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.29 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
morrismike wrote:
different ... compared against each other. It doesn't mean one is better.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Sometimes things that are different are simply different.
+1
It occurred to me long ago as the awesome FM'ers of the Alt Forum were teaching me about "drawing style", that the operative word is "different" rather than "better" ... shortly followed by "bang for your buck" @ 90% of the image for 10% of the $$$ (or some variant thereof).
Whether it is between brands ... or even among the stable of a given brand (i.e. not all Zeiss look "Zeissy") ... each lens has to be evaluated on its own merits @ the pro's / cons @ choose your poison(s). That said, the philosophy of different brands does tend to "roughly" adhere to a "brand X" approach in 70%-80% of a given brands offerings.
Pentax has a certain approach. Canon, CV, Leica, Nikon, Fuji, etc. all have their philosophy. To that end, no single brand is "better" in all regards than the others, but ... they can be different. You just gotta know what you want from your glass ... or, as sometimes is much more important ... to know what you DON'T WANT from your glass. In the case of the Nikon / Otus / Batis comparison ... I DON'T WANT the nervous bokeh. Meanwhile others find it to be of "character".
Sometimes we get hyper-focused on splitting hairs at which is "better" for a given attribute (of which there are many attributes to assess / debate). Sometimes it is easier to simply choose your poison(s) @ different lenses have different poison(s), and know what you want to stay away from ... rather than infinitely chasing the holy grail of "better".
Choose your poison(s), knowing that with optics, there will always be trade-offs (IQ vs. IQ vs. $$$ vs. size vs. build vs. AF vs. MF vs. max aperture vs. etc.) along the way.
different ... compared against each other. It doesn't mean one is better.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Sometimes things that are different are simply different.
+1
It occurred to me long ago as the awesome FM'ers of the Alt Forum were teaching me about "drawing style", that the operative word is "different" rather than "better" ... shortly followed by "bang for your buck" @ 90% of the image for 10% of the $$$ (or some variant thereof).
Whether it is between brands ... or even among the stable of a given brand (i.e. not all Zeiss look "Zeissy") ... each lens has to be evaluated on its own merits @ the pro's / cons @ choose your poison(s). That said, the philosophy of different brands does tend to "roughly" adhere to a "brand X" approach in 70%-80% of a given brands offerings.
Pentax has a certain approach. Canon, CV, Leica, Nikon, Fuji, etc. all have their philosophy. To that end, no single brand is "better" in all regards than the others, but ... they can be different. You just gotta know what you want from your glass ... or, as sometimes is much more important ... to know what you DON'T WANT from your glass. In the case of the Nikon / Otus / Batis comparison ... I DON'T WANT the nervous bokeh. Meanwhile others find it to be of "character".
Sometimes we get hyper-focused on splitting hairs at which is "better" for a given attribute (of which there are many attributes to assess / debate). Sometimes it is easier to simply choose your poison(s) @ different lenses have different poison(s), and know what you want to stay away from ... rather than infinitely chasing the holy grail of "better".
Choose your poison(s), knowing that with optics, there will always be trade-offs (IQ vs. IQ vs. $$$ vs. size vs. build vs. AF vs. MF vs. max aperture vs. etc.) along the way.
Mar 13, 2016 at 11:21 AM
p.29 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
wayne seltzer wrote:
My Zeiss and Leica glass are superior to my Canikon lenses. Doesn't take a rocket scientist or 28 pages of this dumb thread to know that.
Next time folks are at the optometrist ... check the name on the optometry equipment.
I'm pretty sure that most folks won't find CaNikon in the Dr.s Office. But, they just might find some blue labels and red dots.
Different is different, accurate is accurate ... drawing styles abound. How much of one or the other a person wants for their image making ... your pic, your call.
Edited on Mar 13, 2016 at 11:38 AM · View previous versions
My Zeiss and Leica glass are superior to my Canikon lenses. Doesn't take a rocket scientist or 28 pages of this dumb thread to know that.
Next time folks are at the optometrist ... check the name on the optometry equipment.
I'm pretty sure that most folks won't find CaNikon in the Dr.s Office. But, they just might find some blue labels and red dots.
Different is different, accurate is accurate ... drawing styles abound. How much of one or the other a person wants for their image making ... your pic, your call.
Edited on Mar 13, 2016 at 11:38 AM · View previous versions
Mar 13, 2016 at 11:35 AM
p.29 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
yeah, it was that first atomic bomb thing 1800 ft up and to the left of where i shot it.
Steve, is that reduction of the Hiroshima Genbaku Dome a crop? If so, any chance you could post a copy of what sold?
yeah, it was that first atomic bomb thing 1800 ft up and to the left of where i shot it.
Steve, is that reduction of the Hiroshima Genbaku Dome a crop? If so, any chance you could post a copy of what sold?
Mar 13, 2016 at 11:35 AM
p.29 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jcolwell wrote:
Man, if we had to get general approval from FM members before selling photos, we'd never sell any photos. 
no kidding!
if selling photos that please your client is the only criteria for choosing equipment there is absolutely no reason to buy a zeiss. your clients will not be able to see the difference in your output unless you put a zeiss shot right next to an identical shot with a non-zeiss lens (and who knows which they'll prefer). the reasons to choose a zeiss for a working pro are a) you like some aspect of work flow better (could be shooting experience, could be PP related, whatever), b) you see a difference in the look from zeiss lenses that you personally prefer and the cost difference is negligible.
one exception: the current zeiss otus lenses are noticeably superior to everything else at shooting starscapes due to superior coma and CA correction at f/1.4. if your work is shooting starscapes at those focal lengths it might make business sense to get an otus or two.
sjms wrote
... can't make them all happy. it sold though. not this exact version but one off the original raw. aren't I lucky I don't have to pass the zeiss gauntlet no kidding!
if selling photos that please your client is the only criteria for choosing equipment there is absolutely no reason to buy a zeiss. your clients will not be able to see the difference in your output unless you put a zeiss shot right next to an identical shot with a non-zeiss lens (and who knows which they'll prefer). the reasons to choose a zeiss for a working pro are a) you like some aspect of work flow better (could be shooting experience, could be PP related, whatever), b) you see a difference in the look from zeiss lenses that you personally prefer and the cost difference is negligible.
one exception: the current zeiss otus lenses are noticeably superior to everything else at shooting starscapes due to superior coma and CA correction at f/1.4. if your work is shooting starscapes at those focal lengths it might make business sense to get an otus or two.
Mar 13, 2016 at 11:40 AM
p.29 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
was there ever really a mystery or just another tired excuse?
You'll have to ask OP about that...
CGrindahl wrote
Are we losing the mystery?You'll have to ask OP about that...
Mar 13, 2016 at 01:03 PM
p.29 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
wayne seltzer wrote:
My Zeiss and Leica glass are superior to my Canikon lenses. Doesn't take a rocket scientist or 28 pages of this dumb thread to know that.
Nope, you just gotta know how to sniff the corks.
My Zeiss and Leica glass are superior to my Canikon lenses. Doesn't take a rocket scientist or 28 pages of this dumb thread to know that.
Nope, you just gotta know how to sniff the corks.
Mar 13, 2016 at 01:19 PM
p.29 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
It's slightly over-exposed do mostly to poor PP. Also, right side is soft on building and trees -- this would be a fail for a Zeiss lens, unless being shot wide open around f/1.4.
It has some potential as a subject with strong texture. Just not quite "there". (I don't think this subject is very dependent on being shot with Zeiss glass or not.)I consider the sun. I could if I wanted, drop it a little. its far from being over exposed. the only reason its soft is due to the the fact it is a reduction of a reduction of a reduction. can't make them all happy. it sold though. not this exact version but one off the original raw. aren't I lucky I don't have to pass the zeiss gauntlet
Ha-ha! You certainly don't have to ask permission to show an image, let alone sell it!
But you are addressing the forum of experienced photographers with what seems to be some sort of rhetorical statement or in support of your anti-Zeiss stance displayed on this thread.
The image, stripped of its historical significance, is what it is. My point was that if this was your example of a Zeiss lens's performance, it was a poor example -- if considered as a feat of technical or artistic excellence (or lack thereof). It looks slightly lighter and lacking in edge sharpness -- hence my feeling it was a bad Zeiss lens or the produced image was not fully pushed to get most out if it. It's an "okay" shot from a technical standpoint, whether using Zeiss or any other brand.
I can certainly see value added to it by its significance as statement to man's inhumanity to man, etc. In that regard, the technical points are pretty well irrelevant and it has strong appeal.
So, what was your point vis-a-vis this shot and Zeiss lenses?
Gunzorro wrote
sjms wrote
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image? Also, right side is soft on building and trees -- this would be a fail for a Zeiss lens, unless being shot wide open around f/1.4.It has some potential as a subject with strong texture. Just not quite "there". (I don't think this subject is very dependent on being shot with Zeiss glass or not.)
Ha-ha!
You certainly don't have to ask permission to show an image, let alone sell it! But you are addressing the forum of experienced photographers with what seems to be some sort of rhetorical statement or in support of your anti-Zeiss stance displayed on this thread.
The image, stripped of its historical significance, is what it is. My point was that if this was your example of a Zeiss lens's performance, it was a poor example -- if considered as a feat of technical or artistic excellence (or lack thereof). It looks slightly lighter and lacking in edge sharpness -- hence my feeling it was a bad Zeiss lens or the produced image was not fully pushed to get most out if it. It's an "okay" shot from a technical standpoint, whether using Zeiss or any other brand.
I can certainly see value added to it by its significance as statement to man's inhumanity to man, etc. In that regard, the technical points are pretty well irrelevant and it has strong appeal.
So, what was your point vis-a-vis this shot and Zeiss lenses?
Mar 13, 2016 at 01:44 PM
p.29 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I note this thread has finally achieved a level of absurdity that makes ANY real conversation about mystery of Zeiss impossible. The inmates have taken control of the asylum...
This was taken with a Leica lens...
 |
||
| http://prisonphotography.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/mary-ellen-mark-cast-of-one-flew-over-the-cuckoos-nest-posing-for-their-photograph-on-location-at-the-oregon-state-hospital-salem-oregon-mary-ellen-mark-1974.jpg | ||
|
This was taken with a Leica lens...
Mar 13, 2016 at 02:15 PM
p.29 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Gunzorro wrote:
It's slightly over-exposed do mostly to poor PP. Also, right side is soft on building and trees -- this would be a fail for a Zeiss lens, unless being shot wide open around f/1.4.
It has some potential as a subject with strong texture. Just not quite "there". (I don't think this subject is very dependent on being shot with Zeiss glass or not.)I consider the sun. I could if I wanted, drop it a little. its far from being over exposed. the only reason its soft is due to the the fact it is a reduction of a reduction of a reduction. can't make them all happy. it sold though. not this exact version but one off the original raw. aren't I lucky I don't have to pass the zeiss gauntlet
Ha-ha! You certainly don't have to ask permission to show an image, let alone sell it!
But you are addressing the forum of experienced photographers with what seems to be some sort of rhetorical statement or in support of your anti-Zeiss stance displayed on this thread.
The image, stripped of its historical significance, is what it is. My point was that if this was your example of a Zeiss lens's performance, it was a poor example -- if considered as a feat of technical or artistic excellence (or lack thereof). It looks slightly lighter and lacking in edge...Show more →
it wasn't the finished product. and like some you miss the point while looking down your nose at it.
sjms wrote
Gunzorro wrote
sjms wrote
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image? Also, right side is soft on building and trees -- this would be a fail for a Zeiss lens, unless being shot wide open around f/1.4.It has some potential as a subject with strong texture. Just not quite "there". (I don't think this subject is very dependent on being shot with Zeiss glass or not.)
You certainly don't have to ask permission to show an image, let alone sell it! But you are addressing the forum of experienced photographers with what seems to be some sort of rhetorical statement or in support of your anti-Zeiss stance displayed on this thread.
The image, stripped of its historical significance, is what it is. My point was that if this was your example of a Zeiss lens's performance, it was a poor example -- if considered as a feat of technical or artistic excellence (or lack thereof). It looks slightly lighter and lacking in edge...Show more →
it wasn't the finished product. and like some you miss the point while looking down your nose at it.
Mar 13, 2016 at 02:56 PM
p.29 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
The linked article contains the kind of dubious theory that pushes someone's idea - something they want us to believe.
"you can't beat the diagram" - such arrant nonsense!
"you can't beat the diagram" - such arrant nonsense!
Mar 13, 2016 at 03:56 PM
p.29 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
I note this thread has finally achieved a level of absurdity that makes ANY real conversation about mystery of Zeiss impossible.
How was there ever going to be real conversations when people brought their baggage along to the thread...
I note this thread has finally achieved a level of absurdity that makes ANY real conversation about mystery of Zeiss impossible.
How was there ever going to be real conversations when people brought their baggage along to the thread...
Mar 13, 2016 at 04:14 PM
p.29 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Tony Rogers wrote:
The linked article contains the kind of dubious theory that pushes someone's idea - something they want us to believe.
"you can't beat the diagram" - such arrant nonsense!
yeah, i couldn't continue reading the article after the first 3 paragraphs. i agree with the author that modern highly corrected lenses are less pleasing to me for many types of photography, but his writing is pure nonsense and the diagram seems to made by somebody who has no idea how graphs work (let alone optics).
The linked article contains the kind of dubious theory that pushes someone's idea - something they want us to believe.
"you can't beat the diagram" - such arrant nonsense!
yeah, i couldn't continue reading the article after the first 3 paragraphs. i agree with the author that modern highly corrected lenses are less pleasing to me for many types of photography, but his writing is pure nonsense and the diagram seems to made by somebody who has no idea how graphs work (let alone optics).
Mar 13, 2016 at 04:18 PM
p.29 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
It's slightly over-exposed do mostly to poor PP. Also, right side is soft on building and trees -- this would be a fail for a Zeiss lens, unless being shot wide open around f/1.4.
It has some potential as a subject with strong texture. Just not quite "there". (I don't think this subject is very dependent on being shot with Zeiss glass or not.)I consider the sun. I could if I wanted, drop it a little. its far from being over exposed. the only reason its soft is due to the the fact it is a reduction of a reduction of a reduction. can't make them all happy. it sold though. not this exact version but one off the original raw. aren't I lucky I don't have to pass the zeiss gauntlet
Ha-ha! You certainly don't have to ask permission to show an image, let alone sell it!
But you are addressing the forum of experienced photographers with what seems to be some sort of rhetorical statement or in support of your anti-Zeiss stance displayed on this thread.
The image, stripped of its historical significance, is what it is. My point was that if this was your example of a Zeiss lens's performance, it was a poor example -- if considered as a feat of technical or artistic excellence (or lack thereof). It looks slightly lighter and lacking in edge sharpness -- hence my feeling it was a bad Zeiss lens or the produced image was not fully pushed to get most out if it. It's an "okay" shot from a technical standpoint, whether using Zeiss or any other brand.
I can certainly see value added to it by its significance as statement to man's inhumanity to man, etc. In that regard, the technical points are pretty well irrelevant and it has strong appeal.
So, what was your point vis-a-vis this shot and Zeiss lenses?it wasn't the finished product. and like some you miss the point while looking down your nose at it.
Okay, for the sake of discussion, let's say my nose was in the way of seeing the point you were making. How about clarifying what you were trying to say with your text and photo?
Gunzorro wrote
sjms wrote
Gunzorro wrote
sjms wrote
is this poppy, flat, 3D, sharp, good color, contrasty, I don't know possibly reasonal as an image? Also, right side is soft on building and trees -- this would be a fail for a Zeiss lens, unless being shot wide open around f/1.4.It has some potential as a subject with strong texture. Just not quite "there". (I don't think this subject is very dependent on being shot with Zeiss glass or not.)
You certainly don't have to ask permission to show an image, let alone sell it! But you are addressing the forum of experienced photographers with what seems to be some sort of rhetorical statement or in support of your anti-Zeiss stance displayed on this thread.
The image, stripped of its historical significance, is what it is. My point was that if this was your example of a Zeiss lens's performance, it was a poor example -- if considered as a feat of technical or artistic excellence (or lack thereof). It looks slightly lighter and lacking in edge sharpness -- hence my feeling it was a bad Zeiss lens or the produced image was not fully pushed to get most out if it. It's an "okay" shot from a technical standpoint, whether using Zeiss or any other brand.
I can certainly see value added to it by its significance as statement to man's inhumanity to man, etc. In that regard, the technical points are pretty well irrelevant and it has strong appeal.
So, what was your point vis-a-vis this shot and Zeiss lenses?
Okay, for the sake of discussion, let's say my nose was in the way of seeing the point you were making. How about clarifying what you were trying to say with your text and photo?
Mar 13, 2016 at 04:20 PM
p.29 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
i have never really needed to explain things to people and at this point even less so.
i'll just muddle along doing what i do.
Edited on Mar 13, 2016 at 05:32 PM · View previous versions
i'll just muddle along doing what i do.
Edited on Mar 13, 2016 at 05:32 PM · View previous versions
Mar 13, 2016 at 04:32 PM
p.29 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
This was taken with a Leica lens...
They should have used two of them and given everyone
This was taken with a Leica lens...
They should have used two of them and given everyone
Mar 13, 2016 at 04:39 PM
p.29 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jancohen wrote:
They should have used two of them and given everyone
Lol so funny, and we know rich dentists who have no clue about photography buy Leicas, and Nikon's actually better...
CGrindahl wrote
This was taken with a Leica lens...Lol so funny, and we know rich dentists who have no clue about photography buy Leicas, and Nikon's actually better...
Mar 13, 2016 at 05:03 PM
p.29 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
i have never really needed to explain things to people and at this point even less so.
i'll just muddle along doing what i do.
Then why all the effort to not explain anything
... which probably explains a lot.
i have never really needed to explain things to people and at this point even less so.
i'll just muddle along doing what i do.
Then why all the effort to not explain anything
... which probably explains a lot. Mar 13, 2016 at 05:35 PM
p.29 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
Lol so funny, and we know rich dentists who have no clue about photography buy Leicas, and Nikon's actually better...
I actually had somebody ask me if I was a dentist, when I was offering a Leica-R lens for sale.
OTOH, which "actually better" Nikkors would you stack against the Summicron-R 50/2 E55, Elmarit R 90/2.8 E55, and Apo-Telyt-R 180/3.4 ? (not to mention many other excellent -R lenses that I haven't owned)
Lol so funny, and we know rich dentists who have no clue about photography buy Leicas, and Nikon's actually better...
I actually had somebody ask me if I was a dentist, when I was offering a Leica-R lens for sale.
OTOH, which "actually better" Nikkors would you stack against the Summicron-R 50/2 E55, Elmarit R 90/2.8 E55, and Apo-Telyt-R 180/3.4 ? (not to mention many other excellent -R lenses that I haven't owned)
Mar 13, 2016 at 05:49 PM
p.29 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
Lol so funny, and we know rich dentists who have no clue about photography buy Leicas, and Nikon's actually better...
I'm neither a dentist, nor do I pull any teeth And the only thing rich about me might be my sense of humor, though some might debate that. Also don't own any Leica products, nor do I want any at the moment (that's always subject to change, eh?); and I like to think I'm doing my best with what I've got, but sometimes I find I'm only kidding myself.
Now follow the bouncing ball:
If you're happy and you know it clap your hands
Lol so funny, and we know rich dentists who have no clue about photography buy Leicas, and Nikon's actually better...
I'm neither a dentist, nor do I pull any teeth
And the only thing rich about me might be my sense of humor, though some might debate that. Also don't own any Leica products, nor do I want any at the moment (that's always subject to change, eh?); and I like to think I'm doing my best with what I've got, but sometimes I find I'm only kidding myself.Now follow the bouncing ball:
If you're happy and you know it clap your hands
Mar 13, 2016 at 05:55 PM