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.22 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
and why is that? why can't someone simply accept that someone else is perfectly happy with his/her equipment?You are preaching to the choir my friend.
You guys don't get it. Somehow you're trying to turn this into people attacking what you personally decide to use for your photography. No one here is doing anything even remotely close to that. People are trying to discuss what the Zeica look is and see if it is Neiss.
OlafSiebert wrote
chez wrote
If it was only that simple...but for some it ain't.You guys don't get it. Somehow you're trying to turn this into people attacking what you personally decide to use for your photography. No one here is doing anything even remotely close to that. People are trying to discuss what the Zeica look is and see if it is Neiss.
Mar 08, 2016 at 04:23 PM
p.22 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
WhyFi wrote:
Three attempts at a comment, but still not a shred of relevance. Bravo.
My bad on the comment problem. Sorry. I've deleted the content of the first two. (It is an issue related slow network response.)
Beyond that, YMMV. (As I wrote earlier, I don't "hate" Zeiss. I think Zeiss makes very good stuff.)
Three attempts at a comment, but still not a shred of relevance. Bravo.
My bad on the comment problem. Sorry. I've deleted the content of the first two. (It is an issue related slow network response.)
Beyond that, YMMV. (As I wrote earlier, I don't "hate" Zeiss. I think Zeiss makes very good stuff.)
Mar 08, 2016 at 04:37 PM
p.22 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...Aren't you arguing against this position?:
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
How am I misquoting?
First off, shoot what you enjoy and can afford. Most people don't buy a 300 f/2.8 to shoot their kids playing sports, but I do. Choice is a great thing for many reasons. On the other hand, I get a little annoyed (and mocking) with people making false claims of the "magical properties" of any brand of lens in general. Certainly there are specific lenses that are particularly stellar in certain circumstances.
To be more clear with regards to my earlier point ... the general gist of Thom's article is that for most lenses the contribution to micro contrast is in the dirt and even when measureable to some level (such as in the case of the three Otus lenses per his article) it still is not the primary contributor.
Now, put that point into the larger context of the current conversation where people are making very broad and unsubstantiated claims about Zeiss lenses in general, not just an Otus, and you should see my point. If not, oh well.
Andre Labonte wrote
***************************You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
How am I misquoting?
First off, shoot what you enjoy and can afford. Most people don't buy a 300 f/2.8 to shoot their kids playing sports, but I do. Choice is a great thing for many reasons. On the other hand, I get a little annoyed (and mocking) with people making false claims of the "magical properties" of any brand of lens in general. Certainly there are specific lenses that are particularly stellar in certain circumstances.
To be more clear with regards to my earlier point ... the general gist of Thom's article is that for most lenses the contribution to micro contrast is in the dirt and even when measureable to some level (such as in the case of the three Otus lenses per his article) it still is not the primary contributor.
Now, put that point into the larger context of the current conversation where people are making very broad and unsubstantiated claims about Zeiss lenses in general, not just an Otus, and you should see my point. If not, oh well.
Mar 08, 2016 at 04:46 PM
p.22 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jctriguy wrote:
and why is that? why can't someone simply accept that someone else is perfectly happy with his/her equipment?You are preaching to the choir my friend.You guys don't get it. Somehow you're trying to turn this into people attacking what you personally decide to use for your photography. No one here is doing anything even remotely close to that. People are trying to discuss what the Zeica look is and see if it is Neiss.
Oh I believe someone mentioned that people who buy Zeiss glass see this special magic to justify their purchases. The discussion was quite civil until said person came on board...this person does not shoot Zeiss but seemsbto seek out every thread that discusses Zeiss. Now tell me, why do this...why make such a comment...what purpose does it serve other than to stir things up. He's done this numerous times with Zeiss topics.
I have zero issue discussing the pros and cons of a lens...but sone people just cannot stick to that.
chez wrote
OlafSiebert wrote
chez wrote
If it was only that simple...but for some it ain't.Oh I believe someone mentioned that people who buy Zeiss glass see this special magic to justify their purchases. The discussion was quite civil until said person came on board...this person does not shoot Zeiss but seemsbto seek out every thread that discusses Zeiss. Now tell me, why do this...why make such a comment...what purpose does it serve other than to stir things up. He's done this numerous times with Zeiss topics.
I have zero issue discussing the pros and cons of a lens...but sone people just cannot stick to that.
Mar 08, 2016 at 04:53 PM
p.22 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
- - - -
On another topic, imagine the following conversation:
Person A: "That new car, the SuperHeterodyne5000X Double-Hemi Rally Sport, has the most accurate speedometer that has ever been incorporated into a car. It measures your speed to an accuracy of .001 mph and reads out instantly! This is simply an astonishing triumph of technology. Settle for nothing less!"
Person B: "Well, OK, I've heard that is an excellent car. But my OldSchoolMobile200XL CrossTransSuper has an analog speedometer dial that tells me how fast I'm going to the nearest mph, and it drives great!"
Person A: "But you are getting an inaccurate...Show more →
Nicely done, invent a stupid character so you can imply people who appreciate a lens characteristic are equally stupid.
2 cars are driving side by side...
Driver B: "my needle is half way between 50 and 60".
Driver A: "Woo hoo, my speedometer says 50.356 mph. You must not care at all about the quality of cars..."
Edited on Mar 08, 2016 at 04:59 PM · View previous versions
- - - -
On another topic, imagine the following conversation:
Person A: "That new car, the SuperHeterodyne5000X Double-Hemi Rally Sport, has the most accurate speedometer that has ever been incorporated into a car. It measures your speed to an accuracy of .001 mph and reads out instantly! This is simply an astonishing triumph of technology. Settle for nothing less!"
Person B: "Well, OK, I've heard that is an excellent car. But my OldSchoolMobile200XL CrossTransSuper has an analog speedometer dial that tells me how fast I'm going to the nearest mph, and it drives great!"
Person A: "But you are getting an inaccurate...Show more →
Nicely done, invent a stupid character so you can imply people who appreciate a lens characteristic are equally stupid.
2 cars are driving side by side...
Driver B: "my needle is half way between 50 and 60".
Driver A: "Woo hoo, my speedometer says 50.356 mph. You must not care at all about the quality of cars..."
Edited on Mar 08, 2016 at 04:59 PM · View previous versions
Mar 08, 2016 at 04:54 PM
p.22 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...Aren't you arguing against this position?:
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
How am I misquoting?First off, shoot what you enjoy and can afford. Most people don't buy a 300 f/2.8 to shoot their kids playing sports, but I do. Choice is a great thing for many reasons. On the other hand, I get a little annoyed (and mocking) with people making false claims of the "magical properties" of any brand of lens in general. Certainly there are specific lenses that are particularly stellar in certain circumstances.
Why would you be annoyed? Make your own choice and be happy. Should I be annoyed you shoot kids sports with your 300 2.8?
SKumar25 wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
***************************You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
How am I misquoting?
Why would you be annoyed? Make your own choice and be happy. Should I be annoyed you shoot kids sports with your 300 2.8?
Mar 08, 2016 at 04:55 PM
p.22 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
And the self-acclaimed artistes among us, just keep on keepin' on.
Where did you deduce "self-acclaimed artistes" from?
OlafSiebert wrote
I must be stupid as I am still reading this. Some people don-t like or feel Zeiss. So be it. Buy another lens. Those who feel, enjoy...Where did you deduce "self-acclaimed artistes" from?
Mar 08, 2016 at 04:56 PM
p.22 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
all that really needed to be done was killing the Zeiss discussion in the Nikon forum and be done with it. then simply the discussion could exist in an environment more befitting its nature. now that was the simple option. but that of course couldn't be.
we all got what we deserved.
we all got what we deserved.
Mar 08, 2016 at 05:04 PM
p.22 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
I like a Zeica, and Leiss is nice. 
That's Neiss.
- - - -
On another topic, imagine the following conversation:
Person A: "That new car, the SuperHeterodyne5000X Double-Hemi Rally Sport, has the most accurate speedometer that has ever been incorporated into a car. It measures your speed to an accuracy of .001 mph and reads out instantly! This is simply an astonishing triumph of technology. Settle for nothing less!"
Person B: "Well, OK, I've heard that is an excellent car. But my OldSchoolMobile200XL CrossTransSuper has an analog speedometer dial that tells me how fast I'm going to the nearest mph, and it drives great!"
Person A: "But you are getting an inaccurate speed readout that could be off by nearly 1mph! That's not very accurate at all. Can't you sense the difference in speed? I'm sure I can!"
Person B: "Of all the things that are important to driving, having that degree of measurable accuracy in speedometer readout doesn't seem to make any real difference. We'll both get where we're going at the same time."
Person A: "You must not care at all about the quality of cars..."
:-(You just did a great job for trolling. Nothing more, nothing less.
One thing for sure, Person B must have thought that he has a superior skill that can drive a very boring car with automatic everything so that he can give lecture to person A.
i personally think we all assume too much here. and the originator was technically the troll.
gdanmitchell wrote
jcolwell wrote
akul wrote
... It is like calling Zeica or Leiss, or Panalympus.- - - -
On another topic, imagine the following conversation:
Person A: "That new car, the SuperHeterodyne5000X Double-Hemi Rally Sport, has the most accurate speedometer that has ever been incorporated into a car. It measures your speed to an accuracy of .001 mph and reads out instantly! This is simply an astonishing triumph of technology. Settle for nothing less!"
Person B: "Well, OK, I've heard that is an excellent car. But my OldSchoolMobile200XL CrossTransSuper has an analog speedometer dial that tells me how fast I'm going to the nearest mph, and it drives great!"
Person A: "But you are getting an inaccurate speed readout that could be off by nearly 1mph! That's not very accurate at all. Can't you sense the difference in speed? I'm sure I can!"
Person B: "Of all the things that are important to driving, having that degree of measurable accuracy in speedometer readout doesn't seem to make any real difference. We'll both get where we're going at the same time."
Person A: "You must not care at all about the quality of cars..."
:-(
One thing for sure, Person B must have thought that he has a superior skill that can drive a very boring car with automatic everything so that he can give lecture to person A.
i personally think we all assume too much here. and the originator was technically the troll.
Mar 08, 2016 at 05:05 PM
p.22 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...Aren't you arguing against this position?:
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
How am I misquoting?First off, shoot what you enjoy and can afford. Most people don't buy a 300 f/2.8 to shoot their kids playing sports, but I do. Choice is a great thing for many reasons. On the other hand, I get a little annoyed (and mocking) with people making false claims of the "magical properties" of any brand of lens in general. Certainly there are specific lenses that are particularly stellar in certain circumstances.Why would you be annoyed? Make your own choice and be happy. Should I be annoyed you shoot kids sports with your 300 2.8?
****************************
You totally took what I said out of context. I just said, shoot what you want and make your own choice. I'm not annoyed by the fact that you like and shoot Zeiss. Honestly, I could not care less.
What is annoying to me is people making false claims and spreading misinformation. Most people are annoyed by that.
You keep taking people out of context and taking it personally.
Andre Labonte wrote
SKumar25 wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
***************************You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
How am I misquoting?
****************************
You totally took what I said out of context. I just said, shoot what you want and make your own choice. I'm not annoyed by the fact that you like and shoot Zeiss. Honestly, I could not care less.
What is annoying to me is people making false claims and spreading misinformation. Most people are annoyed by that.
You keep taking people out of context and taking it personally.
Mar 08, 2016 at 05:21 PM
p.22 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
and why is that? why can't someone simply accept that someone else is perfectly happy with his/her equipment?You are preaching to the choir my friend.You guys don't get it. Somehow you're trying to turn this into people attacking what you personally decide to use for your photography. No one here is doing anything even remotely close to that. People are trying to discuss what the Zeica look is and see if it is Neiss.Oh I believe someone mentioned that people who buy Zeiss glass see this special magic to justify their purchases. The discussion was quite civil until said person came on board...this person does not shoot Zeiss but seemsbto seek out every thread that discusses Zeiss. Now tell me, why do this...why make such a comment...what purpose does it serve other than to stir things up. He's done this numerous times with Zeiss topics.
I have zero issue discussing the pros and cons of a lens...but sone people just cannot stick to that.
You again choose to misinterpret what people say, why do that? I guess it furthers your view...
Confirmation bias is a viable discussion topic here, as is your view that people who don't see a difference are just not sophisticated or experienced enough to see it. Both start with a basic assumption that their either is or is not a consistent Zeica look that is distinguishable. Back to your insulting line of discussion that some can't taste the difference between wine, do you think confirmation bias exists there? Someone spends $500 on a bottle and do you think they might find a way to make sure they feel like they love the wine and find all sorts of subtle flavours of wet grass and other such BS?
jctriguy wrote
chez wrote
OlafSiebert wrote
chez wrote
If it was only that simple...but for some it ain't.I have zero issue discussing the pros and cons of a lens...but sone people just cannot stick to that.
You again choose to misinterpret what people say, why do that? I guess it furthers your view...
Confirmation bias is a viable discussion topic here, as is your view that people who don't see a difference are just not sophisticated or experienced enough to see it. Both start with a basic assumption that their either is or is not a consistent Zeica look that is distinguishable. Back to your insulting line of discussion that some can't taste the difference between wine, do you think confirmation bias exists there? Someone spends $500 on a bottle and do you think they might find a way to make sure they feel like they love the wine and find all sorts of subtle flavours of wet grass and other such BS?
Mar 08, 2016 at 05:24 PM
p.22 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
What is annoying to me is people making false claims and spreading misinformation. Most people are annoyed by that.
Most people are also annoyed by know-it-alls whose "knowledge" contradicts their own experience, so what's your point?
Chuckle, but please, move on.
What is annoying to me is people making false claims and spreading misinformation. Most people are annoyed by that.
Most people are also annoyed by know-it-alls whose "knowledge" contradicts their own experience, so what's your point?
Chuckle, but please, move on.
Mar 08, 2016 at 05:26 PM
p.22 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
WhyFi wrote:
Most people are also annoyed by know-it-alls whose "knowledge" contradicts their own experience, so what's your point?
Chuckle, but please, move on.
An ad hominem attack on an internet forum! Wow, how original!
Andre Labonte wrote
What is annoying to me is people making false claims and spreading misinformation. Most people are annoyed by that.Chuckle, but please, move on.
An ad hominem attack on an internet forum! Wow, how original!
Mar 08, 2016 at 05:29 PM
p.22 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...Aren't you arguing against this position?:
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
How am I misquoting?First off, shoot what you enjoy and can afford. Most people don't buy a 300 f/2.8 to shoot their kids playing sports, but I do. Choice is a great thing for many reasons. On the other hand, I get a little annoyed (and mocking) with people making false claims of the "magical properties" of any brand of lens in general. Certainly there are specific lenses that are particularly stellar in certain circumstances.Why would you be annoyed? Make your own choice and be happy. Should I be annoyed you shoot kids sports with your 300 2.8?****************************
You totally took what I said out of context. I just said, shoot what you want and make your own choice. I'm not annoyed by the fact that you like and shoot Zeiss. Honestly, I could not care less.
What is annoying to me is people making false claims and spreading misinformation. Most people are annoyed by that.
You keep taking people out of context and taking it personally.
I don't feel people are making false claims about Zeiss lenses. They are sharp, have high contrast and produce great colour. I see these traits in my Zeiss compared to my other glass that I have, I think people get annoyed when they label this 3D...but whatever you want to call it, I definitely notice a difference in my images compared to the Canon and Sigma lenses I also use.
chez wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
SKumar25 wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
***************************You can make any point you want if you selectively quote from the article ...
"I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that."
How am I misquoting?
You totally took what I said out of context. I just said, shoot what you want and make your own choice. I'm not annoyed by the fact that you like and shoot Zeiss. Honestly, I could not care less.
What is annoying to me is people making false claims and spreading misinformation. Most people are annoyed by that.
You keep taking people out of context and taking it personally.
I don't feel people are making false claims about Zeiss lenses. They are sharp, have high contrast and produce great colour. I see these traits in my Zeiss compared to my other glass that I have, I think people get annoyed when they label this 3D...but whatever you want to call it, I definitely notice a difference in my images compared to the Canon and Sigma lenses I also use.
Mar 08, 2016 at 05:48 PM
p.22 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
After reading some of the latest comments here, I feel like I've gotten a case of leiss that has me scratching my head.
Mar 08, 2016 at 05:52 PM
p.22 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I guess folks don't know what Andre's day job is…
Mar 08, 2016 at 06:09 PM
p.22 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
I don't feel people are making false claims about Zeiss lenses. They are sharp, have high contrast and produce great colour.
I'd say they make some that are ... ^
They also have made some lenses that exhibit CA and mustache distortion, etc.
The problem often arises when folks try and suggest that Zeiss (or any mfr) means all is great and wonderful or excellent absent of regard to the fact all lenses are a series of compromises in one regard or another, and that no mfr has a "perfect" record with their lenses. Then some folks start taking exception to the (perception) that "superiority" is being flaunted, when it is really enthusiasm and appreciation, rather than lauding superiority.
Lest anyone think that all are enamored by Zeiss being superior in all regard, with all their lenses.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1417827
I don't feel people are making false claims about Zeiss lenses. They are sharp, have high contrast and produce great colour.
I'd say they make some that are ... ^
They also have made some lenses that exhibit CA and mustache distortion, etc.
The problem often arises when folks try and suggest that Zeiss (or any mfr) means all is great and wonderful or excellent absent of regard to the fact all lenses are a series of compromises in one regard or another, and that no mfr has a "perfect" record with their lenses. Then some folks start taking exception to the (perception) that "superiority" is being flaunted, when it is really enthusiasm and appreciation, rather than lauding superiority.
Lest anyone think that all are enamored by Zeiss being superior in all regard, with all their lenses.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1417827
Mar 08, 2016 at 06:33 PM
p.22 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
I guess folks don't know what Andre's day job is…
Pretty sure nobody really cares....
I guess folks don't know what Andre's day job is…
Pretty sure nobody really cares....
Mar 08, 2016 at 09:57 PM
p.22 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I think finding gear that makes it easy to capture the image you had your head is as close to magic as any photographer gets.
Mar 09, 2016 at 01:03 AM
p.22 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
freaklikeme wrote:
I think finding gear that makes it easy to capture the image you had your head is as close to magic as any photographer gets.
I admire the sentiment, but I'm looking for lenses that show me things my head never imagined. The best lenses I think will surprise. When all the variables click then my jaw may drop when I see the result.
But it's an ethos that such accidental excellence is less valuable than a preconceived one.
I'm afraid I'm still experimenting, and I know even the scientists seldom discover exactly what they imagine
I had the Zeiss which started the buzz out yesterday, 1937 un-coated CZJ 50/1.5 on the M9. These are strait out of the M9, 2.8 and F/4
L1045262 by unoh7, on Flickr
Thrift Shop by unoh7, on Flickr
You can pick these up for around 200 or less in Contax mount, then use Amedeo adapter to get to M.
According to my Zeiss tech, this lens is sharper now than new, and I'm to avoid cleaning of any sort. He says in 78 years it has acquired the natural coating which lead to the whole Idea of formulated lens coats
Here is the lens:
DSC06958 by unoh7, on Flickr
not straight out of the camera:
Zeiss Buddha by unoh7, on Flickr
Although the image is heavily edited, you could never get this particular look with a double-gauss, no matter how long you try. Those little sonnar bubbles, love em or hate em, are unique. This lens brought the term Sonnar into the lexicon, though more it's overall performance than the wide open extremes.
I think finding gear that makes it easy to capture the image you had your head is as close to magic as any photographer gets.
I admire the sentiment, but I'm looking for lenses that show me things my head never imagined. The best lenses I think will surprise. When all the variables click then my jaw may drop when I see the result.
But it's an ethos that such accidental excellence is less valuable than a preconceived one.
I'm afraid I'm still experimenting, and I know even the scientists seldom discover exactly what they imagine
I had the Zeiss which started the buzz out yesterday, 1937 un-coated CZJ 50/1.5 on the M9. These are strait out of the M9, 2.8 and F/4
L1045262 by unoh7, on Flickr
Thrift Shop by unoh7, on Flickr
You can pick these up for around 200 or less in Contax mount, then use Amedeo adapter to get to M.
According to my Zeiss tech, this lens is sharper now than new, and I'm to avoid cleaning of any sort. He says in 78 years it has acquired the natural coating which lead to the whole Idea of formulated lens coats
Here is the lens:
DSC06958 by unoh7, on Flickr
not straight out of the camera
:Zeiss Buddha by unoh7, on Flickr
Although the image is heavily edited, you could never get this particular look with a double-gauss, no matter how long you try. Those little sonnar bubbles, love em or hate em, are unique. This lens brought the term Sonnar into the lexicon, though more it's overall performance than the wide open extremes.
Mar 09, 2016 at 01:03 AM