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.8 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!
Why would the price of the Zeiss lenses...which I personally don't find being out of line compared to the Canon L glass, cause people to attack in these threads. That just sounds like jealousy or being envious. In fact, if people don't see the benefits of Zeiss glass, why do they need to attack at all...why not just accept Zeiss is not for them and be happy with their gear choices.
I just find the same crew come onto any thread about Zeiss and try to put down the glass and more disturbing somehow put down the people that shoot with...Show more →
Just a theory man, easy...
My thought was simply that if a Zeiss lens is more expensive than a comparable Nikon lens, then it should be noticeably better and I personally don't think that's the case. So, that's where my guess came from. For all I know people attacking these threads are mad because Carl Zeiss made jokes about their mother.
I personally don't care what anyone shoots, doesn't bother me one way or the other. Do what you like
Steve Perry wrote
As such, I don't drink the Zeiss Kool-Aid anymore. In fact, I think the reason people sometimes attack Zeiss glass when these threads come up is because of the premium Zeiss asks for their glass - whereas other 3rd party manufacturers are typically less than their Nikon counterparts. If the premium was actually worth it, I'd be on board, but I just don't see it.So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!
I just find the same crew come onto any thread about Zeiss and try to put down the glass and more disturbing somehow put down the people that shoot with...Show more →
Just a theory man, easy...
My thought was simply that if a Zeiss lens is more expensive than a comparable Nikon lens, then it should be noticeably better and I personally don't think that's the case. So, that's where my guess came from. For all I know people attacking these threads are mad because Carl Zeiss made jokes about their mother.
I personally don't care what anyone shoots, doesn't bother me one way or the other. Do what you like
Mar 04, 2016 at 09:30 AM
p.8 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Personally,
If I were 100% honest I'd say that these type threads, cross-posted into a Nikon and an Alt Gear forum are 99% of the time going to become inflammatory.
chez wrote:
So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!Why would the price of the Zeiss lenses...which I personally don't find being out of line compared to the Canon L glass, cause people to attack in these threads. That just sounds like jealousy or being envious. In fact, if people don't see the benefits of Zeiss glass, why do they need to attack at all...why not just accept Zeiss is not for them and be happy with their gear choices.
I just find the same crew come onto any thread about Zeiss and try to put down the glass and more disturbing somehow put down the people that shoot with...Show more →
If I were 100% honest I'd say that these type threads, cross-posted into a Nikon and an Alt Gear forum are 99% of the time going to become inflammatory.
chez wrote:
Steve Perry wrote
As such, I don't drink the Zeiss Kool-Aid anymore. In fact, I think the reason people sometimes attack Zeiss glass when these threads come up is because of the premium Zeiss asks for their glass - whereas other 3rd party manufacturers are typically less than their Nikon counterparts. If the premium was actually worth it, I'd be on board, but I just don't see it.So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!
I just find the same crew come onto any thread about Zeiss and try to put down the glass and more disturbing somehow put down the people that shoot with...Show more →
Mar 04, 2016 at 09:36 AM
p.8 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Steve Perry wrote:
Just a theory man, easy...
Indeed. :-)
ckcarr wrote:
... these type threads... are 99% of the time going to become inflammatory.
;-)
Just a theory man, easy...
Indeed. :-)
ckcarr wrote:
... these type threads... are 99% of the time going to become inflammatory.
;-)
Mar 04, 2016 at 09:41 AM
p.8 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!Why would the price of the Zeiss lenses...which I personally don't find being out of line compared to the Canon L glass, cause people to attack in these threads. That just sounds like jealousy or being envious. In fact, if people don't see the benefits of Zeiss glass, why do they need to attack at all...why not just accept Zeiss is not for them and be happy with their gear choices.
I just find the same crew come onto any thread about Zeiss and try to put down the glass and more disturbing somehow put down the people that shoot with...Show more →
****************************
I think the answer to your question is fairly straight forward:
What many here on the forum are objecting to are to are the often repeated claims:
1) Zeiss lenses have numinous quality to their rending that is superior to the rendering of all other lenses out there and thus are always worth the price premium.
2) It's "obvious" to anyone "in the know" which is Zeiss and which is not.
I often see these claims or something very close to them being made. Neither of these claims (or their various rewordings) are true.
As I said in my much longer post, each Zeiss offering must be evaluated against the available competition ... and it has been my experience, and that of far better photographers that I greatly respect, that while the Zeiss offering sometimes wins, in many cases, the competition equals or betters the Zeiss offering in optical performance ... and almost always in price.
Steve Perry wrote
As such, I don't drink the Zeiss Kool-Aid anymore. In fact, I think the reason people sometimes attack Zeiss glass when these threads come up is because of the premium Zeiss asks for their glass - whereas other 3rd party manufacturers are typically less than their Nikon counterparts. If the premium was actually worth it, I'd be on board, but I just don't see it.So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!
I just find the same crew come onto any thread about Zeiss and try to put down the glass and more disturbing somehow put down the people that shoot with...Show more →
****************************
I think the answer to your question is fairly straight forward:
What many here on the forum are objecting to are to are the often repeated claims:
1) Zeiss lenses have numinous quality to their rending that is superior to the rendering of all other lenses out there and thus are always worth the price premium.
2) It's "obvious" to anyone "in the know" which is Zeiss and which is not.
I often see these claims or something very close to them being made. Neither of these claims (or their various rewordings) are true.
As I said in my much longer post, each Zeiss offering must be evaluated against the available competition ... and it has been my experience, and that of far better photographers that I greatly respect, that while the Zeiss offering sometimes wins, in many cases, the competition equals or betters the Zeiss offering in optical performance ... and almost always in price.
Mar 04, 2016 at 09:43 AM
p.8 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
If anyone is truly interested in what may be special about these lenses you should hop next door to the Alt forum...
This thread seems to already be in the alt forum, since that is how I'm accessing it. And, yes, the alt forum is a very interesting and diverse place!
Dan
Sure about that?
If anyone is truly interested in what may be special about these lenses you should hop next door to the Alt forum...
This thread seems to already be in the alt forum, since that is how I'm accessing it. And, yes, the alt forum is a very interesting and diverse place!
Dan
Sure about that?
Mar 04, 2016 at 09:45 AM
p.8 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
Why would the price of the Zeiss lenses...which I personally don't find being out of line compared to the Canon L glass, cause people to attack in these threads.
That's what I've been wondering... People are acting like you can't get a Zeiss lens for under $2000. In fact, looking through KEH @ 85 1.4s, you can get a Contax 85 1.4 for less than a Nikon, Canon, Sigma, or Minolta 85 1.4. Leitax it and its still less than the AIs Nikkor and higher grade rating.....
At that point, if you prefer the Nikkor, cool. I'd take my Leitax'd Contax again.
Why would the price of the Zeiss lenses...which I personally don't find being out of line compared to the Canon L glass, cause people to attack in these threads.
That's what I've been wondering... People are acting like you can't get a Zeiss lens for under $2000. In fact, looking through KEH @ 85 1.4s, you can get a Contax 85 1.4 for less than a Nikon, Canon, Sigma, or Minolta 85 1.4. Leitax it and its still less than the AIs Nikkor and higher grade rating.....
At that point, if you prefer the Nikkor, cool. I'd take my Leitax'd Contax again.
Mar 04, 2016 at 09:46 AM
p.8 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sandycrane wrote:
This thread seems to already be in the alt forum, since that is how I'm accessing it. And, yes, the alt forum is a very interesting and diverse place!
Dan
Sure about that?
That's where I keep finding it.
gdanmitchell wrote
If anyone is truly interested in what may be special about these lenses you should hop next door to the Alt forum...Dan
Sure about that?
That's where I keep finding it.
Mar 04, 2016 at 09:46 AM
p.8 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CMcG01 wrote:
This thread seems to already be in the alt forum, since that is how I'm accessing it. And, yes, the alt forum is a very interesting and diverse place!
DanSure about that?
That's where I keep finding it.
"This thread" is in the Nikon Forum also. Check it out.
sandycrane wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
If anyone is truly interested in what may be special about these lenses you should hop next door to the Alt forum...Dan
That's where I keep finding it.
"This thread" is in the Nikon Forum also. Check it out.
Mar 04, 2016 at 09:58 AM
p.8 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
A red herring or straw man argument because the sound produced by a violin is dependent upon both the violinist and the violin and its tuning.
The rendering of a lens is its rendering and is independent of the skill of the user. Anyone who has sufficient knowledge and experience in photography and at looking at corresponding images can tell a great deal from just looking at a large volume of sample images from a particular lens. The repeated argument that one must have experience with a particular lens to appreciate its optical qualities is fallacious at best. Now, with...Show more →
Chuckling and moving on?
A red herring or straw man argument because the sound produced by a violin is dependent upon both the violinist and the violin and its tuning.
The rendering of a lens is its rendering and is independent of the skill of the user. Anyone who has sufficient knowledge and experience in photography and at looking at corresponding images can tell a great deal from just looking at a large volume of sample images from a particular lens. The repeated argument that one must have experience with a particular lens to appreciate its optical qualities is fallacious at best. Now, with...Show more →
Chuckling and moving on?
Mar 04, 2016 at 10:05 AM
p.8 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
ckcarr wrote:
Personally,
If I were 100% honest I'd say that these type threads, cross-posted into a Nikon and an Alt Gear forum are 99% of the time going to become inflammatory.
chez wrote
Steve Perry wrote
As such, I don't drink the Zeiss Kool-Aid anymore. In fact, I think the reason people sometimes attack Zeiss glass when these threads come up is because of the premium Zeiss asks for their glass - whereas other 3rd party manufacturers are typically less than their Nikon counterparts. If the premium was actually worth it, I'd be on board, but I just don't see it.So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!
I just find the same crew come onto any thread about Zeiss and try to put down the glass and more disturbing somehow put down the people that shoot with Zeiss glass. Makes me wonder what drives these type of people.
Well. We are all adults. If one can keep cool head, and keep it as sharing experiences and opinion and discussing it, it can be an interesting thread. It is all on the will power.
Mar 04, 2016 at 10:08 AM
p.8 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Steve Perry wrote:
akul wrote
Steve Perry 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.If there isn't much difference, what was your decision point? I suspect price differences wasn't that big. Some Zeiss are more contrasty than new Nikon lenses (the regular three zooms) I own. In PP contrasty file can get in the way depending on the goal. I am just curious what your experience was.
Luka
I had a Zeiss 18, 21, 25, 28, and 35. I also used Nikon lenses that were either the same or included in the range of my zoom lenses.
IMO I actually liked the way the Nikon glass rendered better. I went for the Zeiss glass initially because I thought the glass was another step up from the Nikon glass and that that I'd see an improvement in my images. However, the truth is when I really looked at it subjectively, the choices I made in subject and light made a FAR greater difference than the lenses...Show more →
Steve
Thank you for sharing your view. I personally like the difference of each and what they deliver, so they are all good. I see what you mean by Nikon being a bit more on the neutral side. if what Zeiss add ( this is on the older Zeiss line) is opposite of what you would like, then you end up fighting all the time.
Luka
Mar 04, 2016 at 10:22 AM
p.8 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sandycrane wrote:
This thread seems to already be in the alt forum, since that is how I'm accessing it. And, yes, the alt forum is a very interesting and diverse place!
DanSure about that?That's where I keep finding it.
"This thread" is in the Nikon Forum also. Check it out.
No problem, it can be both
Or were you questioning "the alt forum is a very interesting and diverse place"?
FWIW that is a true statement, too, and i can use my Zeiss and Nikkor on my Canon and Fuji here at the Alt Forum
CMcG01 wrote
sandycrane wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
If anyone is truly interested in what may be special about these lenses you should hop next door to the Alt forum...Dan
"This thread" is in the Nikon Forum also. Check it out.
No problem, it can be both
Or were you questioning "the alt forum is a very interesting and diverse place"?
FWIW that is a true statement, too, and i can use my Zeiss and Nikkor on my Canon and Fuji here at the Alt Forum
Mar 04, 2016 at 10:22 AM
p.8 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I like a lot of different types of lenses, including adapted lenses.
It seems to me to make a truly strong personal judgement regarding Zeiss (or any other non-OEM) vs. an OEM brand or model, one needs to do direct A-B comparisons. Using the same camera is best when possible, but definitely shots need to be taken at the same time from the camera location and angle.
If find few people, including most posters on this thread, willing to undergo a rigorous or lengthy comparison process at all aperture settings and multiple distances and locations. Without doing so, we really are more prone to brand loyalty and confirmation bias.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, when it comes to features, that is another matter, and may only require reading of specifications to determine if the lens "qualifies" for ownership. Such things as AF, IS/VR, weather sealing, and even price can be the must-have features that would disqualify Zeiss or other non-OEM models, or vice-versa.
But for imaging qualities, only a direct one-on-one analysis will satisfy one's curiosity.
It seems to me to make a truly strong personal judgement regarding Zeiss (or any other non-OEM) vs. an OEM brand or model, one needs to do direct A-B comparisons. Using the same camera is best when possible, but definitely shots need to be taken at the same time from the camera location and angle.
If find few people, including most posters on this thread, willing to undergo a rigorous or lengthy comparison process at all aperture settings and multiple distances and locations. Without doing so, we really are more prone to brand loyalty and confirmation bias.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, when it comes to features, that is another matter, and may only require reading of specifications to determine if the lens "qualifies" for ownership. Such things as AF, IS/VR, weather sealing, and even price can be the must-have features that would disqualify Zeiss or other non-OEM models, or vice-versa.
But for imaging qualities, only a direct one-on-one analysis will satisfy one's curiosity.
Mar 04, 2016 at 10:29 AM
p.8 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Since this thread is about Zeiss lenses, I think a few pics taken with Zeiss lenses is in order.
harry
harry
© Fleeting Light Photos
© Fleeting Light Photos
© Fleeting Light Photos
© Fleeting Light Photos
© Fleeting Light Photos
Mar 04, 2016 at 10:57 AM
p.8 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sandycrane wrote:
"This thread" is in the Nikon Forum also. Check it out.
A lot of these threads are "cross-listed" — they show up in more than one forum.
You can identify cross-listed threads by looking for a second little "dot" to the immediate left of the thread title on the main forum page. Click it to see which other threads it is also attached to.
I see quite a few of these in the Sony forum, too — which makes sense given that lots of Sony photographers are adapting lenses from other manufacturers. I'm not sure why this one is also in a Nikon forum, though I wouldn't be surprised if it started there and then was added here by moderators.
Dan
"This thread" is in the Nikon Forum also. Check it out.
A lot of these threads are "cross-listed" — they show up in more than one forum.
You can identify cross-listed threads by looking for a second little "dot" to the immediate left of the thread title on the main forum page. Click it to see which other threads it is also attached to.
I see quite a few of these in the Sony forum, too — which makes sense given that lots of Sony photographers are adapting lenses from other manufacturers. I'm not sure why this one is also in a Nikon forum, though I wouldn't be surprised if it started there and then was added here by moderators.
Dan
Mar 04, 2016 at 11:12 AM
p.8 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
Since this thread is about Zeiss lenses, I think a few pics taken with Zeiss lenses is in order.
harry
Beautiful work ... it appears your Zeiss lenses are working well for you, but I suspect it's more about your talents as a photographer than it is about the fact that you use Zeiss lenses. I have seen equally beautiful work with Nikon and Canon lenses.
Either way does not matter to me ... thanks for sharing your work.
Since this thread is about Zeiss lenses, I think a few pics taken with Zeiss lenses is in order.
harry
Beautiful work ... it appears your Zeiss lenses are working well for you, but I suspect it's more about your talents as a photographer than it is about the fact that you use Zeiss lenses. I have seen equally beautiful work with Nikon and Canon lenses.
Either way does not matter to me ... thanks for sharing your work.
Mar 04, 2016 at 11:16 AM
p.8 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I posted earlier in this thread, but I felt compelled to do so again because I actually just bought the Zeiss 100mm f2 makro planar lens.
I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.
I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more often than not whenever I went out on a walk or a hike. I looked forward to using it.
Despite that, I sold it and my 35mm Nikon prime in favor of a zoom that would cover roughly the same range, but what was gained in convenience was lost in the emotional attachment I had to the photographing process (if that makes sense). Were my images somehow worse with the zoom? Not in any meaningful way (pixel peeping excluded). I just enjoyed myself less while shooting. I now went back to my 35mm & 100mm set up and am really looking forward to shooting again.
I guess my point is that there is an emotional undercurrent to photography that quietly influences our decisions and tendencies but that perhaps gets overshadowed by more pragmatic and rational concerns. In attributing a particular technical advantage to Zeiss lenses, some photographers may simply be trying to rationalize something that really cannot be rationalized.
Mar 04, 2016 at 11:40 AM
p.8 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
You are, as is anyone, of course free to make any choice you want. On a personal level you can choose to use coke bottles for lenses if you want — and I'll bet someone has made interesting photographs with them! ;-)
However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the...Show more →
HI, Dan,
I generally agree most your opinions about relationship between gear and photography over different posts. But feel disappointed with your latest respond regarding this matter and you seems can’t keep yourself neutral regarding this topic.
First, if you are really not care about Gear itself, you shouldn’t be even in Gear forum. The reason we are here are because we are interested in discussing about gears. I agree mostly if not 100% that photo quality should be isolated with gear quality after certain threshold level but this has nothing to do with why people want own certain lens over others or this doesn’t mean there is no difference between lenses or manufacture.
It is not your coke bottle terminology can cover the case of why I chose the Zeiss or Leica. I have already given good reasons for it: Manual, Build quality (to me), WO rendering (Leica R, OTUS), Ultimate performance (OTUS and 135APO). I am offer my opinion because I want list one case to illustrate why people choose Zeiss or Leica. This has nothing to do with ” In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered. “ You seems set yourself in confirmation bias loop here.
I want hear what claim you try to make?
All these stem from some people challenge the choices others made. So I want make it clear why I choose the lens I want. What is your disagreement?
Even 5 years ago, there were very good reasons for people choose Zeiss over Canikon. I like Andre’s approach break down the line to individual focal length to make point clear. If you following Zeiss thread, you will realize 80% of users having 21mm&100mm which are strongest two Zeiss lenses compare to any brand over long period. (now OTUS will be a good reason to buy Zeiss as well if you are after what is specialized for, no Canikon offer that.) Before 16-35 and 11-24, there is no WA canon can compete with it. Nikon users are lucky to have 14-24(myself include) so a lot less Nikon user for that lens.
Those few strong performers along as one of few manual only modern lenses gain Zeiss great reputation offering superb manual glass with beautiful rendering and sharpness cross frame. After getting those two, people will get Zeiss fever and start building their Zeiss collection(myself included) adding other strong performers like 35distagon, 50MP, 25 and latestly 15 and 135.
So, whenever I see people proud saying their Zeiss glass great I feel very naturally accept that even nowdays the only Zeiss I have are 55&135, what is wrong is it?
zhangyue wrote
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively...However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the...Show more →
HI, Dan,
I generally agree most your opinions about relationship between gear and photography over different posts. But feel disappointed with your latest respond regarding this matter and you seems can’t keep yourself neutral regarding this topic.
First, if you are really not care about Gear itself, you shouldn’t be even in Gear forum. The reason we are here are because we are interested in discussing about gears. I agree mostly if not 100% that photo quality should be isolated with gear quality after certain threshold level but this has nothing to do with why people want own certain lens over others or this doesn’t mean there is no difference between lenses or manufacture.
It is not your coke bottle terminology can cover the case of why I chose the Zeiss or Leica. I have already given good reasons for it: Manual, Build quality (to me), WO rendering (Leica R, OTUS), Ultimate performance (OTUS and 135APO). I am offer my opinion because I want list one case to illustrate why people choose Zeiss or Leica. This has nothing to do with ” In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered. “ You seems set yourself in confirmation bias loop here.
I want hear what claim you try to make?
All these stem from some people challenge the choices others made. So I want make it clear why I choose the lens I want. What is your disagreement?
Even 5 years ago, there were very good reasons for people choose Zeiss over Canikon. I like Andre’s approach break down the line to individual focal length to make point clear. If you following Zeiss thread, you will realize 80% of users having 21mm&100mm which are strongest two Zeiss lenses compare to any brand over long period. (now OTUS will be a good reason to buy Zeiss as well if you are after what is specialized for, no Canikon offer that.) Before 16-35 and 11-24, there is no WA canon can compete with it. Nikon users are lucky to have 14-24(myself include) so a lot less Nikon user for that lens.
Those few strong performers along as one of few manual only modern lenses gain Zeiss great reputation offering superb manual glass with beautiful rendering and sharpness cross frame. After getting those two, people will get Zeiss fever and start building their Zeiss collection(myself included) adding other strong performers like 35distagon, 50MP, 25 and latestly 15 and 135.
So, whenever I see people proud saying their Zeiss glass great I feel very naturally accept that even nowdays the only Zeiss I have are 55&135, what is wrong is it?
Mar 04, 2016 at 11:46 AM
p.8 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
GoranPhoto wrote:
I posted earlier in this thread, but I felt compelled to do so again because I actually just bought the Zeiss 100mm f2 makro planar lens.
I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more...Show more →
What you just described is totally logical in my book. The experience of shooting with the lens because it "fits" you and your style of shooting during use is a personal experience but a very real one. Your claim is something personal and not at all anything like the fallacious claims make about the "Zeiss Look".
I posted earlier in this thread, but I felt compelled to do so again because I actually just bought the Zeiss 100mm f2 makro planar lens.
I owned this lens for several years; sold it a year or so ago; and now I got it again because I actually missed it quite a bit. I didn't miss the "look" as I still have no idea what the Zeiss look is. I missed the feeling I got shooting landscapes with it. Even though this lens is large, heavy, and manual focus only, it ended up being attached to my camera more...Show more →
What you just described is totally logical in my book. The experience of shooting with the lens because it "fits" you and your style of shooting during use is a personal experience but a very real one. Your claim is something personal and not at all anything like the fallacious claims make about the "Zeiss Look".
Mar 04, 2016 at 11:50 AM
p.8 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
You are, as is anyone, of course free to make any choice you want. On a personal level you can choose to use coke bottles for lenses if you want — and I'll bet someone has made interesting photographs with them! ;-)
However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
DanHI, Dan,
I generally agree most your opinions about relationship between gear and photography over different posts. But feel disappointed with your latest respond regarding this matter and you seems can’t keep yourself neutral regarding this topic.
First, if you are really not care about Gear itself, you shouldn’t be even in Gear forum. The reason we are here are because we are interested in discussing about gears. I agree mostly if not 100% that photo quality should be isolated with gear quality after certain threshold level but this has nothing to do with why people want own certain lens...Show more →
hmmmm ... lots of straw man arguments here ... or at the very least taking Dan out of context ... just saying.
e.g. Not caring what someone used to make a beautiful image is not the same as not caring about gear at all. We all have to care about gear to some degree, but it's a question of when and how.
gdanmitchell wrote
zhangyue wrote
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively...However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
Dan
I generally agree most your opinions about relationship between gear and photography over different posts. But feel disappointed with your latest respond regarding this matter and you seems can’t keep yourself neutral regarding this topic.
First, if you are really not care about Gear itself, you shouldn’t be even in Gear forum. The reason we are here are because we are interested in discussing about gears. I agree mostly if not 100% that photo quality should be isolated with gear quality after certain threshold level but this has nothing to do with why people want own certain lens...Show more →
hmmmm ... lots of straw man arguments here ... or at the very least taking Dan out of context ... just saying.
e.g. Not caring what someone used to make a beautiful image is not the same as not caring about gear at all. We all have to care about gear to some degree, but it's a question of when and how.
Mar 04, 2016 at 11:51 AM