carstenw wrote:
The last comparison shot of the ZE100 and the Canon 100 Macro is more what I was looking for in the first three sets, but didn't find. I liked the Canon macro lens initially when I had it, but with time I came to find it somewhat lacking. The 100L is meant to be better.
The 100L is optically the same as the pre-L 100/2.8 Macro. I originally had the 100L but I replaced it with the older version after the L was in for repair three times with a broken IS motor. I did extensive side by side testing and there was really no difference as far as the optics goes.
I've found the 100 Macro to be a bit too clinical for my taste. In terms of raw optical performance it's very good - not much behind the 100 MP, but it lacks a personality. It's just "a lens". My feelings towards it are the same as towards the 75 Summicron ASPH - I respect it's excellent optical performance but I've never really warmed to it on a personal level.
The Canon 100 Macro has two things really going for it. One is that it's a true 1:1 Macro which can be a source of entertainment for a limited time.
That there is no difference optically between the 100/2.8 and the 100L surprises me. I am sure I have read more than one account of something improved there. Anyway, it is of course entirely possible.
I didn't realize that the 100/2.8 Macro had such fast AF, since I never used mine that way. I recall it being sharp, but that I felt that something was missing in the shots. At the time I didn't have the knowledge or vocabulary to say what it was, but in hindsight I think it was primarily the higher micro-contrast of the ZF/ZE lenses, as well as possibly a bit more punch in the colours. It is quite possible that the lacking micro-contrast translated in my mind to a softness, but this is just conjecture. I just wasn't really thrilled with it.
denoir wrote: The 100L is optically the same as the pre-L 100/2.8 Macro.(...)
As the published MTF curves are different that suggests something happened. Let be that the 100L curves look out-worldly good... and the added elements may be for the IS function, but the same really? I'm surprised. But anyway, if there is no visible difference they have to be alike. Maybe the possible increased resolution from the 100L lens is visible on APS-C cameras only?
The new 100L has better CA responce and better optic clarity over the old canon 100mm according to lab tests.
It's not magic tho, it's still just a lens and in the real world the new IS is the biggest bennefit.
As I said, I've had both and shot a bunch of comparison shots during a period of about two months. Zero difference as far as I could see. Here are two example comparisons - if you can identify the L, well, then you have a far better eye than I do:
denoir wrote:
Yes, well done Aleksander! You are the only one that identified both sets correctly.
Sorry, Aleksander was not the only one.
I found B dificult. But the Makros were easy. All You have to look at is the bokej. Its the color of the LoCa and the double conturs that help.
Thanks a lot for the experiment. It showed me again how easy it is to fall in love with Zeiss lenses.
jan_haidn wrote:
Sorry, Aleksander was not the only one.
I found B dificult. But the Makros were easy. All You have to look at is the bokej. Its the color of the LoCa and the double conturs that help.
Thanks a lot for the experiment. It showed me again how easy it is to fall in love with Zeiss lenses.
Great job jan, I noticed your excellence in both parts as well.
Your comment about the LoCa and couble contours is very much in line with my assertion that "knowledgeable people" CAN tell the difference.
Two years ago, I was around a whopping zero and am now probably up to about a 2 or 3 at best. It'll be quite a while before (if) I ever get to the knowledge levels of you, Aleksander and SOOOOO many others here ... more often than not, that puts me in the category of someone who only thinks he knows things, but certainly appreciates being surrounded by others who truly do ... it is always good to be in the company of those from whom one can learn
I made one change in the test - I introduced a control pair which consisted of a Leica 35 Lux image that had been slightly modified in two versions. The server randomly switched the position of the images. This then served as a control to see that the random image + error margin did not overlap the actual images + error margin.
Anyway, they were about 10 percentage points less accurate than people here and that's a surprisingly small difference. There are however a number of sources of error though, the most obvious being sampling bias. People who choose to respond may not at all be representative of the whole forum population.
Very interesting! Thanks for posting these. Yes they did OK but not up to this group - which is to be expected. Yet it still shows photographer as a whole can tell when a Zeiss lens is used - and by a large majority!
Now can we find a Nikon group to give the test to - That would be interesting. As a whole, do you think Nikon users result's would be very far off from Canon group?
If someone would like to donate a Zeiss 100/2.0 to me (and a Leica 100 APO) ... I'll gladly re-run those tests, complete with both a Nikon 105/2.5 AIS & a Canon 100/2.0. Not sure how, long it'll take me to finish testing though.
I would love a zf 100/2, leica 100, nikon 105/2.5 and canon 100/2 test..
To me, Leicas and Zeiss often seem to share resolution characteristics, the zeiss look is far more "in your face" though, poppy, while the leicas are far more subtle in their approach. Not quite sure which I prefer the most yet.
Looking at the chart from canon forum, three things came to mind
1. The way how 100% clusters repeatedly . It looks to me potential cross pollination.
2. 10% is a big difference, as I assume this crowd should know the 'canon rendition' very well.
3. Big question to me was, then what do they think about the difference. Positive or negative ? To me, the difference of Zeiss is a 'positive' difference. It is the kind of difference worth paying for. Something that speaks to me, so I would like to use such lens. I wonder what their response was.
3. Big question to me was, then what do they think about the difference. Positive or negative ? To me, the difference of Zeiss is a 'positive' difference. It is the kind of difference worth paying for. Something that speaks to me, so I would like to use such lens. I wonder what their response was.
While I absolutely have asserted and agree that the difference is noticeable ... nicely indicated by both tests run in two diff groups ... the issue of Zeiss being a 'positive' vs. 'negative' difference is in line with the concept of 'better' or 'worse' ... to which I disagree.
Absolutely, DIFFERENCES exist, but not better, not worse. Zeiss glass doesn't exhibit the same characteristics as my Mamiya glass, Oly glass, Nikon, Canon or Tamron glass. I can tell you specifically why I choose to shoot with a particular 'drawing style' when I choose glass for a given subject ... and it is NEVER because Brand X is "better". It almost always for a specific reason of 'drawing style' (sometimes it is a performance issue, e.g. mfd) that a lens will render a given subject in the style that I intend for it to.
I've got my share of Zeiss and I can tell you what I like about each and Zeiss is notably DIFFERENT in certain regards ... but so are other mfr's once one learns those diffs (Voigtlander, Rokkor, Leica, Canon FD/FL, etc. comes to mind). Depending on how I want to render a subject, there are times when Zeiss would be the LAST glass I'd choose, other times it is my FIRST choice. YMMV.
BTW, I'd gladly take a Nikon 180/2.8 vs. C/Y 180/2.8 any day.
akul wrote:
1. The way how 100% clusters repeatedly . It looks to me potential cross pollination.
Yes, that does indeed look suspicious. However I had a control set (the pair consisted of the same Leica shot) and a clear bias would have shown there. A proper test would of course not let people see other peoples' responses. Difficult to do on a forum though. If I asked for the answers by PM the participation would probably be very low. Ideally one should set up a website where you can vote and where the samples are randomized for each user.
2. 10% is a big difference, as I assume this crowd should know the 'canon rendition' very well.
Canon is pretty neutral in its rendering. It also looked from the responses that people gave that they were primarily trying to guess the Zeiss lenses.
3. Big question to me was, then what do they think about the difference. Positive or negative ? To me, the difference of Zeiss is a 'positive' difference. It is the kind of difference worth paying for. Something that speaks to me, so I would like to use such lens. I wonder what their response was.
It did not so much show a difference in rendering style as in image quality. In short the Canon zoom sucked while the Zeiss prime was very good. 100% crop:
The results showed that both in this forum and the Canon forum it was the set that people got the best results on. That would indicate apriori that they expected the Zeiss to be better - at least in a technical sense. Furthermore after the results had been presented the replies indicated strongly that people preferred the Zeiss images. A few users generally known to be hostile to Zeiss expressed thing like "the difference is too small to be worth so much extra money" and "you could make them identical in photoshop", indicating that even they preferred the Zeiss.
The thing is that Zeiss and Canon design philosophy is entirely different. Zeiss has its style and enforces it. You can't do much about it in PP - it will still look like Zeiss rendering. Canon on the other hand produces a much more neutral image with the design goal to offend as few people as possible and to allow extensive postprocessing. It makes sense. They cater to a mass market.
