Conner999 wrote:
Yes, you can spend that large increment in $$$$ to get that last Nth percentile in performance (God knows many of use have and still do), but that difference in resolution is often only viewable on screen at 100% vs. in real-life prints with any differences in color, contrast, etc between A and B often closed in PS in ~5 minutes.
I strongly disagree. Before I got my Zeiss lenses, I could spend half an hour on just one single picture, trying to get the colors the way I wanted. Not so any more. I used to crank everything up, using the \"vivid\" color profile in ACR. Now I use \"camera neutral\" and I\'m so much happier with that. It\'s just right from the beginning. I might as well crank it sometimes, but I don\'t feel that I \"have to\" anymore.
Yes, the differences are subtle. But not even close to neglible. Resolution doesn\'t interest me at all. I\'m after the \"Zeiss look\", which can be seen even in small websized pictures. If anything, you\'ll miss it if you only look at 100%.
Now, have a look at the rocks on the little cape here. You won\'t get that with the Nikkor. It\'ll be close, but no cigar.
And what about the magnesium brake-thingy here? It just wants out of my screen!
Both of these shots are well stopped down, where it \"should\" not matter what lens you use. But it does.
Jun 29, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Previous versions of Makten's message #8614643 « Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0 »
