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.24 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
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...Show more →
Yes, there certainly is a wealth of creativity and image quality on the Zeiss and Leica threads on the Alt forum.
I often wonder about the talent and lens quality shown: how much is the hardware, and how much is the determination and experience of the photographer. Seems these factors play into each other to a strong extent.
Do great photographers get drawn toward what they perceive as the best gear?
Or do they try harder to live up to their belief in the superiority of the gear?
Or, is the gear just better?
Regardless, there is an undeniable pool of talent that use the best gear in any field and brand.
**************
For what it's worth, my opinion is that this thread is interesting, with added trainwrecky entertainment. I wish there were more self-made examples posted representing the pro and con opinions on the gear under discussion. The major downside is that some people turn the thread into a master-debating prose competition, more suited to politics than gear analysis.
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. 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...Show more →
Yes, there certainly is a wealth of creativity and image quality on the Zeiss and Leica threads on the Alt forum.
I often wonder about the talent and lens quality shown: how much is the hardware, and how much is the determination and experience of the photographer. Seems these factors play into each other to a strong extent.
Do great photographers get drawn toward what they perceive as the best gear?
Or do they try harder to live up to their belief in the superiority of the gear?
Or, is the gear just better?
Regardless, there is an undeniable pool of talent that use the best gear in any field and brand.
**************
For what it's worth, my opinion is that this thread is interesting, with added trainwrecky entertainment. I wish there were more self-made examples posted representing the pro and con opinions on the gear under discussion. The major downside is that some people turn the thread into a master-debating prose competition, more suited to politics than gear analysis.
Mar 09, 2016 at 12:53 PM
p.24 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Following my own advice:
Here's a shot I'd been wanting to take for quite a while. Finally, I saw my opportunity before me, and the lens I grabbed was the Zeiss ZF.2 35mm f/2, shot at f/3.5.
A colorful trophy for me.
Here's a shot I'd been wanting to take for quite a while. Finally, I saw my opportunity before me, and the lens I grabbed was the Zeiss ZF.2 35mm f/2, shot at f/3.5.
A colorful trophy for me.
Mar 09, 2016 at 01:43 PM
p.24 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Gary Clennan wrote:
That pancake looks 3D.
That pancake looks 3D.
Mar 09, 2016 at 01:44 PM
p.24 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
The bridge of the bunny's nose is rather flat. It wasn't shot with a magical lens.
Mar 09, 2016 at 02:03 PM
p.24 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Y wrote:
That pancake looks 3D.
Oh don't you start!!
Gary Clennan wrote
Oh don't you start!!
Mar 09, 2016 at 02:17 PM
p.24 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CMcG01 wrote:
The bridge of the bunny's nose is rather flat. It wasn't shot with a magical lens.
You had to throw a "magical" in there, didn't you?!
The bridge of the bunny's nose is rather flat. It wasn't shot with a magical lens.
You had to throw a "magical" in there, didn't you?!
Mar 09, 2016 at 02:18 PM
p.24 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jancohen wrote:
I'll second that!
agreed, he's (Ronny Olsson) also such a nice guy to answer questions each time when asked
henry albert wrote
I was reminded, once again, of what a terrific photographer Ronny Olsson is.agreed, he's (Ronny Olsson) also such a nice guy to answer questions each time when asked
Mar 09, 2016 at 02:25 PM
p.24 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
It would be nice to know, how many people here have experience with CZ. As I said before, every lens has it's own character, and it is up to us to use it or not.
I love CZ rendering. More then Nikon. That said, I felt in love with Portra NC and Ilford. Together with Contax and Hasselblad. I prefer C1 above Adobe (which I don't have at all anymore).
I notice this and I am happy with the gear I use. However, my clients, my subjects, my public, probably couldn't see the difference...
last but not least, to me the handling is very important. I love to focus manually. No Nikkor can beat Zeiss with that!
I love CZ rendering. More then Nikon. That said, I felt in love with Portra NC and Ilford. Together with Contax and Hasselblad. I prefer C1 above Adobe (which I don't have at all anymore).
I notice this and I am happy with the gear I use. However, my clients, my subjects, my public, probably couldn't see the difference...
last but not least, to me the handling is very important. I love to focus manually. No Nikkor can beat Zeiss with that!
Mar 09, 2016 at 02:50 PM
p.24 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
OlafSiebert wrote:
It would be nice to know, how many people here have experience with CZ. As I said before, every lens has it's own character, and it is up to us to use it or not.
I love CZ rendering. More then Nikon. That said, I felt in love with Portra NC and Ilford. Together with Contax and Hasselblad. I prefer C1 above Adobe (which I don't have at all anymore).
I notice this and I am happy with the gear I use. However, my clients, my subjects, my public, probably couldn't see the difference...
last but not least, to me the handling is...Show more →
Yep...boils down to use what you like and don't worry about what and why someone else uses something different.
It would be nice to know, how many people here have experience with CZ. As I said before, every lens has it's own character, and it is up to us to use it or not.
I love CZ rendering. More then Nikon. That said, I felt in love with Portra NC and Ilford. Together with Contax and Hasselblad. I prefer C1 above Adobe (which I don't have at all anymore).
I notice this and I am happy with the gear I use. However, my clients, my subjects, my public, probably couldn't see the difference...
last but not least, to me the handling is...Show more →
Yep...boils down to use what you like and don't worry about what and why someone else uses something different.
Mar 09, 2016 at 03:06 PM
p.24 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I used to think that Zeiss lenses made images "magical" and I bought the 35/2 and 100/2MP ZF2 from the B&S here on FM. To my dismay, the lenses did not make my pictures any better or magical... In blind tests, it was difficult for me to determine if the images made by the Nikon 105/2.8VR macro was any different than the 100MP. There were differences in FOV but that was minute. I did think that the Zeiss colors had more spunk but I think it was a figment of my imagination because I couldn't distinguish that in blind tests. It was all done using my equipment and for my benefit.
At the end, as my eyes are getting worse with age making MF more difficult and because the Zeiss were not any better or magical than the Nikon, I sold both those lenses.
Just my experience, yours may vary
Maji
At the end, as my eyes are getting worse with age making MF more difficult and because the Zeiss were not any better or magical than the Nikon, I sold both those lenses.
Just my experience, yours may vary
Maji
Mar 09, 2016 at 03:37 PM
p.24 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
For me, it depends on the subject. For human subjects, I prefer the Nikon AF-D's rendering, and don't find the modern Otus-grade Zeisses all that appealing.
For landscape, it's mostly the opposite: I still don't like Otii all that much, but I love the Nikon 24 PC-E and the old C/Y Zeiss 2.8/85. The wide Zeisses like the 2/35 and 2/25 are also beautiful. I had a chance to use a friend's Hassy Zeiss 250/5.6 Super Achromat in C form (I think: it had the moving DOF claws), adapted to the D810, and loved the rendering of that lens for landscape, though I had no idea how to use that focal length well. The old Voigtlander 180/4 APO Lanthar is also beautiful.
I recently shot some available light stuff of people in a theater, and by far my favorite lenses were the 85/1.8D and to a lesser extent the 50/1.4D. I also shot with a 55 Otus and a 135 APO, and though they were relatively flawless, their results were not as appealing as the old Nikkors'. The 58/1.4G is very nice too, especially in the f/2.8-4 range where it has a nice balance of flavor and image quality.
Obviously, the quality of your photos is going to be entirely dominated by your skill and eye and a bunch other technical factors beyond the lens, but comparing my own work against itself with different lenses, I think the differences are meaningful within the context of my own work. Comparing two different photographers and trying to ascibe special qualities to the lens? Forget it: you have to do your own tests and comparisons.
For landscape, it's mostly the opposite: I still don't like Otii all that much, but I love the Nikon 24 PC-E and the old C/Y Zeiss 2.8/85. The wide Zeisses like the 2/35 and 2/25 are also beautiful. I had a chance to use a friend's Hassy Zeiss 250/5.6 Super Achromat in C form (I think: it had the moving DOF claws), adapted to the D810, and loved the rendering of that lens for landscape, though I had no idea how to use that focal length well. The old Voigtlander 180/4 APO Lanthar is also beautiful.
I recently shot some available light stuff of people in a theater, and by far my favorite lenses were the 85/1.8D and to a lesser extent the 50/1.4D. I also shot with a 55 Otus and a 135 APO, and though they were relatively flawless, their results were not as appealing as the old Nikkors'. The 58/1.4G is very nice too, especially in the f/2.8-4 range where it has a nice balance of flavor and image quality.
Obviously, the quality of your photos is going to be entirely dominated by your skill and eye and a bunch other technical factors beyond the lens, but comparing my own work against itself with different lenses, I think the differences are meaningful within the context of my own work. Comparing two different photographers and trying to ascibe special qualities to the lens? Forget it: you have to do your own tests and comparisons.
Mar 09, 2016 at 04:29 PM
p.24 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I don't have a lot of Nikon, but iirc the 20/2.8 ais glass remained the same beyond ais into multiple versions. Might guess the 28/2.8 ais also.
Mar 09, 2016 at 07:16 PM
p.24 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
The 35/1.4 was optically the same for a long time, having NIC from the start (if you consider the coating part of the formula).
The 28/2 was few years later. I had both of those. The MF 28/2.8 was around since the IC (prong days) so that may be the longest if it was still around later than the others. I don't know the production end dates. Sometimes the sales dates were much longer as EOL lenses were in inventory forever.
EBH
The 28/2 was few years later. I had both of those. The MF 28/2.8 was around since the IC (prong days) so that may be the longest if it was still around later than the others. I don't know the production end dates. Sometimes the sales dates were much longer as EOL lenses were in inventory forever.
EBH
Mar 09, 2016 at 07:31 PM
p.24 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
****************************************
First of all, when it comes to something like sharpness, the lens is a primary contributor.
Just as the lens is a primary contributor to sharpness, it is also a primary contributor to micro contrast.
Andre Labonte wrote:
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.
Thom mentioned this:
"These days, most lenses are very good at all types of contrast, and a few are excellent at it. But there’s generally not enough difference there that I’d get over obsessed with it."
I couldn't agree more. I've noticed however (over years in participating in such threads) that there are people who're over obsessed with claiming the differences don't exist or matter, and anyone suggesting otherwise is making a false claim or implying "magical properties".
****************************************
First of all, when it comes to something like sharpness, the lens is a primary contributor.
Just as the lens is a primary contributor to sharpness, it is also a primary contributor to micro contrast.
Andre Labonte wrote:
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.
Thom mentioned this:
"These days, most lenses are very good at all types of contrast, and a few are excellent at it. But there’s generally not enough difference there that I’d get over obsessed with it."
I couldn't agree more. I've noticed however (over years in participating in such threads) that there are people who're over obsessed with claiming the differences don't exist or matter, and anyone suggesting otherwise is making a false claim or implying "magical properties".
Mar 09, 2016 at 08:10 PM
p.24 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
Pop Quiz
Which Nikon lens was in production without formula update for the longest time?
Which Nikon lens was offered in the most mounts?
Which was the last Nikon Sonnar in production?
It has got to be the 105mm F 2.5 Nikkor.
Pop Quiz
Which Nikon lens was in production without formula update for the longest time?
Which Nikon lens was offered in the most mounts?
Which was the last Nikon Sonnar in production?
It has got to be the 105mm F 2.5 Nikkor.
Mar 09, 2016 at 08:41 PM
p.24 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
RustyBug wrote:
I don't have a lot of Nikon, but iirc the 20/2.8 ais glass remained the same beyond ais into multiple versions. Might guess the 28/2.8 ais also.
You really think the samples he provided were made by a wide angle lens? Look at the compression effect in the shots-it has to be the 105mm F 2.5 Nikkor.
I don't have a lot of Nikon, but iirc the 20/2.8 ais glass remained the same beyond ais into multiple versions. Might guess the 28/2.8 ais also.
You really think the samples he provided were made by a wide angle lens? Look at the compression effect in the shots-it has to be the 105mm F 2.5 Nikkor.
Mar 09, 2016 at 08:44 PM
p.24 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I didnt equate the question to the pics ...
But the 105/2.5 was truly my third thought. It was one of my non-Zeiss 3D-ish toys from time to time,but haven't shot it in quite a while.
Viewing on phone doesn't help either.
Edited on Mar 09, 2016 at 09:03 PM · View previous versions
But the 105/2.5 was truly my third thought. It was one of my non-Zeiss 3D-ish toys from time to time,but haven't shot it in quite a while.
Viewing on phone doesn't help either.
Edited on Mar 09, 2016 at 09:03 PM · View previous versions
Mar 09, 2016 at 08:57 PM
p.24 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Even then you'll find a discussion, as some apparently prefer the Gauss look over that of the Sonnar.
Edited on Mar 09, 2016 at 10:41 PM · View previous versions
Edited on Mar 09, 2016 at 10:41 PM · View previous versions
Mar 09, 2016 at 09:02 PM