Thread Summary:
Let me attempt to summarize a few elements to this long thread:
1. The thread started off with a recently published lens review of the Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar, which being posted in the Canon forum, posters quickly compared to the Canon 100/2.8 IS L Macro. There was heated discussion as to the interpretation of the data supporting views as to the optical qualities of these two lenses.
2. There was bickering over those that felt some Zeiss supporters were biased, claiming the brand made \"better\" images, while this interpretation was in heated dispute.
3. Several examples of images from these lenses were shown to support either view that the two lenses produced similar or different image qualities.
4. Denoir explained a recent test he had run in the FM alt forum and POTN forum, a blind test with negative controls, which showed that participants could tell the difference between a Zeiss image and Canon image with statistical significance. There was no assessment of the Zeiss images being better or worse than the Canon, just different.
5. Most seemed to agree that it is also possible to produce images from either lens that are indistinguishable from the other. Thus the difference seen in 4, above is not always present in comparative images. This was consistent with point 3 above. The use variables creating these differences were not discussed in detail.
6. The discussion turned to the language to describe any said differences, and whether they are significant or worthwhile ($). This assessment as to value of any differences seems to be a subjective one, based upon our artistic style, and opinions strongly diverge as to significance.
Mike K
Jun 07, 2011 at 03:58 PM
Previous versions of Mike K's message #9655479 « Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens »
