Indeed, one has to make a sort of normalizing of what one sees.
Different subjects show differently, even the same subjects show differently in different light.
Aperture value chosen for the shot can also make a major difference, even on the same scene lit identically.
So does the photographer\'s skill, vision and pp.
When I look at excellent Joshua\'s images, etc, I am trying to make allowances for all those factors and distil the tenuous lens factor out of it. Indeed, that is very difficult, almost impossible to do, particularly on these web-crippled images.
However, based on what I\'ve seen here and elsewhere, I feel the 21mm Distagon has a very hi IQ capability. After all, look at the results of this survey so far. It is not likely that all of those folks choosing 21mm Distagon are smoking some funny Zeiss cigaterres.
In all this, I believe the build, handling and feel of the Zeiss lens should not be neglected as a factor contributing to quality. If you give an average symphony orchestra violin player an instrument made by Stradivarius, their playing will instantly improve in 9 cases out of 10. Why is that ? Because the Strad is better, or \"feels\" better, or the player feels inspired to make better music on what they believe is one of the finest violins ever made ? Or perhaps all of those factors come to bear on their music making. In the end, what counts is the quality of results, be they music or photographs.
Since I seem to have come to the end of Canon lenses I am interested in collecting, perhaps I should be exploring Zeiss lenses now.....21mm Distagon is probably a good candidate to start the process.
Indeed, one has to make a sort of normalizing of what one sees.
Different subject show differently, even the same subjects show differently in different light.
Aperture value chosen for the shot can also make a major difference, even on the same scene lit identically.
So does the photographer\'s skill, vision and pp.
When I look at excellent Joshua\'s images, etc, I am trying to make allowances for all those factors and distil the tenuous lens factor out of it. Indeed, that is very difficult, almost impossible to do, particularly on these web-crippled images.
However, based on what I\'ve seen here and elsewhere, I feel the 21mm Distagon has a very hi IQ capability. After all, look at the results of this survey so far. It is not likely that all of those folks choosing 21mm Distagon are smoking some funny Zeiss cigaterres.
In all this, I believe the build, handling and feel of the Zeiss lens should not be neglected as a factor contributing to quality. If you give an average symphony orchestra violin player an instrument made by Stradivarius, their playing will instantly improve in 9 cases out of 10. Why is that ? Because the Strad is better, or \"feels\" better, or the player feels inspired to make better music on what they believe is one of the finest violins ever made ? Or perhaps all of those factors come to bear on their music making. In the end, what counts is the quality of results, be they music or photographs.
Since I seem to have come to the end of Canon lenses I am interested in collecting, perhaps I should be exploring Zeiss lenses now.....21mm Distagon is probably a good candidate to start the process.
Indeed, one has to make a sort of normalizing of what one sees.
Different subject show differently, even the same subjects show differently in different light.
Aperture value chosen for the shot can also make a major difference, even on the same scene lit identically.
So does the photographer\'s skill, vision and pp.
When I look at excellent Joshua\'s images, etc, I am trying to make allowances for all those factors and distil the tenuous lens factor out of it. Indeed, that is very difficult, almost impossible to do, particularly on these web-crippled images.
However, based on what I\'ve seen here and elsewhere, I feel the 21mm Distagon has a very hi IQ capability. After all, look at the results of this survey so far. It is not likely that all of those folks choosing 21mm Distagon are smoking some funny Zeiss cigaterres.
In all this, I believe the build, handling and feel of the Zeiss lens should not be neglected as a factor contributing to quality. If you give an average symphony orchestra violin player an instrument made by Stradivarius, their playing will instantly improve in 9 cases out of 10. Why is that ? Because the Strad is better, or \"feels\" better, or the player feels inspired to make better music on what they believe is one of the finest violins ever made ? Or perhaps all of those factors come to bear on their music making. In the end, what counts is the quality of results, be they music or photographs.
Since I seem to have come to the end of Canon lenses I am interested in collecting, perhaps I should explore Zeiss lenses now.....21mm Distagon is probably a good candidate to start the process.
Oct 03, 2010 at 12:07 PM
Previous versions of PetKal's message #8906236 « Zeiss 21 f/2.8 ZE vs. 24L II, etc. »
