Re: Batis 2/40 CF vs 35/1.4 GM; colors and micro-contrasts
deepseek R1: "effortless elegance"
chiron: [...] In a quick read-through, I didn't find anything to disagree with. [...]
It would be interesting to ask a similar question to ChatGPT.
LBJ2: An interesting read for sure [...]Now to see and compare how other Ai services respond to the same questions could be interesting too.
I think mankind is in big trouble when we start to trust, or put too much trust, in AI-programs.
I've found they can be great when helping people writing and setting up articles and such. Fine. If we start to believe we get correct answers to questions we are in trouble. Some time ago different AI-applications started to learn from each other. Trained at first using on-line material produced by humans they now still train using on-line data - but now a lot of shit on the net is made by other AI-programs. There is nothing limiting them from redistribute obvious lies, shady facts and political material. The net ends up as more or less useless and the stupid mankind gets more confused than ever.
We can for example chose a Batis lens thanks to its "effortless elegance". Or we'll ask ChatGPT to summarize the text by deepseek R1 as we don't care to read all of it. Then we get this:
[bold]"Here’s a concise summary of the comparison between the Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF and the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM:
Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF
Color & Tonality: Warm, natural, and slightly contrast-rich with a "German" look. Excellent for skin tones, landscapes, and subtle tonal transitions.
Microcontrast: High microcontrast, giving images a three-dimensional look without excessive sharpness.
Strengths:
Consistent color reproduction across lighting conditions.
Smooth tonal gradation and natural rendering.
Balanced contrast, ideal for straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) results.
Close Focus (CF) capability (24 cm) for detailed shots.
Weaknesses:
Less vibrant blues and greens compared to the Sony 35mm GM.
Slight vignetting at f/2 (improves at f/4).
Best for: Portraits, street, travel, and nature photography with minimal post-processing.
Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM
Color & Tonality: Vibrant, modern, with strong contrast. Blues and greens are more saturated, making images "pop."
Microcontrast: High sharpness and clarity but can appear slightly artificial in natural scenes.
Strengths:
High dynamic contrast, excellent for dramatic lighting.
Wide aperture (f/1.4) for low-light and bokeh-heavy shots.
Superior post-processing flexibility.
Weaknesses:
Colors can be overly intense in mixed/artificial lighting.
Requires more editing for natural skin tones.
Best for: Architecture, low-light, high-contrast scenes, and photographers who prefer post-processing.
Final Verdict
The Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF is ideal for photographers who value natural, warm colors and a classic look straight from the camera.
The Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM is better for those who want high-contrast, vibrant colors and flexibility in editing.
Both are excellent lenses, but your choice depends on your preferred style—effortless elegance (Batis) or modern versatility (GM)."[/bold]
Re: Batis 2/40 CF vs 35/1.4 GM; colors and micro-contrasts
deepseek R1: "effortless elegance"
chiron: [...] In a quick read-through, I didn't find anything to disagree with. [...]
It would be interesting to ask a similar question to ChatGPT.
LBJ2: An interesting read for sure [...]Now to see and compare how other Ai services respond to the same questions could be interesting too.
I think mankind is in big trouble when we start to trust, or put too much trust, in AI-programs.
I've found they can be great when helping people writing and setting up articles and such. Fine. If we start to believe we get correct answers to questions we are in trouble. Some time ago different AI-applications started to learn from each other. Trained at first using on-line material produced by humans they now still train using on-line data - but now a lot of shit on the net is made by other AI-programs. There is nothing limiting them from redistribute obvious lies, shady facts and political material. The net ends up as more or less useless and the stupid mankind gets more confused than ever.
We can for example chose a Batis lens thanks to its "effortless elegance". Or we'll ask ChatGPT to summarize the text by deepseek R1 as we don't care to read all of it. Then we get this:
"Here’s a concise summary of the comparison between the Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF and the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM:
Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF
Color & Tonality: Warm, natural, and slightly contrast-rich with a "German" look. Excellent for skin tones, landscapes, and subtle tonal transitions.
Microcontrast: High microcontrast, giving images a three-dimensional look without excessive sharpness.
Strengths:
Consistent color reproduction across lighting conditions.
Smooth tonal gradation and natural rendering.
Balanced contrast, ideal for straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) results.
Close Focus (CF) capability (24 cm) for detailed shots.
Weaknesses:
Less vibrant blues and greens compared to the Sony 35mm GM.
Slight vignetting at f/2 (improves at f/4).
Best for: Portraits, street, travel, and nature photography with minimal post-processing.
Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM
Color & Tonality: Vibrant, modern, with strong contrast. Blues and greens are more saturated, making images "pop."
Microcontrast: High sharpness and clarity but can appear slightly artificial in natural scenes.
Strengths:
High dynamic contrast, excellent for dramatic lighting.
Wide aperture (f/1.4) for low-light and bokeh-heavy shots.
Superior post-processing flexibility.
Weaknesses:
Colors can be overly intense in mixed/artificial lighting.
Requires more editing for natural skin tones.
Best for: Architecture, low-light, high-contrast scenes, and photographers who prefer post-processing.
Final Verdict
The Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF is ideal for photographers who value natural, warm colors and a classic look straight from the camera.
The Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM is better for those who want high-contrast, vibrant colors and flexibility in editing.
Both are excellent lenses, but your choice depends on your preferred style—effortless elegance (Batis) or modern versatility (GM)."
Re: Batis 2/40 CF vs 35/1.4 GM; colors and micro-contrasts
deepseek R1: "effortless elegance"
chiron: [...] In a quick read-through, I didn't find anything to disagree with. [...]
It would be interesting to ask a similar question to ChatGPT.
LBJ2: An interesting read for sure [...]Now to see and compare how other Ai services respond to the same questions could be interesting too.
I think mankind is in big trouble when we start to trust, or put too much trust, in AI-programs.
I've found they can be great when helping people writing and setting up articles and such. Fine. If we start to believe we get correct answers to questions we are in trouble. Some time ago different AI-applications started to learn from each other. Trained at first using on-line material produced by humans they now still train using on-line data - but now a lot of shit on the net is made by other AI-programs. There is nothing limiting them from redistribute obvious lies, shady facts and political material. The net ends up as more or less useless and the stupid mankind gets more confused than ever.
We can for example chose a Batis lens thanks to its "effortless elegance". Or we'll ask ChatGPT to summarize the text by deepseek R1 as we don't care to read all of it. Then we get this:
Here’s a concise summary of the comparison between the Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF and the Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM:
Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF
Color & Tonality: Warm, natural, and slightly contrast-rich with a "German" look. Excellent for skin tones, landscapes, and subtle tonal transitions.
Microcontrast: High microcontrast, giving images a three-dimensional look without excessive sharpness.
Strengths:
Consistent color reproduction across lighting conditions.
Smooth tonal gradation and natural rendering.
Balanced contrast, ideal for straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) results.
Close Focus (CF) capability (24 cm) for detailed shots.
Weaknesses:
Less vibrant blues and greens compared to the Sony 35mm GM.
Slight vignetting at f/2 (improves at f/4).
Best for: Portraits, street, travel, and nature photography with minimal post-processing.
Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM
Color & Tonality: Vibrant, modern, with strong contrast. Blues and greens are more saturated, making images "pop."
Microcontrast: High sharpness and clarity but can appear slightly artificial in natural scenes.
Strengths:
High dynamic contrast, excellent for dramatic lighting.
Wide aperture (f/1.4) for low-light and bokeh-heavy shots.
Superior post-processing flexibility.
Weaknesses:
Colors can be overly intense in mixed/artificial lighting.
Requires more editing for natural skin tones.
Best for: Architecture, low-light, high-contrast scenes, and photographers who prefer post-processing.
Final Verdict
The Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF is ideal for photographers who value natural, warm colors and a classic look straight from the camera.
The Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM is better for those who want high-contrast, vibrant colors and flexibility in editing.
Both are excellent lenses, but your choice depends on your preferred style—effortless elegance (Batis) or modern versatility (GM).
Feb 08, 2025 at 10:15 AM
Previous versions of Jonas B's message #16749019 « Batis 2/40 CF vs 35/1.4 GM; colors and micro-contrasts »
