The result is surprising to me. I have both Canons and I like them, but I did not expect them to beat some of the alts. Thanks for putting this together.
And congrats to Brainiac, who picked what turned out to be Zeiss as the lens with the best 3D. I must admit I did not see that.
I think the results would have been much different with this picture. Not so close of focus and more demanding light. And what about the extreme corners
I'm surprised by the dirty shadows of the Canon 100mm macro. A Zuiko 90/2 or a Zeiss 100/2 would have been a better showing of the alts for this test. Also, a good bokeh test should have had some vertical/horizontal/diagonal lines - not just round highlights. I'm betting even my favorite 85mm - The manual focus Nikon 85/1.8 AI would have done well.
I think one of the main teachings of this test is, once again, that, if one's purpose in photography is to view pictures primarily at Internet resolution, then a lot of "alt" lenses just don't add value.
Secondly, this test is done close up, with artificial lighting, and artificial colours on the model car. IMHO other test subjects/conditions would yield other results.
Either way, massive thanks to Jordan for the effort.
philber wrote:
I think one of the main teachings of this test is, once again, that, if one's purpose in photography is to view pictures primarily at Internet resolution, then a lot of "alt" lenses just don't add value.
...unless you are concerned with qualities like
- price (full frame winner: Contax 85)
- size (full frame winner: Contax 85)
- weight (full frame winner: Contax 85)
- an adequate manual focus ring (full frame winner: Contax 85)
- d.o.f.-preview-lock for continuous viewfinder wysiwyg and avoidance of focus shift problems (full frame equal winner: Contax 85)
- extended depth-of-field (full frame winner: Contax 85)
And of course, it's always worth considering "internet resolution" in 2015. Who knows, one day we may even decide to make a print!
But the most interesting thing about this test is that the Canon 70-200 f4 L IS is optically so good. It's an incredible lens, even for the money.
philber wrote:
I think one of the main teachings of this test is, once again, that, if one's purpose in photography is to view pictures primarily at Internet resolution, then a lot of "alt" lenses just don't add value.
Secondly, this test is done close up, with artificial lighting, and artificial colours on the model car. IMHO other test subjects/conditions would yield other results.
Either way, massive thanks to Jordan for the effort.
brainiac wrote:
And of course, it's always worth considering "internet resolution" in 2015. Who knows, one day we may even decide to make a print!
If you want, I can make 20x30 prints and ship them to all forum members. Oh wait....
I actually print a fair amount, actually. My office actually has a 24x30 of this image on the entrance wall, and it looks fantastic, even up close, and it was taken with the 70-200 (in the print, the detail of the bricks in the white buildings is easily discernable). The 100% crops, of course, will give you some idea of the detail contained in a final print.
pdmphoto wrote:
I'm surprised by the dirty shadows of the Canon 100mm macro. A Zuiko 90/2 or a Zeiss 100/2 would have been a better showing of the alts for this test. Also, a good bokeh test should have had some vertical/horizontal/diagonal lines - not just round highlights. I'm betting even my favorite 85mm - The manual focus Nikon 85/1.8 AI would have done well.
Interesting thoughts in retrospect, especially considering you said you liked the Canon's the best, and even guessed that the 100L was actually the 90/2 Zuiko. I am trying to understand the 'muddy shadows' comment I see attributed to Canon lenses, as I don't see it, but it's possible it's just me. The canon crops look to have similar or more detail as the Zeiss 85 crop on the tires, and the color looks very similar to me as well. Anyway, I value your opinion.
I am open to doing more testing, if people would like to loan me some great alt glass like the 90/2 and Zeiss 100/2. I don't have the money for that, though.
Jordan, I am not suggesting that you are not printing pictures, merely that we were asked to choose based on Internet low-resolution, which conditions determined in part the result of the poll.
Richard, you are correct of course, I should have restricted my statement to the IQ aspect.
I understand...my response was mainly tongue in cheek.
I do find it sort of funny that after the results were revealed, the predominant feeling is "well, you didn't use THESE lenses" or "the test doesn't show how they would perform under different situations" or "it's at internet resolution." Why do I have a feeling that the post-reveal comments would be a bit different had the Zeiss 85 come out on top in most people's eyes. It seems very hard for many (not all) people here to admit that some Canon lenses really ARE as good as the best alt glass out there. Did I test against legendary lenses? No, I didn't, but the 85 Sonnar is pretty darn well received by most everyone here, so...
I really would love to compare some more Zeiss and Leica (and OM) glass in this range, but I can't afford to do so. I have my suspicions, though.
Jordan, I believe it is mainly a case of "horses for courses". If I were to shoot objects close up, I would not choose a Zeiss Planar, even though I own and love my 50 and 85. My Distagon 35 does much better in this area, for example. Conversely, I have owned and used Canon's 100 macro (non L) and 70-200 f:4 (non IS), and they are, as you say, high quality lenses, and in this case, lenses that offer very good value for money to boot. I just happen to prefer the colour scheme and rendition of the Zeiss "look", which was not so relevant in your test shot.
So your contribution is very worthwhile IMHO, if only to demonstrate that "alt" is not some kind of mantra or magic wand, and that all things German are not necessarily superior to all things Japanese.... just as not all Italian cars are equally great...
philber wrote:
Jordan, I believe it is mainly a case of "horses for courses". If I were to shoot objects close up, I would not choose a Zeiss Planar, even though I own and love my 50 and 85. My Distagon 35 does much better in this area, for example. Conversely, I have owned and used Canon's 100 macro (non L) and 70-200 f:4 (non IS), and they are, as you say, high quality lenses, and in this case, lenses that offer very good value for money to boot. I just happen to prefer the colour scheme and rendition of the Zeiss "look", which was not so relevant in your test shot.
So your contribution is very worthwhile IMHO, if only to demonstrate that "alt" is not some kind of mantra or magic wand, and that all things German are not necessarily superior to all things Japanese.... just as not all Italian cars are equally great......Show more →
I agree. My Zeiss Sonnar draws wonderfully in the field. I can't really justify keeping it, unfortunately, as I just don't use it. The 100L goes in my bag as it's FAR more versatile, and the image quality is exceptional. There are a few times I'd want the Zeiss for drawing style, but not enough to take up bag space with it, and so it gets used only a few times a year anymore, but such is life.
Jman13 wrote:
I do find it sort of funny that after the results were revealed, the predominant feeling is "well, you didn't use THESE lenses" or "the test doesn't show how they would perform under different situations" or "it's at internet resolution." Why do I have a feeling that the post-reveal comments would be a bit different had the Zeiss 85 come out on top in most people's eyes. It seems very hard for many (not all) people here to admit that some Canon lenses really ARE as good as the best alt glass out there.
I think you are missing the mood of the alt forum. There used to be a Zeica-rocks-all-else-sux mantra here, but these days I think people are realistic about how alts compare to CaNikon's best and most recent lenses. People buy alts for a whole range of reasons, like price, size, and suitability for manual focus. Sometimes people even like their optics. I don't think many people in the alt forum ignore how good new lenses from Nikon and Canon are. For example, the Nikkor 14-24 and Zeiss 21 are regarded as equals in some ways. But remember that there are still many Canon and Nikon lenses, especially older primes, which aren't necessarily that great. Compare a Canon 35 f2 to a ZF 35 f2, for example.
Jordan's test compares a 1975 Sonnar to Canon's very recent and best lenses, and the cheap 35-year-old lens holds its own quite well. We are all lucky to have access to such good tools, and judicious use of alt lenses can obviate spending the high prices that CaNikon's latest and greatest lenses cost. I keep my Sonnar 85 because it is small and allows me to travel light while packing quite a punch. There are a lot of situations where I would prefer to have it on my camera than a big white 70-200 f4 L IS. The performance comparison between the Sonnar and the 70-200 f4 L IS in this test doesn't come as a surprise to me. The 70-200 f4 L IS is a giant performer, as is any lens that comes close to matching it.
I agree, braniac. I love some of these old alt lenses, and the fact that they are this good to this day shows how special they are. While it didn't look good in this test, my Zeiss 28-85 still amazes me in everyday use...I love it. Especially for the price, I have no desire to get any of the Canon AF zooms in this range. My little Zuiko 50 macro is also awesome...very sharp, very small, and a great, great lens.
I just thought it was funny how there were (in addition to the positive comments) a rash of seemingly apologetic responses concerning the setup and the lenses used after the results were released.
The reveal probably 'broke some hearts' with some contemporary glass in the mix. But, I found simliar results with my Oly 100/2 and the Canon 100/2 comparisons ... letting the Oly go.
Decades of mass production have in a few instances managed to become very equitable with masterful craftsmanship. Often times the craftsmanship wins our hearts in IQ, uniqueness and cost effectiveness ... yet, when it goes the other way, the 'romance' of a mainstream true performer can be a little lackluster, particularly for those who have a bit of nostalgia in their veins.
The 70-200 f4 IS has excellent test marks elsewhere ... very nice to see how it stacks up in 'real world' with some alt glass ... essentially confirming the otherwise 'clinical data' presented elsewhere.
Reading through the thread in order, I knew the second that the results came in that backpedaling from certain members would soon ensue. I think it's a fair and equitable test that tells us how each of these lenses performs around 1-2 m focusing distance (I think).
It's the nature of the beast--the psychology of purchases and preferences is very interesting. I see it no different than the high end audio world.
I for one look forward to uptrading my 70-200 f4 non-is to the IS hopefully sooner rather than later. Both are superb lenses, but the IS is awful tempting.
Daniel ... the 70-200 was on my radar (just not my budget) long ago, then I found the alts, and they lined up with my budget much better. I'd be really interested to see how the C/Y 80-200 f4 (grossly underrated in the 80-150 range IMO) goes head to head with the 70-200 f4 (high regard for both) ... so if you want to send me yours for some testing ...
Staying on track ... more props to Jordan for the effort.
Kent--I'll let you know when I finally get around to it
It went traveling with me and it seems one jostle too many left an element decentered and its due for a trip up to Irvine
I use alts for much the same reason as you do--they generally fill my budget better, and there's a lot of times when their much smaller size fits my style. I don't buy them necessarily because they're optically superior to modern lenses.
I don't know the first thing about the C/Y 80-200 F4, but isn't one of our fantastic Scandinavian friends (can't remember which one) using it to great effect? I remember it being characteristically zeiss-like. For me, mf zooms are a bit frustrating to use, hence the reason two 35-70 f3.4's have gone through my hands (love the look, but never use the lens)
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
My sample lost the 3D/pasticity/what-ever-term-is-approved-to-be-used-by-forum-definition-people and presense (meaning feeling of looking real thing, not a flat photo) when shooting close-ups, even just using the MFD. This is for me the most important quality in any lens I use. For example S-Planar doesn't loose these qualities when shooting close-ups and makros. I assumed it's because it does not perform well at close-up distance. Thou I have experience of only one sample, but I doubt it was due to sample variance since the lens was performing very well at long distances. Does your lens have similar rendering with tubes as it does without?...Show more →
It has been ten years since I used the 2.8/85 on tubes. I still have have a sizable 2.8/85 mushroom series in my slide collection. After a few years I got an MP 2.8/100, and did not see a leap forward in performance. Of course I am talking about one or two tubes, and not a 1:1 scenario. I have no scanner at the moment, and I am not even sure whether the arcane '3D' property would even show on scans. However, Brainiac recently posted a capture with the Sonnar 2.8/135 on tubes. That will give you an idea.
