3. Big question to me was, then what do they think about the difference. Positive or negative ? To me, the difference of Zeiss is a \'positive\' difference. It is the kind of difference worth paying for. Something that speaks to me, so I would like to use such lens. I wonder what their response was.
While I absolutely have asserted and agree that the difference is noticeable ... nicely indicated by both tests run in two diff groups ... the issue of Zeiss being a \'positive\' vs. \'negative\' difference is in line with the concept of \'better\' or \'worse\' ... to which I disagree.
Absolutely, DIFFERENCES exist, but not better, not worse. Zeiss glass doesn\'t exhibit the same characteristics as my Mamiya glass, Oly glass, Nikon, Canon or Tamron glass. I can tell you specifically why I choose to shoot with a particular \'drawing style\' when I choose glass for a given subject ... and it is NEVER because Brand X is \"better\". It almost always for a specific reason of \'drawing style\' (sometimes it is a performance issue, e.g. mfd) that a lens will render a given subject in the style that I intend for it to.
I\'ve got my share of Zeiss and I can tell you what I like about each and Zeiss is notably DIFFERENT in certain regards ... but so are other mfr\'s once one learns those diffs (Voigtlander, Rokkor, Leica, Canon FD/FL, etc. comes to mind). Depending on how I want to render a subject, there are times when Zeiss would be the LAST glass I\'d choose, other times it is my FIRST choice.
BTW, I\'d gladly take a Nikon 180/2.8 vs. C/Y 180/2.8 any day.
Feb 21, 2011 at 10:07 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #9337415 « A small experiment »
