Okay, I like these test shots and feel that I recognize something in each of the pairs, so I am going for broke. Win or lose big
A1: Canon
A2: Zeiss
The colours and especially the fuzziness around the branches sticking out of the snow in the bottom right corner in A1 remind me strongly of some Canon lenses I have owned. There is also a pinkish look to the snow in A1. It doesn't seem to be a very good lens. What is that, the 16-35 vs 35 Distagon?
B1: Zeiss
B2: Canon
There is a bunch of smudginess and muddiness in the mid-tones in B2 which I associate with Canon rendering. Impossible to get a sense of scale/distance, but I would guess 50 Distagon vs. 50L maybe at f/4.
C1: Canon
C2: Zeiss
The colours in C2 are slightly punchier and the vignetting is greater, and there is a softness in the centre of C1 which I would never associate with a Zeiss product C1 also tends towards overexposure in the lighter regions although the overall exposure is similar, another thing I have found with my (ex-)Canons. Quite wide. 21 Distagon vs. 16-35 at f/8 or f/11?
D1: Zeiss
D2: Canon
Must be stopped down a bit, maybe f/5.6. The lens is a bit longer, maybe an 85? This was a bit more difficult, because I started on the left where they are closer. On the right and in the centre, D2 gets that smudged look again, and the micro-contrast is lower. I am not familiar with the ZF/ZE85, so this makes it a bit harder for me. The stars around the streetlights confuse me though. I think the star in D2 looks more Zeissy.
E1: Zeiss
E2: Canon
I am not sure of this one. I chose the way I did since E2 is slightly smudgy on the right, and E1 gives a cleaner overall impression, although the sky is slightly brighter, something I saw more with my Canons, which couldn't hold the range as well. The camera might have done that though. 100 @ f/4 or f/5.6?
F1: Zeiss
F2: Canon
This is harder. Maybe at f/4? I chose F1 as Zeiss because the highlights seem better contained, the boke slightly more defined and there is more vignetting. Macro is the great equalizer.
G1: Zeiss
G2: Canon
Almost impossible to tell apart. I will go with G1 as Zeiss because of the slightly better colour. f/4?
H1: Zeiss
H2: Canon
Again, almost impossible to tell. I find the boke slightly more recognizable in H1, hence my guess. One thing is for sure though: you need to clean your 35 Lux ASPH!
Thanks Carsten for your detailed post and explanation. The "extra credit set" (F,G,H) was all shot at f/2.8 and I agree is nearly impossible to tell the lenses apart there. The 100 MP is of course different at f/2 but at f/2.8 they are really similar. Infinity is a different story though.
Okay. I almost guessed f/2.8 for one of them, but in my memory the Canon 100/2.8 wasn't quite as sharp wide open as one stop down, so I thought you might have done f/4 to equalize a bit. Is yours the old macro or the 100L?
I guess for almost everybody it is more guessing than seeing, BTW the only really honest comparisions are double blind tests, most probably underestimate the power of the mind to influence perception.
It would probably have been more exact to shoot with WB set on a specific temperature, I hope it was not AWB.
Anyway, here is my take, I only note the pics I think are shot with a Zeiss:
A1-Z
B2-Z
C1-Z
D1-Z
E2-Z
F2-Z
G1-Z
H2-Z
Those who hit less than 50% correct answers, should sell their ZF/ZE lenses and get back to comfortable AF lenses :-)
A: This is a tough one, because they are NOT focused similarly. Shot #1 has the tree trunk slightly out of focus. But I guess that's the Canon anyway because of the severely lower micro contrast in the snow.
B: I believe #1 is the Zeiss, because of higher micro contrast (look at the yellowish ice) and more CA.
C: #1 Canon and #2 Zeiss, albeit I think both look like crap.
D: #1 Zeiss and #2 Canon. I really hope so at least. Here, both local and global contrast is better on #1.
carstenw wrote:
Okay. I almost guessed f/2.8 for one of them, but in my memory the Canon 100/2.8 wasn't quite as sharp wide open as one stop down, so I thought you might have done f/4 to equalize a bit. Is yours the old macro or the 100L?
The two lenses are about equal in sharpness at f/2.8. It's the older non-L version.
Makten wrote:
This is a tough one, because they are NOT focused similarly. Shot #1 has the tree trunk slightly out of focus
Actually, they are focused identically using LiveView - but not on the tree trunk. The focus point is on the branch on the left side. Both were shot at f/2 and their DOF-bubble is very different.
denoir wrote:
Actually, they are focused identically using LiveView - but not on the tree trunk. The focus point is on the branch on the left side. Both were shot at f/2 and their DOF-bubble is very different.
If live view works the same way as on Nikon cameras, the lens could use a different aperture at focusing than what's used when taking the shot, without you knowing it. So, focus shift could then mess up the result.
My guess anyway: #1 is 35/1.4 L and #2 is ZE 35/2.
rsolti13 wrote:
A - 1) Canon 2) Zeiss
B - 1) Zeiss 2) Canon
C - 1) Canon 2) Zeiss
D - 1) Zeiss 2) Canon
E - 1) Zeiss 2) Canon
This would be my guess also, but I remember another thread like this where the Canon lens came out looking very good, so the correct answer could well be exactly the opposite.
Makten wrote:
If live view works the same way as on Nikon cameras, the lens could use a different aperture at focusing than what's used when taking the shot, without you knowing it.
It doesn't. You can set it to stop down to the aperture that will be used for the shot. Alternatively you can press the DOF-preview button. I always focus stopped down as I have a bunch of lenses that suffer from focus shift. Incidentally the lenses used for that particular shot do not.
denoir wrote:
Actually, they are focused identically using LiveView - but not on the tree trunk. The focus point is on the branch on the left side. Both were shot at f/2 and their DOF-bubble is very different.
On that shot the first picture has left side background houses sharper than the second one and right side house less sharp than the second one. Peculiar that.
