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.10 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I have to agree with a number of Dan’s general comments about confirmation bias, though I’m not sure bringing it up in a forum like this one provides any truly tangible benefit. Too much talk of mystery and magic, with too little substantive support, coupled with a flair for the academic, can lead to a need for something like Prilosec.
Remember, beauty is often in the eye of the beholder, the Emperor's Clothes be damned.
If one were to attempt to identify a single problematic aspect of human reasoning that deserves attention above all others, the confirmation bias would have to be among the candidates for consideration. Many have written about this bias, and it appears to be sufficiently strong and pervasive that one is led to wonder whether the bias, by itself, might account for a significant fraction of the disputes, altercations, and misunderstandings that occur among individuals, groups, and nations.
Nickerson, Raymond S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 2, 175-220.
Remember, beauty is often in the eye of the beholder, the Emperor's Clothes be damned.
If one were to attempt to identify a single problematic aspect of human reasoning that deserves attention above all others, the confirmation bias would have to be among the candidates for consideration. Many have written about this bias, and it appears to be sufficiently strong and pervasive that one is led to wonder whether the bias, by itself, might account for a significant fraction of the disputes, altercations, and misunderstandings that occur among individuals, groups, and nations.
Nickerson, Raymond S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 2, 175-220.
Mar 04, 2016 at 02:24 PM
p.10 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me when I browse my photo collection. 90% I am right which lens I used without look the EXIF.(I shoot 90% WO)
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.*****************************
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.I said consistently meaning 100%, is that unreasonable?
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpgshooting starscapes at f/1.4 it's always easy to tell the otus from any oem lens. i haven't seen how the sigma art performs though, would it be as easy to tell the two apart?Haha, I know but shooting portrait is even easier to tell with back ground kick in OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO.
Sigma ART does not have the same level of performance (for astro at least) as the OTUS.
sebboh wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
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 won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO. Sigma ART does not have the same level of performance (for astro at least) as the OTUS.
Mar 04, 2016 at 02:31 PM
p.10 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
Enough of this "children's story" dribble. Who's interested in the Loxia 21mm when it finally is available. I'm definitely going to rent one to see how it stacks up against the Distagon 21mm...to see if I get more 3D POP.
Harry - Zeiss has got such wicked 3D effect, eh? I'd even go as far to say they are simply magical!
Enough of this "children's story" dribble. Who's interested in the Loxia 21mm when it finally is available. I'm definitely going to rent one to see how it stacks up against the Distagon 21mm...to see if I get more 3D POP.
Harry - Zeiss has got such wicked 3D effect, eh? I'd even go as far to say they are simply magical!
Mar 04, 2016 at 02:34 PM
p.10 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
adamdewilde wrote:
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.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".Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me when I browse my photo collection. 90% I am right which lens I used without look the EXIF.(I shoot 90% WO)
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.*****************************
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.I can pass any test. But the test has to be on my terms.
The issue with these blind tests are that for the most part, lenses are more similar then they are different. The differences only become apparent in a varying degree of situations. Lighting, distance to subject - to background. Etc etc. BUT it's the differences that make a lens worth it for me. No matter how high or low the cost is (as in, I don't care if the lens is cheap as long as it's good). Also lenses change a slight bit based on the...Show more →
***********************
It would actually be a load of fun to do just what you suggest.
Too bad I don't have the $$ to buy all the lenses. 
I do agree that there may certainly be situations where two lenses are impossible to tell apart and other situations where they are easier to tell apart. I suspect wide open is where the character of one lens over another really shows itself. That individual lens offerings have character is without a doubt to me. I just disagree with the generalizations made with regards to Zeiss. It's a case by case situation.
Andre Labonte wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
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 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 won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
The issue with these blind tests are that for the most part, lenses are more similar then they are different. The differences only become apparent in a varying degree of situations. Lighting, distance to subject - to background. Etc etc. BUT it's the differences that make a lens worth it for me. No matter how high or low the cost is (as in, I don't care if the lens is cheap as long as it's good). Also lenses change a slight bit based on the...Show more →
***********************
It would actually be a load of fun to do just what you suggest.
Too bad I don't have the $$ to buy all the lenses. I do agree that there may certainly be situations where two lenses are impossible to tell apart and other situations where they are easier to tell apart. I suspect wide open is where the character of one lens over another really shows itself. That individual lens offerings have character is without a doubt to me. I just disagree with the generalizations made with regards to Zeiss. It's a case by case situation.
Mar 04, 2016 at 02:46 PM
p.10 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Gary Clennan wrote:
chez wrote
Enough of this "children's story" dribble. Who's interested in the Loxia 21mm when it finally is available. I'm definitely going to rent one to see how it stacks up against the Distagon 21mm...to see if I get more 3D POP. Come on Gary...you are just justifying shelling out $4,500 for your Zeiss lens. Coke bottle glass would have been just fine for your photos.
Mar 04, 2016 at 02:55 PM
p.10 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Gotta justify it somehow! Never mind Zeiss, my Leica glass has uber-magical qualities!!! I paid extra for it though....
Never mind Zeiss, my Leica glass has uber-magical qualities!!! I paid extra for it though.... Mar 04, 2016 at 02:58 PM
p.10 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
to be fair though, there isn't much difference in price between AIS lenses and zeiss lenses of the same vintage (canon FD, olympus OM, or rokkor lenses on the other hand...) or new zeiss lenses vs similarly specced canikon lenses.
with regards to people seeing a difference, here is a single blind test done in the alt forum a while ago between canon and zeiss: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404
most people could see a difference even at small size.
Unless people have quibbles with the methodology used for that A->B that comparison the thread could've probably ended there. The fact that others could reliably pick out the Zeiss images without relying on any particular tell-tale design-specific aberrations even at small reproduction sizes tells me the entire confirmation bias argument is null and void. I suppose what remains of the discussion is whether the differences have a material impact on the pleasing look of the image (subjective), the differences are worth the cost (subjective) and whether those differences can be reliably approximated by other means such as lighting and PP (objective). Speaking from my own experience I'm definitely a fan of all the Zeiss lenses I own.
Joseph. wrote
I think I now know exactly what the "Zeiss look" is all about. I decided to create a tightly controlled test scene to settle this once and for all. I shot one of these with a Nikkor AIS, the other with a Zeiss. Needless to say, I was shocked to see the difference in micro-contrastto be fair though, there isn't much difference in price between AIS lenses and zeiss lenses of the same vintage (canon FD, olympus OM, or rokkor lenses on the other hand...) or new zeiss lenses vs similarly specced canikon lenses.
with regards to people seeing a difference, here is a single blind test done in the alt forum a while ago between canon and zeiss: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404
most people could see a difference even at small size.
Unless people have quibbles with the methodology used for that A->B that comparison the thread could've probably ended there. The fact that others could reliably pick out the Zeiss images without relying on any particular tell-tale design-specific aberrations even at small reproduction sizes tells me the entire confirmation bias argument is null and void. I suppose what remains of the discussion is whether the differences have a material impact on the pleasing look of the image (subjective), the differences are worth the cost (subjective) and whether those differences can be reliably approximated by other means such as lighting and PP (objective). Speaking from my own experience I'm definitely a fan of all the Zeiss lenses I own.
Mar 04, 2016 at 03:00 PM
p.10 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I was one of those people that passed the Zeiss vs Canon test 100% that Denoir posted a few years back, first here, then on POTN. And I am still not convinced. To me, a stable platform is the biggest boot to image quality, much more than any particular lens optical formulation. Shoot handheld all the time ( and no, image stabilization is not a perfect substitute for a stable, vibration free tripod and camera combination) and you introduce all sorts of subtle image degradation effects, to any lens you may choose.
Trust me, I was a firm believer in Leica over anything else (I shot Leica film cameras and lenses from 1981 until 2008, when my last Leica M3 double stroke body died), and now it seems to me the era of digital image capture and digital image manipulation has obviated most of these differences. I will not waste my effort agonizing over placebo effects, and such agonizing always seems to get in the way of vision, light observation , light modification, and moment timing. Random "bokeh" snapshots of mundane objects are just that, snapshots, that have no compelling value for an observer in say, 50-100 years. I say. get on with the business of producing quality photographs that have some visual value, and stop all the hand wringing and beating of brows.
Traditionally, when I reply late to a thread, the thread dies. And now since I have made my contribution, this thread will now die the death it needs.
Trust me, I was a firm believer in Leica over anything else (I shot Leica film cameras and lenses from 1981 until 2008, when my last Leica M3 double stroke body died), and now it seems to me the era of digital image capture and digital image manipulation has obviated most of these differences. I will not waste my effort agonizing over placebo effects, and such agonizing always seems to get in the way of vision, light observation , light modification, and moment timing. Random "bokeh" snapshots of mundane objects are just that, snapshots, that have no compelling value for an observer in say, 50-100 years. I say. get on with the business of producing quality photographs that have some visual value, and stop all the hand wringing and beating of brows.
Traditionally, when I reply late to a thread, the thread dies. And now since I have made my contribution, this thread will now die the death it needs.
Mar 04, 2016 at 03:07 PM
p.10 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I have most (not the 25/2) of the "last-generation Zeiss lenses for Nikon, the zf.2s, the 35 and 50 in Sigma, and the 24/58/85/105 in Nikon. Shoot with a D810 and a DF.
Looking at other people's photos and trying to determine what brand lens was used is somewhat ridiculous. Much better to look at your own photos and see if you perceive something with the lens you have selected. You were there. You took the shot. Plus, you are looking at (hopefully) dozens of images before, during and after processing.
For me, it is easy to tell the difference in these lenses. To my eye, the Zeiss have that fine grain micro contrast, and cool colors. The Nikons have rich colors and warmth; the 58 1.4 is a great example of this. The Sigmas are kind of in the middle to me. Tremendous resolution, but not as grainy or tight. Cooler colors than Nikon, but not what I would call cold. Kind of boring, actually - the last lenses I would pick up for a set, but the first I choose to go on their own.
I mostly carry the Zeiss 35/1.4, Nikon 58/1.4, and Zeiss 85/1.4, swapping them out at either end for the 21/2.8 and the 135/2 Zeiss. Don't seem to ever use the Nikon 24 or 85 1.4s.
Looking at other people's photos and trying to determine what brand lens was used is somewhat ridiculous. Much better to look at your own photos and see if you perceive something with the lens you have selected. You were there. You took the shot. Plus, you are looking at (hopefully) dozens of images before, during and after processing.
For me, it is easy to tell the difference in these lenses. To my eye, the Zeiss have that fine grain micro contrast, and cool colors. The Nikons have rich colors and warmth; the 58 1.4 is a great example of this. The Sigmas are kind of in the middle to me. Tremendous resolution, but not as grainy or tight. Cooler colors than Nikon, but not what I would call cold. Kind of boring, actually - the last lenses I would pick up for a set, but the first I choose to go on their own.
I mostly carry the Zeiss 35/1.4, Nikon 58/1.4, and Zeiss 85/1.4, swapping them out at either end for the 21/2.8 and the 135/2 Zeiss. Don't seem to ever use the Nikon 24 or 85 1.4s.
Mar 04, 2016 at 03:32 PM
p.10 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Compare the mtfs,entrance & exit pupils of the loxia to the distagon ... that can give a clue at more, less or same to expect from the loxia regarding the 3d-ishness.
Shoot to confirm.
Shoot to confirm.
Mar 04, 2016 at 03:49 PM
p.10 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.*****************************
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.I said consistently meaning 100%, is that unreasonable?
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpgshooting starscapes at f/1.4 it's always easy to tell the otus from any oem lens. i haven't seen how the sigma art performs though, would it be as easy to tell the two apart?Haha, I know but shooting portrait is even easier to tell with back ground kick in OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO.certainly easy to tell with wide open portraits the otus versus traditional double gauss designs, might be more difficult with the sigma art (it's also very different from the typical 50/1.4 look)? i'm not terribly fond of the otus look for portraits, in many situations i prefer the look of my old rokkor or the lux asph. you had the new nikkor 58/1.4 right? how did that compare portrait wise to otus vs your other fast 50s?
Derek, I agree most of what you say and understand your comments about OTUS for portrait, it is very personal on this type of talk. I try to be as objective as possible myself on defining ‘mystery’ or ‘magic’ (I would not even use the term) associate certain brand or lenses and generally agree it is hard to tell lens apart at time of shooting f8 especially difficult compare real special one to already good/excellent lens at small aperture. Nevertheless, I won’t deny difference between brand and lens in rendering (even sharpness sometimes). To me, The difference are very real and have been demonstrated by many people on this board and myself.
As for OTUS for portrait, I personally actually appreciate OTUS in portrait very much, confirmation bias? could be. It is on the neutral side of bokeh rendering but not ultra smooth like Leiica 90cron R pre_ASPH or 50lux E60.(I know I need be very careful to describe this kind of thing in word as I may offend some people) but the lens itself is very predictable, never show up double edge or high contrast bokeh. (yet!)
The both sigma seems not give up much compare to 4X OTUS technical wise. but I do see their bokeh can be very distract (double edge) and high contrast over wider condition so that I am confident I can tell them apart. If I am a professional, I will choose two ART in a heart bit for AF and performance.
As for Nikon 58G, I should say I like it. It is one of few lens looks like R I love from Nikon Line. However, I think I formed several opinions about that lens over three month of period use.
1. AF is very un_consistent, and most time is back focusing. I think the very strong SA mess up with my poor little DF’s AF engine. I prefer manual because even I miss the shot I will know it beforehand than a disappointed surprise later.
2. The lens’s SA profile at WO is not exact behave as Leica R. At least to me I feel it is too much almost make me ‘dizzy’. Leica R’s SA is very tasteful and quite sharp in center portion of images. The Leica R’s SA gives a little bit glowing on face of subject but still have well defined eyes contrast, and good detail on skin. Even 80lux which is on soft side is still not over the top dizzy looks, it is not just sharpness I am talking about but the level of aberration. (your 35lux pre-ASPH is as strong here, though I quite like) Having said that, I still like 58G a lot and might get it again if my eyes or hand fail me with age.
3. Stop down sharpness. At infinity, the lens I HAVE is pretty good at WO cross frame, however, after f2.8, my 50mm cron R or Rokkor 58mm or even 50mm f1.2 beat it cross frame. Not a very big deal to the final print but bothers me for such an expensive lens.
4. A very good point to use this lens is it has signature dominate the images that you can safely use it over wide condition if you like its rendering and not worry about busy bokeh etc….quite similar to 58 Rokkor, the magic happen after f2. (no 50mm f2 lens have this kind of combination of sharpness and out of focusing rendering)
Pure words and opinions worth less than two cents and I don’t want show lots of images in this thread, it will be never a good ending.
zhangyue wrote
sebboh wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre, After own many different brand lens, I have to say I agree there is Zeiss Look or Leica look even Canon Look. Even it has to be treat individually often for different lens within brand but still I believe what I see. I won't claim whoever can't see it wrong but I must say without using certain lens over long period is very hard to generalize the idea as variable getting infinity magnified for different users, lighting and PP. Even for the same user, this is complicate matter as condition change widely. but the impression is clear to me when I browse my photo collection. 90% I am right which lens I used without look the EXIF.(I shoot 90% WO)I won't deny that I may well fail blind test for particular case especially once at the lens stop down.
Edit: and I want add it is more and more difficult to trace lens character now days as all manufacture designed the lens perfectly and too good to differentiate each others. Use Alt board terminology: characterless. Hence, why I keep and collect my old collection.
If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO.Derek, I agree most of what you say and understand your comments about OTUS for portrait, it is very personal on this type of talk. I try to be as objective as possible myself on defining ‘mystery’ or ‘magic’ (I would not even use the term) associate certain brand or lenses and generally agree it is hard to tell lens apart at time of shooting f8 especially difficult compare real special one to already good/excellent lens at small aperture. Nevertheless, I won’t deny difference between brand and lens in rendering (even sharpness sometimes). To me, The difference are very real and have been demonstrated by many people on this board and myself.
As for OTUS for portrait, I personally actually appreciate OTUS in portrait very much, confirmation bias? could be. It is on the neutral side of bokeh rendering but not ultra smooth like Leiica 90cron R pre_ASPH or 50lux E60.(I know I need be very careful to describe this kind of thing in word as I may offend some people) but the lens itself is very predictable, never show up double edge or high contrast bokeh. (yet!)
The both sigma seems not give up much compare to 4X OTUS technical wise. but I do see their bokeh can be very distract (double edge) and high contrast over wider condition so that I am confident I can tell them apart. If I am a professional, I will choose two ART in a heart bit for AF and performance.
As for Nikon 58G, I should say I like it. It is one of few lens looks like R I love from Nikon Line. However, I think I formed several opinions about that lens over three month of period use.
1. AF is very un_consistent, and most time is back focusing. I think the very strong SA mess up with my poor little DF’s AF engine. I prefer manual because even I miss the shot I will know it beforehand than a disappointed surprise later.
2. The lens’s SA profile at WO is not exact behave as Leica R. At least to me I feel it is too much almost make me ‘dizzy’. Leica R’s SA is very tasteful and quite sharp in center portion of images. The Leica R’s SA gives a little bit glowing on face of subject but still have well defined eyes contrast, and good detail on skin. Even 80lux which is on soft side is still not over the top dizzy looks, it is not just sharpness I am talking about but the level of aberration. (your 35lux pre-ASPH is as strong here, though I quite like) Having said that, I still like 58G a lot and might get it again if my eyes or hand fail me with age.
3. Stop down sharpness. At infinity, the lens I HAVE is pretty good at WO cross frame, however, after f2.8, my 50mm cron R or Rokkor 58mm or even 50mm f1.2 beat it cross frame. Not a very big deal to the final print but bothers me for such an expensive lens.
4. A very good point to use this lens is it has signature dominate the images that you can safely use it over wide condition if you like its rendering and not worry about busy bokeh etc….quite similar to 58 Rokkor, the magic happen after f2. (no 50mm f2 lens have this kind of combination of sharpness and out of focusing rendering)
Pure words and opinions worth less than two cents and I don’t want show lots of images in this thread, it will be never a good ending.
Mar 04, 2016 at 05:00 PM
p.10 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I don't see how a child's story that teaches a truism about how people can be persuaded to believe things or accept things is demeaning. It is actually a very important lesson, and the story illustrates an important and real concept.
It does not follow that all belief is wrong, but it also suggests that belief is not the same as fact.
Regarding your first point about confirmation bias, it is directly relevant in a case like this. The existence of confirmation bias does not prove or disprove the existence of differences between test cases (e.g. - two lenses are not...Show more →
What I find demeaning is that by introducing these ideas of bias you're stereotyping people, directly or indirectly.
Why is this even being discussed here? These ideas are applicable to all camera gear. What makes you think your choices in gear are the reference, from which to judge others' choices?
Many of us who appreciate lens rendering between different brands (Canikon, Zeiss, Leica, Sony etc) are beyond the stage of being impressionable and brand loyal, so for people in this category at least, the idea of bias is quite insulting.
I don't see how a child's story that teaches a truism about how people can be persuaded to believe things or accept things is demeaning. It is actually a very important lesson, and the story illustrates an important and real concept.
It does not follow that all belief is wrong, but it also suggests that belief is not the same as fact.
Regarding your first point about confirmation bias, it is directly relevant in a case like this. The existence of confirmation bias does not prove or disprove the existence of differences between test cases (e.g. - two lenses are not...Show more →
What I find demeaning is that by introducing these ideas of bias you're stereotyping people, directly or indirectly.
Why is this even being discussed here? These ideas are applicable to all camera gear. What makes you think your choices in gear are the reference, from which to judge others' choices?
Many of us who appreciate lens rendering between different brands (Canikon, Zeiss, Leica, Sony etc) are beyond the stage of being impressionable and brand loyal, so for people in this category at least, the idea of bias is quite insulting.
Mar 04, 2016 at 05:14 PM
p.10 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
zhangyue wrote:
sebboh wrote
zhangyue wrote
sebboh wrote
zhangyue wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
*****************************If you can't pass the blind test with some reasonable level of correlation, then it's a perception and not a reality.
I'll agree to disagree with you.
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO.Hi Michael
I wanted to ask you few things about 58mm 1.4g Haruo Sato, Nikon's designer speaks about 3D HiFi, which he defined as emphasis on smooth transition from focused area to de-focused area. He believes that create pleasing rendition of representation of 3d reality to 2d plane : picture. He mentioned that at current point in time, he sacrificed the ultimate sharpness to achieve this. He also talks about the character of bokeh to be not distracting. Also I am curious how Uber sharp lens like Otus behave in terms of focus transition. Does it fall off smoothly compare to 58 or more abruptly?
I think I see clear evidence of this claim including better performance in distance, on 58mm 1.4 thread.
Also , the blog post that caused this outbreak used 58 as one example to dislike modern lens, which did not align with what I have been seeing.
Luka
Mar 04, 2016 at 05:50 PM
p.10 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
The problem is the endless pursuit of optical defect (CA, sagittal coma, vignetting... etc) suppression because pro-mateurs demand it. And for high-end lenses, they are really the target market. Hence, I applaud Nikon to actually have the guts to release 58mm F1.4 that went against the market trend.
Otus is an extreme example when optics are heavily corrected/suppressed. When you get rid of all defects, you end up with an image that's sterile/unreal looking because the lens basically surpasses the capability of human eyes, or what we'd consider to be normal.
As far as Zeiss goes, I think the last Zeiss lens that incorporates its signature 3D look without going the extreme on correcting everything is the Zeiss 55mm F1.2 100 Jahre. Don't get me wrong... it's sharp as hell for its time and the aperture, but still retaining that little imperfection that resembles human vision.
Here's a random shot I took on A7II:
DSC02858 by JayPhoto, on Flickr
1:1
DSC02858-2 by JayPhoto, on Flickr
Otus is an extreme example when optics are heavily corrected/suppressed. When you get rid of all defects, you end up with an image that's sterile/unreal looking because the lens basically surpasses the capability of human eyes, or what we'd consider to be normal.
As far as Zeiss goes, I think the last Zeiss lens that incorporates its signature 3D look without going the extreme on correcting everything is the Zeiss 55mm F1.2 100 Jahre. Don't get me wrong... it's sharp as hell for its time and the aperture, but still retaining that little imperfection that resembles human vision.
Here's a random shot I took on A7II:
DSC02858 by JayPhoto, on Flickr1:1
DSC02858-2 by JayPhoto, on FlickrMar 04, 2016 at 06:20 PM
p.10 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
A fair point, but... two things.
First, the point I was making was related to the notion that those who don't use/do a thing are unqualified to perceive or understand differences, a point repeatedly stressed in this and similar discussions. In fact, one can be highly competent at seeing (or hearing, tasting, feeling, analyzing, measuring, etc.) things produced with tools that one does not personally use. The idea that only users of, say, Polaroid cameras are qualified to offer any opinions on the quality of Polaroid camera photography is unsupportable, as would be the notion that my opinions about differences between,...Show more →
The only reason I perpetuated your metaphor was because I thought it was funny. I lived with a cellist for six years so I've played host at some of their gearhead and technique debates with a mixture of amateurs and professionals, and they're really no different than ours (unless the last instrument you played was a set of chimes in your junior high orchestra- then they're even more dull). My point was that no one's mind was ever changed by repeating "you're wrong" over and over again, even in the form of a parable.
(Tools are rarely distributed according to talent or necessity, and there will always be people who will use money to try and buy status within a group when their talent can't but their pride demands it. However, I often see enthusiasm, excitement, and a desire to share and learn unfairly dismissed as pride. A side dish for your banquet...)
A fair point, but... two things.
First, the point I was making was related to the notion that those who don't use/do a thing are unqualified to perceive or understand differences, a point repeatedly stressed in this and similar discussions. In fact, one can be highly competent at seeing (or hearing, tasting, feeling, analyzing, measuring, etc.) things produced with tools that one does not personally use. The idea that only users of, say, Polaroid cameras are qualified to offer any opinions on the quality of Polaroid camera photography is unsupportable, as would be the notion that my opinions about differences between,...Show more →
The only reason I perpetuated your metaphor was because I thought it was funny. I lived with a cellist for six years so I've played host at some of their gearhead and technique debates with a mixture of amateurs and professionals, and they're really no different than ours (unless the last instrument you played was a set of chimes in your junior high orchestra- then they're even more dull). My point was that no one's mind was ever changed by repeating "you're wrong" over and over again, even in the form of a parable.
(Tools are rarely distributed according to talent or necessity, and there will always be people who will use money to try and buy status within a group when their talent can't but their pride demands it. However, I often see enthusiasm, excitement, and a desire to share and learn unfairly dismissed as pride. A side dish for your banquet...)
Mar 04, 2016 at 06:39 PM
p.10 #16The 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.
I wasn't comparing violinists or violins to photographers or lenses. I was comparing the gear discussions and arguments had by both, which are very similar.
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.
I wasn't comparing violinists or violins to photographers or lenses. I was comparing the gear discussions and arguments had by both, which are very similar.
Mar 04, 2016 at 06:51 PM
p.10 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
It does not follow that all belief is wrong, but it also suggests that belief is not the same as fact.
Regarding your first point about confirmation bias, it is directly relevant in a case like this. The existence of confirmation bias does not prove or disprove the existence of differences between test cases (e.g. - two lenses are not identical) but it can explain some factors that may affect the evaluation of those differences (e.g. - a product thought to be "special" or one that is more expensive may be thought to be better as a starting point.)
This simply affirms the dangers (and we all are at risk, myself included) of finding the result we hope for and not the result that is.
DanWhat I find demeaning is that by introducing these ideas of bias you're stereotyping people, directly or indirectly.
Why is this even being discussed here? These ideas are applicable to all camera gear. What makes you think your choices in gear are the reference, from which to judge others' choices?
Many of us who appreciate lens rendering between different brands (Canikon, Zeiss, Leica, Sony etc) are beyond the stage of being impressionable and brand loyal, so for people in this category at least, the idea of bias is quite insulting.
What's even more tiring is I've heard this same speach from Dan on numerous occasions when we discuss Zeiss lenses. You definitely get this feeling of being talked down to. I just wish people that don't have an honest interest in Zeiss lenses just stay away from the threads.
gdanmitchell wrote
I don't see how a child's story that teaches a truism about how people can be persuaded to believe things or accept things is demeaning. It is actually a very important lesson, and the story illustrates an important and real concept.It does not follow that all belief is wrong, but it also suggests that belief is not the same as fact.
Regarding your first point about confirmation bias, it is directly relevant in a case like this. The existence of confirmation bias does not prove or disprove the existence of differences between test cases (e.g. - two lenses are not identical) but it can explain some factors that may affect the evaluation of those differences (e.g. - a product thought to be "special" or one that is more expensive may be thought to be better as a starting point.)
This simply affirms the dangers (and we all are at risk, myself included) of finding the result we hope for and not the result that is.
Dan
Why is this even being discussed here? These ideas are applicable to all camera gear. What makes you think your choices in gear are the reference, from which to judge others' choices?
Many of us who appreciate lens rendering between different brands (Canikon, Zeiss, Leica, Sony etc) are beyond the stage of being impressionable and brand loyal, so for people in this category at least, the idea of bias is quite insulting.
What's even more tiring is I've heard this same speach from Dan on numerous occasions when we discuss Zeiss lenses. You definitely get this feeling of being talked down to. I just wish people that don't have an honest interest in Zeiss lenses just stay away from the threads.
Mar 04, 2016 at 07:15 PM
p.10 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
well, really this should have never been started in the Nikon forum. it belongs in the Alt.
Mar 04, 2016 at 07:20 PM
p.10 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
akul wrote:
Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpgshooting starscapes at f/1.4 it's always easy to tell the otus from any oem lens. i haven't seen how the sigma art performs though, would it be as easy to tell the two apart?Haha, I know but shooting portrait is even easier to tell with back ground kick in OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO.certainly easy to tell with wide open portraits the otus versus traditional double gauss designs, might be more difficult with the sigma art (it's also very different from the typical 50/1.4 look)? i'm not terribly fond of the otus look for portraits, in many situations i prefer the look of my old rokkor or the lux asph. you had the new nikkor 58/1.4 right? how did that compare portrait wise to otus vs your other fast 50s?Derek, I agree most of what you say and understand your comments about OTUS for portrait, it is very personal on this type of talk. I try to be as objective as possible myself on defining ‘mystery’ or ‘magic’ (I would not even use the term) associate certain brand or lenses and generally agree it is hard to tell lens apart at time of shooting f8 especially difficult compare real special one to already good/excellent lens at small aperture. Nevertheless, I won’t deny difference between brand and lens in rendering (even sharpness sometimes). To me, The difference are very real and have been demonstrated by many people on this board and myself.
As for OTUS for portrait, I personally actually appreciate OTUS in portrait very much, confirmation bias? could be. It is on the neutral side of bokeh rendering but not ultra smooth like Leiica 90cron R pre_ASPH or 50lux E60.(I know I need be very careful to describe this kind of thing in word as I may offend some people) but the lens itself is very predictable, never show up double edge or high contrast bokeh. (yet!)
The both sigma seems not give up much compare to 4X OTUS technical wise. but I do see their bokeh can be very distract (double edge) and high contrast over wider condition so that I am confident I can tell them apart. If I am a professional, I will choose two ART in a heart bit for AF and performance.
As for Nikon 58G, I should say I like it. It is one of few lens looks like R I love from Nikon Line. However, I think I formed several opinions about that lens over three month of period use.
1. AF is very un_consistent, and most time is back focusing. I think the very strong SA mess up with my poor little DF’s AF engine. I prefer manual because even I miss the shot I will know it beforehand than a disappointed surprise later.
2. The lens’s SA profile at WO is not exact behave as Leica R. At least to me I feel it is too much almost make me ‘dizzy’. Leica R’s SA is very tasteful and quite sharp in center portion of images. The Leica R’s SA gives a little bit glowing on face of subject but still have well defined eyes contrast, and good detail on skin. Even 80lux which is on soft side is still not over the top dizzy looks, it is not just sharpness I am talking about but the level of aberration. (your 35lux pre-ASPH is as strong here, though I quite like) Having said that, I still like 58G a lot and might get it again if my eyes or hand fail me with age.
3. Stop down sharpness. At infinity, the lens I HAVE is pretty good at WO cross frame, however, after f2.8, my 50mm cron R or Rokkor 58mm or even 50mm f1.2 beat it cross frame. Not a very big deal to the final print but bothers me for such an expensive lens.
4. A very good point to use this lens is it has signature dominate the images that you can safely use it over wide condition if you like its rendering and not worry about busy bokeh etc….quite similar to 58 Rokkor, the magic happen after f2. (no 50mm f2 lens have this kind of combination of sharpness and out of focusing rendering)
Pure words and opinions worth less than two cents and I don’t want show lots of images in this thread, it will be never a good ending.Hi Michael
I wanted to ask you few things about 58mm 1.4g Haruo Sato, Nikon's designer speaks about 3D HiFi, which he defined as emphasis on smooth transition from focused area to de-focused area. He believes that create pleasing rendition of representation of 3d reality to 2d plane : picture. He mentioned that at current point in time, he sacrificed the ultimate sharpness to achieve this. He also talks about the character of bokeh to be not distracting. Also I am curious how Uber sharp lens like Otus behave in terms of focus transition. Does it fall off smoothly compare to...Show more →
I don't see 3D from that lens or any Leica R lens. I agree his comment about its bokeh, very strong signature of that lens. I am glad to see Lens designer have this kind of talk than pure goal of designing perfect stuff. As least it shows that there is still human part left even in professional Lens designers from big firm like Nikon. I am a firm believer on this concept level choice in design, take a look of whole line of Rokkor lens and Mandler's designed lens. I love the trade off they make.
As for focus transition, there is no focus transition for OTUS you nail it or not. This put a huge difficulty to nail perfect focusing with it for portrait. With good lighting and right screen, I can nail most of time but keeper definitely less than Leica R, which is a lot tolerant with focus error but they do have smooth focus transition.
The image rendering seems not that simple correlated with thin DOF, you can very easily see DOF of OTUS is THIN THIN THIN, but 55mm never behave exact as 100mp or 135APO in terms of rendering and contrast. It is somehow gentler. A few Leica S lens I have also have very thin DOF but somehow the look just different than 100MP and 135APO and even 55OTUS. They have very beautiful Bokeh. I have no real explanation for those. but they are at different focal length and usage.
If you ask my opinion about 58mm, I feel it is a little bit too much (both CA and SA are almost out of control at WO) so that it is become controversy lens in Nikon line and easily get flamed on the internet. I still like it though.
zhangyue wrote
sebboh wrote
zhangyue wrote
sebboh wrote
zhangyue wrote
I said consistently meaning 100%, is that unreasonable?Too bad for you. It is really good for your wallet though
Can you tell me is it from 50mm Nikon or Zeiss at 1.4? I can post 100% zoom later.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1486/25374221842_25e2474bd3_b.jpg
OTUS has great coma and CA performance. Don't know ART though but I am sure i can tell them apart if shooting portrait WO.As for OTUS for portrait, I personally actually appreciate OTUS in portrait very much, confirmation bias? could be. It is on the neutral side of bokeh rendering but not ultra smooth like Leiica 90cron R pre_ASPH or 50lux E60.(I know I need be very careful to describe this kind of thing in word as I may offend some people) but the lens itself is very predictable, never show up double edge or high contrast bokeh. (yet!)
The both sigma seems not give up much compare to 4X OTUS technical wise. but I do see their bokeh can be very distract (double edge) and high contrast over wider condition so that I am confident I can tell them apart. If I am a professional, I will choose two ART in a heart bit for AF and performance.
As for Nikon 58G, I should say I like it. It is one of few lens looks like R I love from Nikon Line. However, I think I formed several opinions about that lens over three month of period use.
1. AF is very un_consistent, and most time is back focusing. I think the very strong SA mess up with my poor little DF’s AF engine. I prefer manual because even I miss the shot I will know it beforehand than a disappointed surprise later.
2. The lens’s SA profile at WO is not exact behave as Leica R. At least to me I feel it is too much almost make me ‘dizzy’. Leica R’s SA is very tasteful and quite sharp in center portion of images. The Leica R’s SA gives a little bit glowing on face of subject but still have well defined eyes contrast, and good detail on skin. Even 80lux which is on soft side is still not over the top dizzy looks, it is not just sharpness I am talking about but the level of aberration. (your 35lux pre-ASPH is as strong here, though I quite like) Having said that, I still like 58G a lot and might get it again if my eyes or hand fail me with age.
3. Stop down sharpness. At infinity, the lens I HAVE is pretty good at WO cross frame, however, after f2.8, my 50mm cron R or Rokkor 58mm or even 50mm f1.2 beat it cross frame. Not a very big deal to the final print but bothers me for such an expensive lens.
4. A very good point to use this lens is it has signature dominate the images that you can safely use it over wide condition if you like its rendering and not worry about busy bokeh etc….quite similar to 58 Rokkor, the magic happen after f2. (no 50mm f2 lens have this kind of combination of sharpness and out of focusing rendering)
Pure words and opinions worth less than two cents and I don’t want show lots of images in this thread, it will be never a good ending.
I wanted to ask you few things about 58mm 1.4g Haruo Sato, Nikon's designer speaks about 3D HiFi, which he defined as emphasis on smooth transition from focused area to de-focused area. He believes that create pleasing rendition of representation of 3d reality to 2d plane : picture. He mentioned that at current point in time, he sacrificed the ultimate sharpness to achieve this. He also talks about the character of bokeh to be not distracting. Also I am curious how Uber sharp lens like Otus behave in terms of focus transition. Does it fall off smoothly compare to...Show more →
I don't see 3D from that lens or any Leica R lens. I agree his comment about its bokeh, very strong signature of that lens. I am glad to see Lens designer have this kind of talk than pure goal of designing perfect stuff. As least it shows that there is still human part left even in professional Lens designers from big firm like Nikon. I am a firm believer on this concept level choice in design, take a look of whole line of Rokkor lens and Mandler's designed lens. I love the trade off they make.
As for focus transition, there is no focus transition for OTUS
you nail it or not. This put a huge difficulty to nail perfect focusing with it for portrait. With good lighting and right screen, I can nail most of time but keeper definitely less than Leica R, which is a lot tolerant with focus error but they do have smooth focus transition. The image rendering seems not that simple correlated with thin DOF, you can very easily see DOF of OTUS is THIN THIN THIN, but 55mm never behave exact as 100mp or 135APO in terms of rendering and contrast. It is somehow gentler. A few Leica S lens I have also have very thin DOF but somehow the look just different than 100MP and 135APO and even 55OTUS. They have very beautiful Bokeh. I have no real explanation for those. but they are at different focal length and usage.
If you ask my opinion about 58mm, I feel it is a little bit too much (both CA and SA are almost out of control at WO) so that it is become controversy lens in Nikon line and easily get flamed on the internet. I still like it though.
Mar 04, 2016 at 07:42 PM
p.10 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
well, really this should have never been started in the Nikon forum. it belongs in the Alt.
As others have pointed out a number of times, it is in Alt. It's in both. If you aren't interested, ignore the thread. That's even easier than posting the complaint.
Mar 04, 2016 at 07:46 PM