Wickerprints, you are barking up the wrong tree IMHO. I have not seen claims that Zeiss lenses are sharper than other lenses, not even at the hand of Zeiss "fanatics" (your choice of words). There are many lenses which are quite sharp, Zeiss among them, but certainly not alone. I have already written in this thread that, if one asks the main posters on the Zeiss thread why they choose Zeiss, sharpness will be far from the top of their list. Colours and contrast, especially micro-contrast, and the elusive ability to reproduce "3D" will no doubt top the carts.
As for me, I certainly don't obsess with corner sharpness. My priority is the overall "rendering" of the picture, which is quite diffrent from one brand of lenses to the next. Also, it affects all pictures across the frame, independently of aperture and the likes, so it matters very much IMHO. Why is sharpness OTOH so often taken as the main measure of lens performance? Because it can be measured scientifically. Whereas colours, for example, are a matter of personal preference.
That being said, if you prefer Canon lenses, that is fine by me. Those who say that "only pics made with XYZ lenses are really good" are just as wrong as those who say that "all those who support XYZ-branded products are fanatics".
Namaste!
Jochenb wrote:
I went from a TS-E24II to a zeiss 21ZE and I have no regrets so far.
The TS-E was the best and most fun canon lens I've ever had, but it just doesn't have that 'zeiss look'.
I just prefer the rendering of the 21 zeiss.
When I go trough my folder of photos taken with the TS-E I see photos that are really sharp (sharper than the 21ZE actually), but they look more flat.
People that want to make a point by showing resolution charts just don't get it.
Resolution charts don't show a certain rendering style.
And people who make vague statements about "rendering" and "Zeiss look" and "flatness" and don't post objective, accurate, side-by-side comparisons under identical shooting conditions are (to put it nicely) saying nothing meaningful.
Test charts exist for a good reason--when done properly, they are objective. So what kind of credibility are we to put in such claims like "Zeiss look?"
philber wrote:
Wickerprints, you are barking up the wrong tree IMHO. I have not seen claims that Zeiss lenses are sharper than other lenses, not even at the hand of Zeiss "fanatics" (your choice of words). There are many lenses which are quite sharp, Zeiss among them, but certainly not alone. I have already written in this thread that, if one asks the main posters on the Zeiss thread why they choose Zeiss, sharpness will be far from the top of their list. Colours and contrast, especially micro-contrast, and the elusive ability to reproduce "3D" will no doubt top the carts.
As for me, I certainly don't obsess with corner sharpness. My priority is the overall "rendering" of the picture, which is quite diffrent from one brand of lenses to the next. Also, it affects all pictures across the frame, independently of aperture and the likes, so it matters very much IMHO. Why is sharpness OTOH so often taken as the main measure of lens performance? Because it can be measured scientifically. Whereas colours, for example, are a matter of personal preference.
That being said, if you prefer Canon lenses, that is fine by me. Those who say that "only pics made with XYZ lenses are really good" are just as wrong as those who say that "all those who support XYZ-branded products are fanatics".
Namaste!...Show more →
"Rendering style" is not a scientific term. As a result, Zeiss owners can talk all day long about this intangible, subjective quality, and nobody can dispute it because it's not verifiable nor disprovable. Frankly, it's very off-putting to hear people talk about such lenses as if they have some sort of magical quality to them. They don't.
FWIW, I don't "prefer" Canon lenses. I will use whatever works for my purposes. But it is quite telling that it's always the Zeiss users who seem to like to brag on and on about something that none of them can actually show in a scientific manner.
Wickerprints, not everything can be measured, and even if measured, not everything falls under the easy "better" and "worse" subdivision. Else, how can anyone say that a painting by Raphael, or Leonardo Da Vinci is a masterpiece? Or a picture by Ansel Adams or Cartier Bresson?
Why don't you leave some space for personal preference and taste?
philber wrote:
Wickerprints, not everything can be measured, and even if measured, not everything falls under the easy "better" and "worse" subdivision. Else, how can anyone say that a painting by Raphael, or Leonardo Da Vinci is a masterpiece? Or a picture by Ansel Adams or Cartier Bresson?
Why don't you leave some space for personal preference and taste?
"Anything that can be thought, can be thought clearly."
If you can see a difference, you should be able to express it in a way that transcends vague, and ultimately vacuous statements like "Zeiss look." Even art historians do not talk about Rembrandt's work by simply calling it "Rembrandt-like" and expect people to derive from that an understanding of why his work is considered to be remarkable.
And finally, it is not that I do not have the latitude for variety in tastes--it is that it seems that only Zeiss (and occasionally, EF L) users seem to be afflicted with this peculiar tendency to exalt their lenses as being somehow "magical." That doesn't cut it with me. If anything, it's Zeiss fanatics who are intolerant and dismissive of the choices others make.
Wickerprints, have you ever used Zeiss lenses? I have owned a total of 12 Canon lenses, and tried/used a few more. I would wager that all Zeiss users on Canikon bodies have used many Canikon lenses before they added Zeiss to their collection. Many still have a mixed lineup. Why is it that you need to paint them as "fanatics" believing in "miracles" (your choice of words)?
denoir: Very appropriate example "And there was silence thereafter..."
I have not looked at the sample pics. But I would not call it "very appropriate samples"
But who would buy a very fast f/1,4 AF lens to only use it as a manual focus lens stopped down between f/2,8 and f/5,6
I like the Zeiss 21 and will probably buy it the next year. But to be honest, most tests like these are just made to tell people that the Zeiss is better. And all the things that the Canon lens has an advantage in will never be tested
Lars, I won't disagree with you, just clarify that it is appropriate in the context of the recent discussion about contrast and color rendition, and the assertions that those are mostly attributed to lighting and PP, and that there are no quantifiable differences between Zeiss and Canon glass of nearly equal resolving power.
Oct 04, 2010 at 06:36 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I also really like the Zeiss. But in threads like this one, the discussion is always about contrast & color rendition. Strong points with the Zeiss lens. Nobody will talk about the weak sides of the Zeiss lens. No AF, not very good to blur the background compared to the Canon, not good in low light without a tripod. and not everybody has a camera with live view either
Of course not. In fact, if it wasn't for those clouds in the sky, I probably wouldn't have opened up the zoom to 21mm for that kind of a scene.
Another problem with WA lenses outdoors.......hard to avoid massive amounts of blank and often poorly coloured exposure-sabotaging sky shown in images. Incidentally, that also represents a major challenge of birds-in-flight photography.......the avoidance of vacant sky background.
Lars, both lenses have their place but if you are going to compare something to the Zeiss 21 then it has to be another landscape lens. The 21 is a landscape lens through and through. It is perfectly useless for handheld low light shooting as it's an f/2.8. So obviously if you need f/1.4 and AF then the 24L II is the way to go. It's an awesome lens, possibly the finest Canon prime available today.
You don't have to be very imaginative to see what two stop and AF will do to you. Rendering style on the other hand is more difficult describe. Hence the examples demonstrating that aspect.
I should add one more thing - about AF. The 21 can almost be considered 'focus free' thanks to its ridiculously large DOF, even wide open. At f/2.8 and near infinity it has about the same DOF as my 16-35 @ f/5.6-f/8. So for handheld landscapes and cityscapes the use is very simple - you just pull away a bit from infinity, set the camera to program automatic mode and use it as a big point and shoot. No focusing involved.
Yes, it is challenging shooting with UWA outdoors, and the opportunities can be rare, depending on where you live or travel. Because of that, when it works, it is even more rewarding.
Peter, are you trying to convince yourself that you don't need an UWA prime? How about the collector's instinct?
One thing not yet mentioned about the ZE 21, it has 82 mm filter threads, limiting the selection of filters.
Oct 04, 2010 at 07:09 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
The "focus free" thing will depend on Subject distance and f-stop. Yes when you stop it down and shoot landscape close to infinity. But being close to the subject and not stopping down it's very different
Well, those side by side comparisons do show a difference in contrast that is quite noticeable. I'm still getting the 24L II though as I want AF and the fast f/1.4 aperture. I can always boost contrast a bit in PP if it needs it.
"And there was silence thereafter..." 
