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.31 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Jannik Peters wrote:
It's probably both, but the lighting makes the biggest difference in my opinion. Nevertheless, most Zeiss lenses have a 'in your face' rendering with lots of microcontrast and color. The Loxia lenses carry that signature in a very intense way. I reviewed the Samyang 2/135 after the Loxia 2.8/21 and although the Samyang performed extraordinary in all measurable categories, I missed the vibrancy of the Zeiss images. One of my favorite lenses for it's rendering is the Vario-Sonnar 3.4/35-70. High sharpness, contrast and clarity + great colors and also lovely bokeh, a great lens.
I personally love that for...Show more →
yeah, it's certainly more to do with the light than anything else, but the differences are there and i will choose my zeiss lenses for certain types of shots and my rokkor and leica lenses for others though most are quite capable for any application. the contax g 45/2 and 90 cron pre-asph are very different in intended purpose too. comparing the contax g 90/2.8 to the leica elmarit 90/2.8 would show only miniscule differences (many of which would disappear with white balance normalization).
here is a real comparison between a boat load of different normals i have lying around that shows how small rendering differences really are at small aperture. all shots are taken at f/8 within a few minutes of each other with the same exposure and processing (except white balance which was matched instead of using the same settings). lenses are in order of sharpest corner to weakest corner and i framed so that all corners are on the same location rather than the centers, since the biggest differences will be in the corners. sadly it's only a little applicable to this thread since there are no modern aspherical lenses included and not even any nikkors.
here is the scene:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8815/16976724048_d778624301_o.jpg
edit: sweet! it looks like i finally managed to kill the thread.
sebboh wrote
obviously both shots are stitches and the light is very different, but one can still see the difference in rendering between a classic mandler design and a classic zeiss planar... or maybe it's just the huge difference in lighting...I personally love that for...Show more →
yeah, it's certainly more to do with the light than anything else, but the differences are there and i will choose my zeiss lenses for certain types of shots and my rokkor and leica lenses for others though most are quite capable for any application. the contax g 45/2 and 90 cron pre-asph are very different in intended purpose too. comparing the contax g 90/2.8 to the leica elmarit 90/2.8 would show only miniscule differences (many of which would disappear with white balance normalization).
here is a real comparison between a boat load of different normals i have lying around that shows how small rendering differences really are at small aperture. all shots are taken at f/8 within a few minutes of each other with the same exposure and processing (except white balance which was matched instead of using the same settings). lenses are in order of sharpest corner to weakest corner and i framed so that all corners are on the same location rather than the centers, since the biggest differences will be in the corners. sadly it's only a little applicable to this thread since there are no modern aspherical lenses included and not even any nikkors.
here is the scene:
http://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8815/16976724048_d778624301_o.jpg
edit: sweet! it looks like i finally managed to kill the thread.
Mar 14, 2016 at 10:09 AM