SKumar25 wrote:
This thread is like those 85 1.8 V 85 L II lens threads. The comparison is pretty pointless.
No, this thread is nothing like a comparison between two Canon lenses, because in that case, people aren\'t making fanatical claims about \"magic\" and \"3D look\" just because the lens is a particular brand.
If L users believe they have scored a bargain, good on them.
This is not about bargains or value. This is entirely about the distastefulness of biased individuals who attempt to cloak their biases and irrational exuberance for Zeiss under a shroud of objectivity, when they are not in fact being objective.
The review, on which this whole thread is based on is by a guy who has tested every L under the sun. If he thought the ZE was crap, or that you can save money by buying the L, he would have said this. He has reviewed a few Zeisses, not all received glowing reviews. Perhaps you can trust a neutral reviewer.
Nowhere does Bryan say that the Zeiss 100 MP produces \"images that you simply can\'t with the Canon.\"
The Zeiss is blisteringly sharp wide open, the 100% sample I attached is unsharpened. If I sharpened it my daughter\'s skin would look like a granny\'s. At this aperture you can create images that you simply can\'t with the Canon.
You are biased and you refuse to admit it. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that this claim is true. But you can\'t, so you speak in generalities to mask the fact that you cannot substantiate your viewpoint.
May 30, 2011 at 08:36 AM
Previous versions of wickerprints's message #9631084 « Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens »
