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.23 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
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.
Thom could have written a similar article on some other lens characteristic, like sharpness, and the gist would be the same.
These are just characteristics, and can never be the "primary contributor". If you feel a particular characteristic's contribution to image is miniscule, then you are entitled to this opinion, but then don't have an issue with the next guy who does place importance on that same characteristic. It comes down to horses for courses.
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.
Thom could have written a similar article on some other lens characteristic, like sharpness, and the gist would be the same.
These are just characteristics, and can never be the "primary contributor". If you feel a particular characteristic's contribution to image is miniscule, then you are entitled to this opinion, but then don't have an issue with the next guy who does place importance on that same characteristic. It comes down to horses for courses.
Mar 09, 2016 at 03:33 AM
p.23 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
I'm looking for lenses that show me things my head never imagined. The best lenses I think will surprise.
But it's an ethos that such accidental excellence is less valuable than a preconceived one.
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.
Not what I imagined - hmmm @ good / not so good
Surprises - hmmm @ good / not so good
Accidental excellence - hmmm @ the oxymoron
Uniqueness (while exciting to some) - doesn't always equate to desired for all.
I have certain lenses that give me what I imagined, without surprises, with intentional excellence that do not exhibit any uniqueness (I consider them "neutral") ... and, to be honest, that is what I desire and expect from those lenses. Those lenses were designed to do just that very thing and as such have value to me in their ability to perform accordingly.
I have other lenses that have much more "character" to them. They can impart some of that uniqueness into the image. They can be more "fun" or infuse some of that uniqueness or lens character into the image. That can be great for some folks and for some images ... not so much for others. If a person enjoys the "character" of a lens more than the substance of the image, have a party, it can be a blast. But there are times when folks want the lens to be the silent partner, moreover than a center stage performer.
What someone wants from their lenses and how it plays into their image making ...
SKumar25 wrote:
It comes down to horses for courses.
You just gotta know your course ... and, know your horse.
I'm looking for lenses that show me things my head never imagined. The best lenses I think will surprise.
But it's an ethos that such accidental excellence is less valuable than a preconceived one.
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.
Not what I imagined - hmmm @ good / not so good
Surprises - hmmm @ good / not so good
Accidental excellence - hmmm @ the oxymoron
Uniqueness (while exciting to some) - doesn't always equate to desired for all.
I have certain lenses that give me what I imagined, without surprises, with intentional excellence that do not exhibit any uniqueness (I consider them "neutral") ... and, to be honest, that is what I desire and expect from those lenses. Those lenses were designed to do just that very thing and as such have value to me in their ability to perform accordingly.
I have other lenses that have much more "character" to them. They can impart some of that uniqueness into the image. They can be more "fun" or infuse some of that uniqueness or lens character into the image. That can be great for some folks and for some images ... not so much for others. If a person enjoys the "character" of a lens more than the substance of the image, have a party, it can be a blast. But there are times when folks want the lens to be the silent partner, moreover than a center stage performer.
What someone wants from their lenses and how it plays into their image making ...
SKumar25 wrote:
It comes down to horses for courses.
You just gotta know your course ... and, know your horse.
Mar 09, 2016 at 05:35 AM
p.23 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
Thom could have written a similar article on some other lens characteristic, like sharpness, and the gist would be the same.
These are just characteristics, and can never be the "primary contributor". If you feel a particular characteristic's contribution to image is miniscule, then you are entitled to this opinion, but then don't have an issue with the next guy who does place importance on that same characteristic. It comes down to horses for courses.
****************************************
First of all, when it comes to something like sharpness, the lens is a primary contributor.
Second, if something is measureable for a particular lens offering, then indeed I have no issue with it (e.g. the Otus). But if it's not, then it's a false claim. Again, no complaint from me on people's choices and no complaint with observations on individual lens offerings ...
It's the unsubstantiated blanket statements or even technically false statements that I stand against. E.g. just because the Otus contributes to mico contrast and is super sharp, does not mean that all Zeiss lenses are such. But to hear many people talk, Zeiss lenses, carte blanche, are superior in all ways to anything Nikon has to offer ... it not true and it gets old. That's all.
Andre Labonte wrote
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.These are just characteristics, and can never be the "primary contributor". If you feel a particular characteristic's contribution to image is miniscule, then you are entitled to this opinion, but then don't have an issue with the next guy who does place importance on that same characteristic. It comes down to horses for courses.
****************************************
First of all, when it comes to something like sharpness, the lens is a primary contributor.
Second, if something is measureable for a particular lens offering, then indeed I have no issue with it (e.g. the Otus). But if it's not, then it's a false claim. Again, no complaint from me on people's choices and no complaint with observations on individual lens offerings ...
It's the unsubstantiated blanket statements or even technically false statements that I stand against. E.g. just because the Otus contributes to mico contrast and is super sharp, does not mean that all Zeiss lenses are such. But to hear many people talk, Zeiss lenses, carte blanche, are superior in all ways to anything Nikon has to offer ... it not true and it gets old. That's all.
Mar 09, 2016 at 06:26 AM
p.23 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
It's the unsubstantiated blanket statements or even technically false statements that I stand against. E.g. just because the Otus contributes to mico contrast and is super sharp, does not mean that all Zeiss lenses are such. But to hear many people talk, Zeiss lenses, carte blanche, are superior in all ways to anything Nikon has to offer ... it not true and it gets old. That's all.
You keep saying this, but show me a post in this thread where someone claims this?
You are a brave crusader, but I suspect you're fighting a straw man.
It's the unsubstantiated blanket statements or even technically false statements that I stand against. E.g. just because the Otus contributes to mico contrast and is super sharp, does not mean that all Zeiss lenses are such. But to hear many people talk, Zeiss lenses, carte blanche, are superior in all ways to anything Nikon has to offer ... it not true and it gets old. That's all.
You keep saying this, but show me a post in this thread where someone claims this?
You are a brave crusader, but I suspect you're fighting a straw man.
Mar 09, 2016 at 07:26 AM
p.23 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
arduluth wrote:
You keep saying this, but show me a post in this thread where someone claims this?
You are a brave crusader, but I suspect you're fighting a straw man.
I'm not the only one saying ... probably the most insistent though ... but even I think this conversation has run its coarse.
Andre Labonte wrote
It's the unsubstantiated blanket statements or even technically false statements that I stand against. E.g. just because the Otus contributes to mico contrast and is super sharp, does not mean that all Zeiss lenses are such. But to hear many people talk, Zeiss lenses, carte blanche, are superior in all ways to anything Nikon has to offer ... it not true and it gets old. That's all.You are a brave crusader, but I suspect you're fighting a straw man.
I'm not the only one saying ... probably the most insistent though ... but even I think this conversation has run its coarse. Mar 09, 2016 at 07:38 AM
p.23 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
An ad hominem attack on an internet forum! Wow, how original!
That's rich, coming from one whose entire argument boils down to, "you're intentionally deluding yourselves because you stupidly spent too much money on a lens."
An ad hominem attack on an internet forum! Wow, how original!
That's rich, coming from one whose entire argument boils down to, "you're intentionally deluding yourselves because you stupidly spent too much money on a lens."
Mar 09, 2016 at 08:24 AM
p.23 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
... I think this conversation has run its coarse.
That is a great (and unintentional?) pun! ;-)
... I think this conversation has run its coarse.
That is a great (and unintentional?) pun! ;-)
Mar 09, 2016 at 08:25 AM
p.23 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
arduluth wrote:
You keep saying this, but show me a post in this thread where someone claims this?
You are a brave crusader, but I suspect you're fighting a straw man.
Yeah, a perusal of Alt threads would show a number of conversations on which Zeiss lenses are the Zeissiest and those that are not. It would also reveal a number of conversations on lenses from other manufacturers that can sometimes exhibit similar drawing styles. But who needs that kind of nuance when you've got axes to grind?
Andre Labonte wrote
It's the unsubstantiated blanket statements or even technically false statements that I stand against. E.g. just because the Otus contributes to mico contrast and is super sharp, does not mean that all Zeiss lenses are such. But to hear many people talk, Zeiss lenses, carte blanche, are superior in all ways to anything Nikon has to offer ... it not true and it gets old. That's all.You are a brave crusader, but I suspect you're fighting a straw man.
Yeah, a perusal of Alt threads would show a number of conversations on which Zeiss lenses are the Zeissiest and those that are not. It would also reveal a number of conversations on lenses from other manufacturers that can sometimes exhibit similar drawing styles. But who needs that kind of nuance when you've got axes to grind?
Mar 09, 2016 at 08:32 AM
p.23 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
Take a picture of a red snooker ball on a dark background with 2 lenses. Then check for the range of colours recorded on both files in the red range. What's hard about this?now that also comes down to the imager and how both react together. yet another layer of confusion. it is highly possible that both accept the equivalent spectrum and then its down to the "pleasing factor" which will be subjective.Use the same imager so remove it out of the equation.
But you can't because there are multiple mounts available and adapters for various bodies. they all see the world a little different too.
Edited on Mar 09, 2016 at 09:52 AM · View previous versions
sjms wrote
SKumar25 wrote
sjms wrote
that is perceptual which really is quite difficult to define as measurable/quantifiableBut you can't because there are multiple mounts available and adapters for various bodies. they all see the world a little different too.
Edited on Mar 09, 2016 at 09:52 AM · View previous versions
Mar 09, 2016 at 09:35 AM
p.23 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I think we should all just declare victory and go home. It worked for us in Nam. Sorta.
Mar 09, 2016 at 09:35 AM
p.23 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
That is a great (and unintentional?) pun! ;-)
I was wondering if someone would notice
... of course the correct spelling is "course" but how could I resist?
Andre Labonte wrote
... I think this conversation has run its coarse.I was wondering if someone would notice
... of course the correct spelling is "course" but how could I resist?Mar 09, 2016 at 09:49 AM
p.23 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
I think we should all just declare victory and go home. It worked for us in Nam. Sorta.
not even close unfortunately. we didn't take in account for the variables.
I think we should all just declare victory and go home. It worked for us in Nam. Sorta.
not even close unfortunately. we didn't take in account for the variables.
Mar 09, 2016 at 09:53 AM
p.23 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
Take a picture of a red snooker ball on a dark background with 2 lenses. Then check for the range of colours recorded on both files in the red range. What's hard about this?now that also comes down to the imager and how both react together. yet another layer of confusion. it is highly possible that both accept the equivalent spectrum and then its down to the "pleasing factor" which will be subjective.Use the same imager so remove it out of the equation.But you can't because there are multiple mounts available and adapters for various bodies. they all see the world a little different too.
Zeiss lens come in native mounts for both Canon and Nikon.
chez wrote
sjms wrote
SKumar25 wrote
sjms wrote
that is perceptual which really is quite difficult to define as measurable/quantifiableZeiss lens come in native mounts for both Canon and Nikon.
Mar 09, 2016 at 10:20 AM
p.23 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
and others.
my D7200 and D4s see things just a little different in color as did my previous Nikon and Canon bodies before them. but I just leave that as a minor variable and hope this ends somewhat peaceful and friendly.
my D7200 and D4s see things just a little different in color as did my previous Nikon and Canon bodies before them. but I just leave that as a minor variable and hope this ends somewhat peaceful and friendly.
Mar 09, 2016 at 10:21 AM
p.23 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
This is a bit like driving down the freeway and coming upon an accident. Traffic slows down more often that not simply because people want to see what happened. I'm guessing folks, such as myself, stop by this thread just to see how much wreckage has been created by thrown elbows and silly speech. I'll do my best to stay away…
Mar 09, 2016 at 10:38 AM
p.23 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
The thread has some merit. While paging through the ALT Zeiss thread I was reminded, once again, of what a terrific photographer Ronny Olsson is.
Mar 09, 2016 at 10:58 AM
p.23 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Rubbertabbing is when you're trying to get work done and you bounce between browser tabs looking for the latest news or updates. In some ways similar to rubbernecking in that doing it actually can hinder progress, but different in that you're most likely not mass in motion when tabbing.
There are exceptions to the rule of course, see potential and kinetic energy, swampgas.
There are exceptions to the rule of course, see potential and kinetic energy, swampgas.
Mar 09, 2016 at 11:03 AM
p.23 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
I was reminded, once again, of what a terrific photographer Ronny Olsson is.
I'll second that!
I was reminded, once again, of what a terrific photographer Ronny Olsson is.
I'll second that!
Mar 09, 2016 at 11:05 AM
p.23 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
The thread has some merit. While paging through the ALT Zeiss thread I was reminded, once again, of what a terrific photographer Ronny Olsson is.
At least there is agreement here. I enjoy his Zeiss 21/100&RX1 images very much so much so that I believe giving me the same lens I might get the same pictures.
I do suggest people visit ZF/ZE thread here as well as RX1(happen to have Zeiss logo) images thread to get a better understanding about each lens, history, rendering comparing within its brand as well as other manufacture to know what is Zeiss about. Without extensive understanding and knowledge about the brand, your comment is compromised and you are not anywhere closer to the truth than people who have used them and have good understanding about those lenses.
Keep in mind, the thread start from 2009 at the time Canon or Nikon don't have lens collection as for now. another big reason people claim superiority of Zeiss. Since then, Canon and Nikon have up their game but Zeiss rising the bar again with later introduction such as 25f2, 15f2.8, 135f2 and OTUS trio.
Most people in alt forum have extensive experience with other brand before settle to Zeiss. Or at least with extensive experience with Zeiss before settle to other brand. Most outside people question about validity of Zeiss have no direct experience use those lens. You really need spend time with lens to use it wisely if you are not f8 and be there type of person. (of course there are exception such Steve, I admire his work. ) but many do go through the process to appreciate the difference.
I am not a Zeiss cheerleader (at least any more) as I no longer have many Zeiss lenses as I use to and prefer a little gentle rendering Leica or even a few Nikon glass(14-24) now but to be honest, some Zeiss lenses have such strong signature that so easy to tell the difference over the years, mainly talk about WO. I went through so many great 50mm lens, some are sharper than 50 Macro-planar, but 50mp rendering infocus area very different and have very strong contrast and impression of vivid color at WO giving viewer an impression of sharp sharp sharp even more so than OTUS.
The same thing can be said with 100mp and to less extent 35f2 distagon. When people talk about Zeiss, it could be different meaning to different people range from large format to APS-C to Zony lens, or even different rendering within brand but one thing for sure Zeiss has a proved track record to bring one of best if not best lens in each focal length before 200mm.
So to me, I will choose Zeiss over Nikon or Canon if I don't care about zoom weather resistant or AF or 200f2, 300f2.8 etc....
Take a moment, visit those few Zeiss thread and have a more open mind about gear and enjoy photography.
Last post in this thread.
The thread has some merit. While paging through the ALT Zeiss thread I was reminded, once again, of what a terrific photographer Ronny Olsson is.
At least there is agreement here. I enjoy his Zeiss 21/100&RX1 images very much so much so that I believe giving me the same lens I might get the same pictures.
I do suggest people visit ZF/ZE thread here as well as RX1(happen to have Zeiss logo) images thread to get a better understanding about each lens, history, rendering comparing within its brand as well as other manufacture to know what is Zeiss about. Without extensive understanding and knowledge about the brand, your comment is compromised and you are not anywhere closer to the truth than people who have used them and have good understanding about those lenses.
Keep in mind, the thread start from 2009 at the time Canon or Nikon don't have lens collection as for now. another big reason people claim superiority of Zeiss. Since then, Canon and Nikon have up their game but Zeiss rising the bar again with later introduction such as 25f2, 15f2.8, 135f2 and OTUS trio.
Most people in alt forum have extensive experience with other brand before settle to Zeiss. Or at least with extensive experience with Zeiss before settle to other brand. Most outside people question about validity of Zeiss have no direct experience use those lens. You really need spend time with lens to use it wisely if you are not f8 and be there type of person. (of course there are exception such Steve, I admire his work. ) but many do go through the process to appreciate the difference.
I am not a Zeiss cheerleader (at least any more) as I no longer have many Zeiss lenses as I use to and prefer a little gentle rendering Leica or even a few Nikon glass(14-24) now but to be honest, some Zeiss lenses have such strong signature that so easy to tell the difference over the years, mainly talk about WO. I went through so many great 50mm lens, some are sharper than 50 Macro-planar, but 50mp rendering infocus area very different and have very strong contrast and impression of vivid color at WO giving viewer an impression of sharp sharp sharp even more so than OTUS.
The same thing can be said with 100mp and to less extent 35f2 distagon. When people talk about Zeiss, it could be different meaning to different people range from large format to APS-C to Zony lens, or even different rendering within brand but one thing for sure Zeiss has a proved track record to bring one of best if not best lens in each focal length before 200mm.
So to me, I will choose Zeiss over Nikon or Canon if I don't care about zoom weather resistant or AF or 200f2, 300f2.8 etc....
Take a moment, visit those few Zeiss thread and have a more open mind about gear and enjoy photography.
Last post in this thread.
Mar 09, 2016 at 11:49 AM