I apologize if it sounds annoying. I would like to have this quiz for one more time. This time I took off the pointers from the images, (exif, same FOV, I trust you and know you did not see the exif !!).
If it is so evident in these pics also, I am going to read on you guy's C&C on photography before I take any more pics. I better prove myself worth all the L's and zeiss and ID MKIV I have in the name of hobby and exploiting my wife for having a joint bank account in which my contribution is none absolutely.( I have my own account )
Anyway, the variations in those images were slight to begin with. If that was all to it then I would renounce Zeiss and go back to Canon.
It is not all there's to it. Adam is correct - you have to get to know the lens to understand how to use it. The 100MP has its strengths and weaknesses and you learn over time how to use the former and avoid the latter. Use the 100MP as the 100L and you will be missing out on the best of the lens. I would strongly endorse Adam's suggestion not to go around with both comparing them. Take two or three weeks using just the 100MP. Use it every chance you have. After that period look through your photos and compare them to your 100L photos. I would bet that after that your 100L would not see much use.
The small differences in your photos that we pointed out, you'll first learn to recognize them. Then you will understand where you can exploit and amplify that rendering. Soon enough when you learn to operate the 100MP you (and other people) will easily be able to spot the differences between it and the 100L.
jfreak, as for your second set, for a fair test, post the images separately so that they can be flipped between in separate tabs. Otherwise the brain just interpolates between them.
Anway, this one was easy. The first one is the Zeiss-meister. As for the second shot, it's the Canon but it's not an entirely fair comparison as there is motion blur in the shot.
How can you see the difference? Easy, more contrast in the first image, overexposed highlights in the second. So unless there was a change in light between the images they show two typical characteristics Ziess more contrast, Canon, slightly overexposed highlights. I could also add the different sharpness-to-blur transition in the images.
Great example of exceptional detail rendition - just see the imperfections on the toddler's skin visible in the Zeiss image. Not a flattering portrait lens at all, haha!
O God!. Absolutely right everyone. I am happy that I bought zeiss and it will teach me more about photography as I use it more and more. I am sad that I could not see what you guys can see so easily. Thank you people for sharing the knowledge and helping people like me get better at this. Truly appreciative of your input.
I should add a correction to my statement - I said that there was motion blur in the second shot. I was looking at the eyebrows, but on closer inspection the rest of the frame doesn't show it - so it's just a regular difference in sharpness between the lenses.
And yes, the 100MP is not a forgiving portrait lens. If it can show imperfections in the skin of a toddler, you can guess what it does to less smooth faces
There is something that I'll add, and you won't like it. You have the wrong camera. The 1DIV is a magnificent action camera where you pay a hefty premium on a great AF system and general responsiveness. Unfortunately it's diametrically opposed to what Zeiss lenses are for: Slow paced, manual focus for full frame. To get the full effect - colors, resolution, dynamic range - you should go FF - i.e. 5DII. I would put this as a higher priority over getting more Zeiss glass.
Yes, the general principle to prioritize glass over cameras is sound, but it's such a pity to miss out on the full quality that these lenses can provide.
Before I head to bed, re denoir wrote:
How can you see the difference? Easy, more contrast in the first image, overexposed highlights in the second.
The actual exposure is quite different between the two images - take a look at the gray wall in the top left corner! So I would say the highlights are not indicative of the lens used.
However, if the same aperture and shutter speed were used on with both lenses (and the lighting condition appears steady) then the 100L may behave something like the Ultra Contrast 3 Filter discussed here a few day ago.
"It uses the surrounding ambient light, not just light in the image area, to evenly lighten shadows throughout."
This is all speculation cause I never held any of these lenses in my own two hands, but maybe try using the 100L with the hood, even if flare isn't a problem in the picture. It could improve contrast somewhat, but surely not to the level of the MP.
I have 5d mkII, was tired of the autofocus chasing my kid. Decided to buy 1d MKIV. Now I am using zeiss lens and autofocus is out of use. I am leaving for boston next month for a year to do fellowship at MGH. The 5d MKII will stay with my wife to take my son's pics so I am left with 1dmk IV as she does not like it. Selling to buy another 5d mkII does not make sense to me when 5d mkIII may be coming sometime this year. Thought many times to sell 1d mkIV but I am not sure what else I should buy. I was thinking of posting this as a question somewhere on FM.
Also, I have started kinda like the feel of 1dmkiv now. 5d Mkii feels unsteady to me now (no offense to 5d users). So I think for full frame I will probably go to 1ds IV instead at some point (which may be sooner if the price of it is reasonable when it comes out and not like $8-9K.
denoir wrote:
Again, good for you - you'll save some cash. I think you will find that you are the holder of a minority opinion on how dramatic the difference is. Not that it matters - your own lens preferences are the only important thing.
If the difference in performance here doesn't seem dramatic to you then the 100L would have been a bad choice as well. A Canon 18-135 super has a fairly small MFD and is much more versatile and cheap. The difference between it and the 100L is about as dramatic as the one between the 100L and the Zeiss 100MP.
To me on the other hand the Zeiss is a very good deal - the closest lens in terms of performance is the Leica 100 APO - priced at about €4,000. So it could have been a lot more expensive. ...Show more →
Too late. The 100/2.8 L is one the way.
OT: It will be interesting to compare it to the 135/2 L, my trusty short tele until now, and to the Mamiya 120/4 macro.
jfreak wrote:
I have 5d mkII, was tired of the autofocus chasing my kid. Decided to buy 1d MKIV. Now I am using zeiss lens and autofocus is out of use. I am leaving for boston next month for a year to do fellowship at MGH. The 5d MKII will stay with my wife to take my son's pics so I am left with 1dmk IV as she does not like it. Selling to buy another 5d mkII does not make sense to me when 5d mkIII may be coming sometime this year. Thought many times to sell 1d mkIV but I am not sure what else I should buy. I was thinking of posting this as a question somewhere on FM.
Also, I have started kinda like the feel of 1dmkiv now. 5d Mkii feels unsteady to me now (no offense to 5d users). So I think for full frame I will probably go to 1ds IV instead at some point (which may be sooner if the price of it is reasonable when it comes out and not like $8-9K....Show more →
Ok, yes it makes sense. You should borrow the 5DII from your wife on occasion and try the Zeiss glass.
I switched from a 1Ds MkIII to a 7D + 5DII as I wanted to shoot video and have not regretted the switch. It will be interesting to see what Canon has come up with for the 1Ds IV and 5DIII. Less now though than before when I was agonizing over the crappy AF.
denoir wrote:
I think the difference is pretty dramatic. For instance the difference between the 100L and my 70-200/II zoom is much smaller than that and then we are comparing a zoom (albeit an excellent one) to a prime lens.
Here is a second series of tests: (...)
To me at least the difference seems pretty dramatic. If you look closely you'll see that the resolution is there with the Canon - it does pick up the detail but the micro contrast is so weak that you barely notice it and the image looks much softer. Of course this is relative. Without seeing the Zeiss image in comparison we would have all agreed that the Canon image was sharp....Show more →
I can understand very well that you prefer a f/2 manual lens over the IS USM L - I sold the 100 L after I got an old and heavily used Zuiko 2/90 macro.
What really confuses me is the fact that the Zeiss examples have more contrast, micro contrast and sharpness in the f/2 sample compared to the f/2.8 sample. How magic is this, how can it happen?
Nah, manual focus, live view, tripod, cable release, four shots per lens & aperture with refocusing between the shots. When I reviewed them I found no difference between the shots. So focus error would fall into the 'unlikely' category.
.
)