philber wrote:
Luka, I could agree with your definiton, very lightly rephrased. The f:1.4 shots tend to emphasize contrast ahead of sharpness, and the MP\'s sharpness ahead of contrast. Which doesn\'t mean that the f:1.4 isn\'t actually quite sharp indeed, and the MP quite contrasty indeed. The fact that they are both current in the Zeiss line shows that Zeiss themselves feel that there is room/need for both. The same as for the 85 and the 100. Just my $0.02.
Yes, I agree - we\'re talking in relative terms here - one Zeiss vs another Zeiss. The whole Zeiss Z* line has a lot in common for all lenses. Compared to Canons, Nikons and whatnot they are all very sharp and render images with high micro contrast.
Peace?
Was there ever anything but peace?
I just have to be curious if the trades of those projects had to adhere to a budget of sorts - countless human hours to complete such a monumental task. Thanks!
Mark
I think that is covered by the Mel Brooks quote - \"It\'s good to be the king\". Many of the grand buildings in Paris were royal prestige projects and then pesky little things such as \'budgets\' don\'t really apply.
Many of the grand buildings in Paris were royal prestige projects and then pesky little things such as \'budgets\' don\'t really apply.