philber wrote:
Wickerprints, you are barking up the wrong tree IMHO. I have not seen claims that Zeiss lenses are sharper than other lenses, not even at the hand of Zeiss \"fanatics\" (your choice of words). There are many lenses which are quite sharp, Zeiss among them, but certainly not alone. I have already written in this thread that, if one asks the main posters on the Zeiss thread why they choose Zeiss, sharpness will be far from the top of their list. Colours and contrast, especially micro-contrast, and the elusive ability to reproduce \"3D\" will no doubt top the carts.
As for me, I certainly don\'t obsess with corner sharpness. My priority is the overall \"rendering\" of the picture, which is quite diffrent from one brand of lenses to the next. Also, it affects all pictures across the frame, independently of aperture and the likes, so it matters very much IMHO. Why is sharpness OTOH so often taken as the main measure of lens performance? Because it can be measured scientifically. Whereas colours, for example, are a matter of personal preference.
That being said, if you prefer Canon lenses, that is fine by me. Those who say that \"only pics made with XYZ lenses are really good\" are just as wrong as those who say that \"all those who support XYZ-branded products are fanatics\".
Namaste!
\"Rendering style\" is not a scientific term. As a result, Zeiss owners can talk all day long about this intangible, subjective quality, and nobody can dispute it because it\'s not verifiable nor disprovable. Frankly, it\'s very off-putting to hear people talk about such lenses as if they have some sort of magical quality to them. They don\'t.
Oct 04, 2010 at 03:36 AM
Previous versions of wickerprints's message #8908127 « Zeiss 21 f/2.8 ZE vs. 24L II, etc. »
