Nikkors.
At the other hand, I also love the look of DP3m, a sigma.
I guess every lens has it's character and it is up to us to get the best out of it.
Mar 07, 2016 at 03:18 PM
p.17 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.You obviously haven't read to thoroughly. I've seen discussions of wide open sharpness, great overall contrasts, micro-contrast that leads to sharpness, great colors, nice gradual tonal ranges etc...
Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine.
Mar 07, 2016 at 03:22 PM
p.17 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
***************************
OK, so that's learned or implied 3D ... that is controlled by the perspective and DOF and is not unique to any particular lens, Zeiss, Nikon, or otherwise.
The exception is that in certain circumstances increased field curvature can be used to give false 3D effect ... but field curvature is not generally on my list of desired characteristics.
Lens design plays a significant part in it. A sharp lens with good microcontrast and clarity for example will produce the 3D look in more situations compared with a lens lacking in these qualities (with other factors being the same). This includes Nikon vs Nikon or Zeiss vs Zeiss, or Zeiss vs Nikon.
***************************
OK, so that's learned or implied 3D ... that is controlled by the perspective and DOF and is not unique to any particular lens, Zeiss, Nikon, or otherwise.
The exception is that in certain circumstances increased field curvature can be used to give false 3D effect ... but field curvature is not generally on my list of desired characteristics.
Lens design plays a significant part in it. A sharp lens with good microcontrast and clarity for example will produce the 3D look in more situations compared with a lens lacking in these qualities (with other factors being the same). This includes Nikon vs Nikon or Zeiss vs Zeiss, or Zeiss vs Nikon.
Mar 07, 2016 at 03:35 PM
p.17 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.here is the summary from the blind test: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/2&year=2011#9331028
basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.
Do you think that it would be as clear if those Zeiss lenses were compared to the more modern designs like the EF 4/16-35 L, 2/35 IS, Sigma 1.4/50 A?
henry albert wrote
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.
Do you think that it would be as clear if those Zeiss lenses were compared to the more modern designs like the EF 4/16-35 L, 2/35 IS, Sigma 1.4/50 A?
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:01 PM
p.17 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
You obviously haven't read to thoroughly. I've seen discussions of wide open sharpness, great overall contrasts, micro-contrast that leads to sharpness, great colors, nice gradual tonal ranges etc...
Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine.
Wow. Condescend much? I remember you now.
I want hard data. I want to see it with my own eyes. I want someone to show me the image and provide an analysis that supports the theory of Zeiss-ness. Ain't saying no such animal exists, but don't count me among the believers until I see Sasquatch's footprint.
You obviously haven't read to thoroughly. I've seen discussions of wide open sharpness, great overall contrasts, micro-contrast that leads to sharpness, great colors, nice gradual tonal ranges etc...
Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine.
Wow. Condescend much? I remember you now.
I want hard data. I want to see it with my own eyes. I want someone to show me the image and provide an analysis that supports the theory of Zeiss-ness. Ain't saying no such animal exists, but don't count me among the believers until I see Sasquatch's footprint.
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:09 PM
p.17 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
OlafSiebert wrote:
...I guess every lens has it's character and it is up to us to get the best out of it.
+1
...I guess every lens has it's character and it is up to us to get the best out of it.
+1
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:11 PM
p.17 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Phillip Reeve wrote:
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.here is the summary from the blind test: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/2&year=2011#9331028
basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.Do you think that it would be as clear if those Zeiss lenses were compared to the more modern designs like the EF 4/16-35 L, 2/35 IS, Sigma 1.4/50 A?
No, I don't think so.
As I have pointed out in early post, the difference get smaller. since 5~6 years ago, Nikon got full line of 1.8G, and 35f1.4, 85f1.4G. And Canon have 24-70MKII, 35LII, 70-200II, 16-35f4 etc... It will be stressed for me to detect difference at those small aperture. but could be just me. I am open minded here
The same thing happen to Leica M glass compare to modern Sigma, Tamron, Canikony. But Leica still offer size advantage and Zeiss still offer lens with monster performance like OTUS.
sebboh wrote
henry albert wrote
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.
No, I don't think so.
As I have pointed out in early post, the difference get smaller. since 5~6 years ago, Nikon got full line of 1.8G, and 35f1.4, 85f1.4G. And Canon have 24-70MKII, 35LII, 70-200II, 16-35f4 etc... It will be stressed for me to detect difference at those small aperture. but could be just me. I am open minded here
The same thing happen to Leica M glass compare to modern Sigma, Tamron, Canikony. But Leica still offer size advantage and Zeiss still offer lens with monster performance like OTUS.
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:11 PM
p.17 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Thank God at this point that the only Full Frame Cameras that can use M mount lenses (Leica, Zeiss, etc.) are Leica and Sony A7 series cameras. 
zhangyue wrote:
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.here is the summary from the blind test: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/2&year=2011#9331028
basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.Do you think that it would be as clear if those Zeiss lenses were compared to the more modern designs like the EF 4/16-35 L, 2/35 IS, Sigma 1.4/50 A?No, I don't think so.
As I have pointed out in early post, the difference get smaller. since 5~6 years ago, Nikon got full line of 1.8G, and 35f1.4, 85f1.4G. And Canon have 24-70MKII, 35LII, 70-200II, 16-35f4 etc... It will be stressed for me to detect difference at those small aperture. but could be just me. I am open minded here
The same thing happen to Leica M glass compare to modern Sigma, Tamron, Canikony. But Leica still offer size advantage and Zeiss still offer lens with monster performance like OTUS.
Michael,
The interesting thing is that I have absolutely no interest in any of the Otus lenses, but Leica R, Leica M, Zeiss ZM, and even the Zeiss Loxia lenses, those are of interest to me.
Rich
zhangyue wrote:
Phillip Reeve wrote
sebboh wrote
henry albert wrote
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.basically the answer is greater local contrast and different colors.
disclaimer: i'm not claiming anything about 3D and i don't own any modern zeiss lenses.
As I have pointed out in early post, the difference get smaller. since 5~6 years ago, Nikon got full line of 1.8G, and 35f1.4, 85f1.4G. And Canon have 24-70MKII, 35LII, 70-200II, 16-35f4 etc... It will be stressed for me to detect difference at those small aperture. but could be just me. I am open minded here
The same thing happen to Leica M glass compare to modern Sigma, Tamron, Canikony. But Leica still offer size advantage and Zeiss still offer lens with monster performance like OTUS.
Michael,
The interesting thing is that I have absolutely no interest in any of the Otus lenses, but Leica R, Leica M, Zeiss ZM, and even the Zeiss Loxia lenses, those are of interest to me.
Rich
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:13 PM
p.17 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
OK, so that's learned or implied 3D ... that is controlled by the perspective and DOF and is not unique to any particular lens, Zeiss, Nikon, or otherwise.
The exception is that in certain circumstances increased field curvature can be used to give false 3D effect ... but field curvature is not generally on my list of desired characteristics.Lens design plays a significant part in it. A sharp lens with good microcontrast and clarity for example will produce the 3D look in more situations compared with a lens lacking in these qualities (with other factors being the same). This includes Nikon vs Nikon or Zeiss vs Zeiss, or Zeiss vs Nikon.
The fundamentals are perspective and DOF. I agree good sharpness helps with the effect if the image is displayed large enough, otherwise it's a non-factor ... as for micro contrast, this article sums up my view of that:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
Andre Labonte wrote
***************************OK, so that's learned or implied 3D ... that is controlled by the perspective and DOF and is not unique to any particular lens, Zeiss, Nikon, or otherwise.
The exception is that in certain circumstances increased field curvature can be used to give false 3D effect ... but field curvature is not generally on my list of desired characteristics.
The fundamentals are perspective and DOF. I agree good sharpness helps with the effect if the image is displayed large enough, otherwise it's a non-factor ... as for micro contrast, this article sums up my view of that:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:29 PM
p.17 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
No offense, but up to and including this thread I can't recall any Zeiss owners adequately explaining what they are seeing when they extol the virtues of their lenses.You obviously haven't read to thoroughly. I've seen discussions of wide open sharpness, great overall contrasts, micro-contrast that leads to sharpness, great colors, nice gradual tonal ranges etc...
Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine.
You can't see it in the images but trust him, it's there!!!! That's comical.
henry albert wrote
snapsy wrote
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.Now you might not see these things in the images...that's a different issue which has been discussed in this thread. Not everyone is in tune to picking up subtle differences in images, just like not everyone can pick up the blackberry fruit as they guzzle their wine.
You can't see it in the images but trust him, it's there!!!! That's comical.Mar 07, 2016 at 04:31 PM