Bifurcator wrote:
Rusty,
hmmm interesting... i didn\'t know that.
But i can tell you that i never seen any zeiss to have soft looking corners on my µ4/3 no matter how they were cropped.
RustyBug wrote:
Hmmm ... did you just tell us the answers
I may have, yes. But hopefully everyone already knew this. I\'ve never seen a zeiss that had soft corners on an APS-C or µ4/3 sensor. Have you?
Or,
Does that suggest that in order for Zeiss to NOT have any difference, that ALL other glass must be equally sharp in the \"corners\" (on 4/3) and of the same color rendering ... which we clearly see is not the case, therefore, there must be a difference ...
Hmmm ...
My only point that I was getting at (originally) is that there are people who are insistent on saying that there is \"no difference\" in Zeiss (Leica, etc.) glass vs. other glass and that rather than try to prove to them there is a difference ... just \"agree\" with them, because they typically have already made up their minds so ardently that they refuse to be objective at striving to understand what those differences are ... again, I didn\'t say better ... different.
Of course, for those who want help to understand what those differences are ... that\'s a different matter.
Yup, and that was my only purpose here. I though it was worth looking at. I hope you didn\'t think I was taking an adversarial position by trying to actually claim that \"Zeiss [actually] isn\'t any different\"...
And yes ... you can take a great pic with any of them (I get that). You want me to believe that you can\'t tell the difference or that the differences don\'t matter to you ... I\'ll agree with you all day long. But please don\'t try to \"jack people up\" by insisting that they are all the same in a forum where we specifically denote the differences among them.
Well I did make the claim that I could pick a lens from another manufacturer to very closely match each of Zeiss\'s lenses so I can understand why might think I was making such a silly argument here. It\'s not the case though. I showed these just as they are for whatever they might say to others. I get a few messages from looking at them:
1: Differences when scaled to large-ish web sizes (1350px in this case) are not very great. So if that\'s the main purpose then better to save your money.
2: By looking closely (even at the scaled images) one can clearly see Zeiss is better than a $200 or $100 crop lens. But in the $200 cropper\'s case by such a small degree it\'s pretty close to splitting hairs. [And really these crop lenses will look about the same on FF if designed for FF... only the prices will be $450 and $750 or something like that. - choose your model.]
3: As you already mentioned above, they can all make nice images.
4: We haven\'t gotten to yet but if we do it\'ll be that the differences between a poor lens and a good one can not be easily be reconciled in PS or the likes.
Apr 18, 2012 at 11:08 AM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #10555152 « Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ... »
