What is persistently being ignored by the Zeiss fans here is Aravind\'s side-by-side comparisons: how do you explain the fact that the resulting images are nearly identical? The basic assumption of the \"3D effect\" is that it is something that the lens plays a role in producing. If \"3D\" is something that you think the Zeiss lens is more likely to produce, then why have all of the direct comparisons failed to show any significant difference between it and the Canon 100L?
It goes back to the point that was made earlier, which is that if such a vague concept like \"3D effect\" exists, then it must be overwhelmingly the product of the content of the scene and the way it was shot, rather than an optical property of the lens. I have already anticipated what some of you will say--you will claim that no differences were observed simply because these non-optical criteria for \"3D\" were not satisfied. If not, then you have just affirmed the validity of the above counterargument. You cannot have it both ways--to claim that \"3D\" is something a lens produces, yet state that it only does so under just the right subject conditions.
Based solely on the side-by-side comparisons, of which there are more than one, it simply cannot be claimed that the Zeiss lens \"tends to produce a 3D effect more often\" than the Canon lens. You will need to shoot them side-by-side, with the same subject, under the same lighting, with the same camera settings, in order to show that one lens will do it when the other will not. Until you can demonstrate that, the claim is unsubstantiated.
May 31, 2011 at 01:48 PM
Previous versions of wickerprints's message #9635017 « Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens »
