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.4 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
It's called "lens elitism" (a.k.a snobbery) that since you bought something that is hand crafted and expensive, it must be better and therefor you must prove it to justify your expensive purchase.
The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
Yep...and there are people that cannot tell the difference between wines or cuts of meat or fine cigars...does not mean there is no difference, just means certain people lack the finesse to see the difference.
**********
When guys with the skill and experience of Steve Perry say there is nothing special with Zeiss and no real difference, I think I'm pretty safe.
Chuckling and moving on ...
Andre Labonte 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.The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
**********
When guys with the skill and experience of Steve Perry say there is nothing special with Zeiss and no real difference, I think I'm pretty safe.
Chuckling and moving on ...
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:42 AM
p.4 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
naturephoto1 wrote:
It's called "lens elitism" (a.k.a snobbery) that since you bought something that is hand crafted and expensive, it must be better and therefor you must prove it to justify your expensive purchase.
The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.Not necessarily elitism. The affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses were often talked about in viewing slides (transparencies) well before digital. Leica lenses somethng that I know much more about than Zeiss were often said to have a different look in slides. In fact when asked to ID images taken with Leica rather than Canon, Nikon, or another brand in blind tests, many photographers in the "know" could pick out the Leica images at an exceptionally high perentage rate. I expect the same for Zeiss lenses on slide film.
To the best of knowledge however, the affects of Zeiss and Leica...Show more →
**********************
Human psychology has not changed just because we changed from film to digital .... and all images, film or digital raw, are subject to the effects of post processing.
It would be fun to see how many folks "in the know" would miserably fail double blind tests...
Chuckling and moving on ...
Andre Labonte 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.The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
To the best of knowledge however, the affects of Zeiss and Leica...Show more →
**********************
Human psychology has not changed just because we changed from film to digital .... and all images, film or digital raw, are subject to the effects of post processing.
It would be fun to see how many folks "in the know" would miserably fail double blind tests...
Chuckling and moving on ...
Mar 03, 2016 at 08:56 AM
p.4 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
It's called "lens elitism" (a.k.a snobbery) that since you bought something that is hand crafted and expensive, it must be better and therefor you must prove it to justify your expensive purchase.
The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.Not necessarily elitism. The affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses were often talked about in viewing slides (transparencies) well before digital. Leica lenses somethng that I know much more about than Zeiss were often said to have a different look in slides. In fact when asked to ID images taken with Leica rather than Canon, Nikon, or another brand in blind tests, many photographers in the "know" could pick out the Leica images at an exceptionally high perentage rate. I expect the same for Zeiss lenses on slide film.
To the best of knowledge however, the affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses on digital media is not as easy to recognize due to the way that images are processed after they were taken.
Rich**********************
Human psychology has not changed just because we changed from film to digital .... and all images, film or digital raw, are subject to the effects of post processing.
It would be fun to see how many folks "in the know" would miserably fail double blind tests...
Chuckling and moving on ...
First of all, I said slides. These are as processed by the lab and as they were exposed on the transparency material. Some ot the photographers tested with slides had approxiamtely a 100% success rate at IDing the Leica images. There is no post processing here at all. So this is not psycological but these people could recognize specific aspects regarding the slides themselves. Digital processing and printing is a different question.
Rich
naturephoto1 wrote
Andre Labonte 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.The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
To the best of knowledge however, the affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses on digital media is not as easy to recognize due to the way that images are processed after they were taken.
Rich
Human psychology has not changed just because we changed from film to digital .... and all images, film or digital raw, are subject to the effects of post processing.
It would be fun to see how many folks "in the know" would miserably fail double blind tests...
Chuckling and moving on ...
First of all, I said slides. These are as processed by the lab and as they were exposed on the transparency material. Some ot the photographers tested with slides had approxiamtely a 100% success rate at IDing the Leica images. There is no post processing here at all. So this is not psycological but these people could recognize specific aspects regarding the slides themselves. Digital processing and printing is a different question.
Rich
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:05 AM
p.4 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
naturephoto1 wrote:
It's called "lens elitism" (a.k.a snobbery) that since you bought something that is hand crafted and expensive, it must be better and therefor you must prove it to justify your expensive purchase.
The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.Not necessarily elitism. The affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses were often talked about in viewing slides (transparencies) well before digital. Leica lenses somethng that I know much more about than Zeiss were often said to have a different look in slides. In fact when asked to ID images taken with Leica rather than Canon, Nikon, or another brand in blind tests, many photographers in the "know" could pick out the Leica images at an exceptionally high perentage rate. I expect the same for Zeiss lenses on slide film.
To the best of knowledge however, the affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses on digital media is not as easy to recognize due to the way that images are processed after they were taken.
Rich**********************
Human psychology has not changed just because we changed from film to digital .... and all images, film or digital raw, are subject to the effects of post processing.
It would be fun to see how many folks "in the know" would miserably fail double blind tests...
Chuckling and moving on ...First of all, I said slides. These are as processed by the lab and as they were exposed on the transparency material. Some ot the photographers tested with slides had approxiamtely a 100% success rate at IDing the Leica images. There is no post processing here at all. So this is not psycological but these people could recognize specific aspects regarding the slides themselves. Digital processing and printing is a different question.
Rich
There is always post processing in the very act of developing the slides.
Besides, I have see so many false internet claims and bad methodology it's amazing. In God we trust, all other bring data.
Andre Labonte wrote
naturephoto1 wrote
Andre Labonte 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.The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
To the best of knowledge however, the affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses on digital media is not as easy to recognize due to the way that images are processed after they were taken.
Rich
Human psychology has not changed just because we changed from film to digital .... and all images, film or digital raw, are subject to the effects of post processing.
It would be fun to see how many folks "in the know" would miserably fail double blind tests...
Chuckling and moving on ...
Rich
There is always post processing in the very act of developing the slides.
Besides, I have see so many false internet claims and bad methodology it's amazing. In God we trust, all other bring data.
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:11 AM
p.4 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
It's called "lens elitism" (a.k.a snobbery) that since you bought something that is hand crafted and expensive, it must be better and therefor you must prove it to justify your expensive purchase.
The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.Yep...and there are people that cannot tell the difference between wines or cuts of meat or fine cigars...does not mean there is no difference, just means certain people lack the finesse to see the difference.**********
When guys with the skill and experience of Steve Perry say there is nothing special with Zeiss and no real difference, I think I'm pretty safe.
Chuckling and moving on ...
Really don't care what Steve says, it's what I see.
Yeh...maybe you should just move on.
chez wrote
Andre Labonte 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.The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
When guys with the skill and experience of Steve Perry say there is nothing special with Zeiss and no real difference, I think I'm pretty safe.
Chuckling and moving on ...
Really don't care what Steve says, it's what I see.
Yeh...maybe you should just move on.
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:13 AM
p.4 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
ckcarr wrote:
Buying a Zeiss is probably the same as lusting after a certain brand of car or motorcycle your whole life, since you were a 15 year old gearhead. Then one day you finally can afford it so you buy one. And after you drive or ride it home you think "That's it?" with a puzzled, somewhat disappointed feeling in your brain.
Line ten photographers up along a cliff in Canyonlands and tell them all to take a picture with their gear. The best picture isn't going to be due to a Zeiss lens.
I've never owned one yet, but someday I will,...Show more →
Well said sir. Well said.
Buying a Zeiss is probably the same as lusting after a certain brand of car or motorcycle your whole life, since you were a 15 year old gearhead. Then one day you finally can afford it so you buy one. And after you drive or ride it home you think "That's it?" with a puzzled, somewhat disappointed feeling in your brain.
Line ten photographers up along a cliff in Canyonlands and tell them all to take a picture with their gear. The best picture isn't going to be due to a Zeiss lens.
I've never owned one yet, but someday I will,...Show more →
Well said sir. Well said.
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:13 AM
p.4 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
It's called "lens elitism" (a.k.a snobbery) that since you bought something that is hand crafted and expensive, it must be better and therefor you must prove it to justify your expensive purchase.
The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.Not necessarily elitism. The affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses were often talked about in viewing slides (transparencies) well before digital. Leica lenses somethng that I know much more about than Zeiss were often said to have a different look in slides. In fact when asked to ID images taken with Leica rather than Canon, Nikon, or another brand in blind tests, many photographers in the "know" could pick out the Leica images at an exceptionally high perentage rate. I expect the same for Zeiss lenses on slide film.
To the best of knowledge however, the affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses on digital media is not as easy to recognize due to the way that images are processed after they were taken.
Rich**********************
Human psychology has not changed just because we changed from film to digital .... and all images, film or digital raw, are subject to the effects of post processing.
It would be fun to see how many folks "in the know" would miserably fail double blind tests...
Chuckling and moving on ...First of all, I said slides. These are as processed by the lab and as they were exposed on the transparency material. Some ot the photographers tested with slides had approxiamtely a 100% success rate at IDing the Leica images. There is no post processing here at all. So this is not psycological but these people could recognize specific aspects regarding the slides themselves. Digital processing and printing is a different question.
RichThere is always post processing in the very act of developing the slides.
Besides, I have see so many false internet claims and bad methodology it's amazing. In God we trust, all other bring data.
As I recall one of these tests was reported by Modern Photography when they were still being published. So, this is a decade or decades before ithe internet and digital.
Rich
naturephoto1 wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
naturephoto1 wrote
Andre Labonte 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.The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
To the best of knowledge however, the affects of Zeiss and Leica lenses on digital media is not as easy to recognize due to the way that images are processed after they were taken.
Rich
Human psychology has not changed just because we changed from film to digital .... and all images, film or digital raw, are subject to the effects of post processing.
It would be fun to see how many folks "in the know" would miserably fail double blind tests...
Chuckling and moving on ...
Rich
Besides, I have see so many false internet claims and bad methodology it's amazing. In God we trust, all other bring data.
As I recall one of these tests was reported by Modern Photography when they were still being published. So, this is a decade or decades before ithe internet and digital.
Rich
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:13 AM
p.4 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
And I have NO idea what this thread is doing in the Nikon forum. It belongs in the Alternative Gear forum where all the experts in micro-contrast hang out...
Do you think they would be fans of this article?
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
And I have NO idea what this thread is doing in the Nikon forum. It belongs in the Alternative Gear forum where all the experts in micro-contrast hang out...
Do you think they would be fans of this article?
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/what-is-micro-contrast.html
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:25 AM
p.4 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
the mandler look also known as the "leica glow" is actually pretty well defined (unlike the "zeiss 3d look") – it's under corrected spherical aberration. it's a fairly obvious aberrations that shows up similarly in all of mandler's fast designs. mandler lenses typically need to be stopped down further to get rid of the glow than contemporary designs from other makers (usually around f/2.8 or smaller for the mandler summiluxes).That's a very interesting way to pin down, and maybe that is what people talk about. What I can say is my 50 cron, my 75 Lux and my Elmarit 28 v3 don't look much alike in real world shooting, at least to me.
Now, I would say the pre-asph Lux 50, the 135/2.8 and the 75 Lux and very possibly the f/1 50 do seem very similar.
He made v1-4 of the 35 crons, but the 8 element gives a pretty unique character in the group, no? And the "king of Bokeh" in there somewhere too, right? These are lenses so distinct you can often spot them. That's alot of difference for lenses with the same "look"
The most influential and iconic lens of all, the v4 50 cron, what other Mandler design does it remind me of? I can't think of even one.the 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 75/1.4, 90/2 and 50/1 all look very similar to me (and i've shot with all of them except the 75). i'd put these in the fast mandler lens group and i use the same processing for all of them. they all have a ton of SA of similar character that requires stopping down f/2.8 or f/4 to get rid of yet still manage high acutance at full aperture.
the first four 35 crons share a very similar look with minor differences (strong overcorrection of SA among other things), which is amazing considering the time span (though to be...Show more →
That's a pretty reasonable roundup, although I think your 35 Lux v1 does not so much remind me of the 75 Lux, but I may need to see more shots from it. I don't know the 90 crons really well, and only now I begin to realize what great draw they show with such nice bokeh. I was even looking at prices on the APO. One thing I learned about it is that it does not really explode into perfection untill 6 meters or so. Apparently all the 90 crons loose some punch close in--check me here. But maybe that's not a bad thing for portraits.
Anyway I think we generally agree, and you have to admit it's interesting Mandler's most famous lens doe not have the "Mandler look"
I also like your points about the 50 rigid and the 8 element. But I can't yet picture the commonalities with the 35 crons and the 50 cron v4.
uhoh7 wrote
sebboh wrote
i actually seem to generally prefer older flawed lenses to modern perfect lenses but this blog post is mostly nonsense to me.uhoh7 wrote
It's like "the Mandler Look" You have to really be grasping for commonalties, as humans often do, making stories out of unrelated things.Now, I would say the pre-asph Lux 50, the 135/2.8 and the 75 Lux and very possibly the f/1 50 do seem very similar.
He made v1-4 of the 35 crons, but the 8 element gives a pretty unique character in the group, no? And the "king of Bokeh" in there somewhere too, right? These are lenses so distinct you can often spot them. That's alot of difference for lenses with the same "look"
The most influential and iconic lens of all, the v4 50 cron, what other Mandler design does it remind me of? I can't think of even one.
the first four 35 crons share a very similar look with minor differences (strong overcorrection of SA among other things), which is amazing considering the time span (though to be...Show more →
That's a pretty reasonable roundup, although I think your 35 Lux v1 does not so much remind me of the 75 Lux, but I may need to see more shots from it. I don't know the 90 crons really well, and only now I begin to realize what great draw they show with such nice bokeh. I was even looking at prices on the APO. One thing I learned about it is that it does not really explode into perfection untill 6 meters or so. Apparently all the 90 crons loose some punch close in--check me here. But maybe that's not a bad thing for portraits.
Anyway I think we generally agree, and you have to admit it's interesting Mandler's most famous lens doe not have the "Mandler look"
I also like your points about the 50 rigid and the 8 element. But I can't yet picture the commonalities with the 35 crons and the 50 cron v4.
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:26 AM
p.4 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I see the conversation continues and in addition to "micro-contrast" we're now talking about "Leica glow" and "drawing style." This definitely reminds me of the years I spent tasting wines with folks who spent a great deal of money to drink the very best. How does one educate a palate... drinking wine, of course. But how does one find the words to describe what is slipping across the tongue? I still laugh when I read the descriptions of wine... "hint of blackberries..." Good luck with that one. Such observations and comments are so personal as to be meaningless, yet become the stuff careers are built upon.
I suggested five and a half years ago when a fellow who was posting on the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread bought a Zeiss 100 f/2 that he do a comparison with his Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI-s. He did a "blind tasting", first with those two lenses, then adding the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. Somehow the Zeiss experts had difficulty actually telling which photo was taken with which lens. It reminded me of course, of the "Judgment of Paris", a wine tasting between French and California wines held in 1976. We ALL know of the superiority of French wines...
Judgment of Paris
Here also is a link to the long ago archived thread with the lens comparisons... the second one with three lenses. Have a good laugh.
Useless Exercise, Part Deux
I suggested five and a half years ago when a fellow who was posting on the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread bought a Zeiss 100 f/2 that he do a comparison with his Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI-s. He did a "blind tasting", first with those two lenses, then adding the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. Somehow the Zeiss experts had difficulty actually telling which photo was taken with which lens. It reminded me of course, of the "Judgment of Paris", a wine tasting between French and California wines held in 1976. We ALL know of the superiority of French wines...
Judgment of Paris
Here also is a link to the long ago archived thread with the lens comparisons... the second one with three lenses. Have a good laugh.
Useless Exercise, Part Deux
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:54 AM
p.4 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
It's called "lens elitism" (a.k.a snobbery) that since you bought something that is hand crafted and expensive, it must be better and therefor you must prove it to justify your expensive purchase.
The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.Yep...and there are people that cannot tell the difference between wines or cuts of meat or fine cigars...does not mean there is no difference, just means certain people lack the finesse to see the difference.**********
When guys with the skill and experience of Steve Perry say there is nothing special with Zeiss and no real difference, I think I'm pretty safe.
Chuckling and moving on ...Really don't care what Steve says, it's what I see.
Yeh...maybe you should just move on.
FWIW I have picked out photos shot with Zeiss (and Leica on other occasions). This isn't to say I'm an expert or that I have some special power, nor does it say haven't seen Canon images I'd say were Zeiss (that's when I bought the 70-200 f/4 L), just that I have seen what others are saying can't be seen.
One example is from a random collection of photos on a display board at a store. That was the day I found out Sony was using Zeiss on digital cameras ~'03.
The conversation with the department Supervisor (the only camera knowledgeable one in the place) was something like this:
"This is a nice photo, who shot that?"
"I did"
"Oh, it was shot with a Zeiss lens, which cameras are using Zeiss?"
"Sony, that was with a F727..... Wait, how did you know that?"
"It looks like Zeiss"
What I was seeing, other than the sharp defined person front and center, was the transition to the oof background and the oof quality. FWIW it was shot inside in crappy lighting.
Andre Labonte wrote
chez wrote
Andre Labonte 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.The few times I have tried a Zeiss lens, I've not seen it, and based on the many reviews of spectacular photographers that I respect, they've not see it either.
I just chuckle and move on.
When guys with the skill and experience of Steve Perry say there is nothing special with Zeiss and no real difference, I think I'm pretty safe.
Chuckling and moving on ...
Yeh...maybe you should just move on.
FWIW I have picked out photos shot with Zeiss (and Leica on other occasions). This isn't to say I'm an expert or that I have some special power, nor does it say haven't seen Canon images I'd say were Zeiss (that's when I bought the 70-200 f/4 L), just that I have seen what others are saying can't be seen.
One example is from a random collection of photos on a display board at a store. That was the day I found out Sony was using Zeiss on digital cameras ~'03.
The conversation with the department Supervisor (the only camera knowledgeable one in the place) was something like this:
"This is a nice photo, who shot that?"
"I did"
"Oh, it was shot with a Zeiss lens, which cameras are using Zeiss?"
"Sony, that was with a F727..... Wait, how did you know that?"
"It looks like Zeiss"
What I was seeing, other than the sharp defined person front and center, was the transition to the oof background and the oof quality. FWIW it was shot inside in crappy lighting.
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:02 AM
p.4 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
I see the conversation continues and in addition to "micro-contrast" we're now talking about "Leica glow" and "drawing style." This definitely reminds me of the years I spent tasting wines with folks who spent a great deal of money to drink the very best. How does one educate a palate... drinking wine, of course. But how does one find the words to describe what is slipping across the tongue? I still laugh when I read the descriptions of wine... "hint of blackberries..." Good luck with that one. Such observations and comments are so personal as to be meaningless, yet become...Show more →
see movie "Bottle Shock"
I see the conversation continues and in addition to "micro-contrast" we're now talking about "Leica glow" and "drawing style." This definitely reminds me of the years I spent tasting wines with folks who spent a great deal of money to drink the very best. How does one educate a palate... drinking wine, of course. But how does one find the words to describe what is slipping across the tongue? I still laugh when I read the descriptions of wine... "hint of blackberries..." Good luck with that one. Such observations and comments are so personal as to be meaningless, yet become...Show more →
see movie "Bottle Shock"
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:07 AM
p.4 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
In the end, does any of this really matter? It doesn't always have to be an "either/or" type decision. I think it is good to own (or at least try) a variety of lens brands to satisfy your own personal needs and/or preferences. This stuff is all highly personal and we each have different needs. I really couldn't care less what gear certain professional photographers use or endorse. If it doesn't meet my personal needs, why buy it? IMO, Zeiss makes some incredible glass and the workmanship is very good. In certain focal lengths (and certain shooting conditions), the difference between Zeiss glass and other manufacturers is quite obvious. In other situations, there can be virtually no difference. An issue I have is that some people like to (attempt to) put down the individuals who do truly notice a difference. It is best to not get too hung up on a brand and just buy whatever lens meets your needs. Different strokes for different folks....
PS: Bottle Shock is a very funny movie... RIP Alan Rickman
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 10:18 AM · View previous versions
PS: Bottle Shock is a very funny movie... RIP Alan Rickman
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 10:18 AM · View previous versions
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:16 AM
p.4 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
I suggested five and a half years ago when a fellow who was posting on the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread bought a Zeiss 100 f/2 that he do a comparison with his Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI-s. He did a "blind tasting", first with those two lenses, then adding the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. Somehow the Zeiss experts had difficulty actually telling which photo was taken with which lens. It reminded me of course, of the "Judgment of Paris", a wine tasting between French and California wines held in 1976. We ALL know of the superiority of French wines...
Judgment of Paris
Here also is a link to the long ago archived thread with the lens comparisons... the second one with three lenses. Have a good laugh.
Useless Exercise, Part Deuxsee movie "Bottle Shock"
Haha. Beat me to it!
CGrindahl wrote
I see the conversation continues and in addition to "micro-contrast" we're now talking about "Leica glow" and "drawing style." This definitely reminds me of the years I spent tasting wines with folks who spent a great deal of money to drink the very best. How does one educate a palate... drinking wine, of course. But how does one find the words to describe what is slipping across the tongue? I still laugh when I read the descriptions of wine... "hint of blackberries..." Good luck with that one. Such observations and comments are so personal as to be meaningless, yet become the stuff careers are built upon.I suggested five and a half years ago when a fellow who was posting on the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread bought a Zeiss 100 f/2 that he do a comparison with his Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI-s. He did a "blind tasting", first with those two lenses, then adding the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. Somehow the Zeiss experts had difficulty actually telling which photo was taken with which lens. It reminded me of course, of the "Judgment of Paris", a wine tasting between French and California wines held in 1976. We ALL know of the superiority of French wines...
Judgment of Paris
Here also is a link to the long ago archived thread with the lens comparisons... the second one with three lenses. Have a good laugh.
Useless Exercise, Part Deux
Haha. Beat me to it!
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:17 AM
p.4 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
fun movie and that they found a Gremlin that still ran
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 12:01 PM · View previous versions
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 12:01 PM · View previous versions
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:24 AM
p.4 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
I just chuckle and move on.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Chuckling and moving on ...
Andre Labonte wrote:
Chuckling and moving on ...
You keep using those words; I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
I just chuckle and move on.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Chuckling and moving on ...
Andre Labonte wrote:
Chuckling and moving on ...
You keep using those words; I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:25 AM
p.4 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
WhyFi wrote:
You keep using those words; I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
That's INCONCEIVABLE!
Andre Labonte wrote
I just chuckle and move on.Andre Labonte wrote
Chuckling and moving on ...Andre Labonte wrote
Chuckling and moving on ...That's INCONCEIVABLE!
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:31 AM
p.4 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CMcG01 wrote:
You keep using those words; I do not think they mean what you think they mean.That's INCONCEIVABLE!
*********************
I love that movie!
WhyFi wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
I just chuckle and move on.Andre Labonte wrote
Chuckling and moving on ...Andre Labonte wrote
Chuckling and moving on ...*********************
I love that movie!Mar 03, 2016 at 10:38 AM
p.4 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
WhyFi wrote:
You keep using those words; I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
Andre Labonte wrote
I just chuckle and move on.Andre Labonte wrote
Chuckling and moving on ...Andre Labonte wrote
Chuckling and moving on ...“I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:38 AM
p.4 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
ckcarr wrote:
Line ten photographers up along a cliff in Canyonlands and tell them all to take a picture with their gear. The best picture isn't going to be due to a Zeiss lens.
What if we line up ten photographers to take a picture of a straw man?
Line ten photographers up along a cliff in Canyonlands and tell them all to take a picture with their gear. The best picture isn't going to be due to a Zeiss lens.
What if we line up ten photographers to take a picture of a straw man?
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:44 AM