AGeoJO wrote: SKumar25 wrote: AGeoJO wrote:
We are not considering AF, the presence/absence of IS and the difference in magnification ratio between the Zeiss and Canon.
Nor the fact the Zeiss is 1 stop faster.
That is absolutely correct. I wonder whether those shots that Lars posted were all taken at that aperture. If they were, then indeed the Canon 100mmL couldn\'t do those shots.... Lars?
FYI, maybe you didn\'t read the entire thread and missed my post. I had the Zeiss f/2.0 Makro before but a ZF version and I enjoyed that lens and I am not anti-Zeiss as you think I am. As matter of fact, I still have 3 Zeiss ZM lenses that I love but that\'s a different matter, of course.
Hi Joshua, I know you are not anti Zeiss. The point I tried to make (albeit subtly) by replying to your post is that the 2 companys started with seperate design parameters. These are quite different lenses.
Yes the Canon would probably be better for macro, but in other applications the Zeiss wins. 4 stop hybrid IS can not stop motion or affect DOF.
Do you agree that Zeisses render differently to Canons? Even stopped down I can see classic Zeiss rendering in Lars\' examples.
May 26, 2011 at 09:51 PM
Previous versions of SKumar25's message #9623217 « Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens »
