Rick Knepper wrote:
cale johnson wrote:
Sorry Cale. I was going to respond to your post above but I wanted to use it as a bump too.
cale johnson wrote:
I can't tell if you want us to believe that the Canon is an amazing lens or if you want us (the viewers) to believe that it is capable of identical results.
My objective was to publish a comparison and let others decide for themselves. Perhaps I did potential lookers a disservice by being so flip. Whenever these types of comparisons are posted, you always get someone who will say "I can't tell the difference" so I was offering a bit of logic to attach to the observation i.e. so if the image looks the same to you, which lens gives you the extra value-added?
If the first, I agree the Canon lens is a great lens considering that it is a zoom lens. Albeit an expensive zoom.
But if you are searching for the answer
I am not searching an answer. I've purchased and used enough lenses to know what I am looking for nearly the instant I see it. I posted because others may be searching for an answer.
, is it capable of identical results and you want us to believe it is...I'm sorry to say, it is not as sharp as the Zeiss. That's not conjecture, that's a fact.
Okay. Cool.
What part of the image did you compare to one another? The street in the distance is the center of the lens.
(Of course, this assumes that each lens was used to it's maximum potential in your test, which I am simply incapable of determining.)
Note: I have 30 years of experience in the sale of high-end commercial offset printing. I've looked at enough detail and done enough press checks over the years to know that; a) most people don't really look at images carefully enough, and b) getting the best possible image sometimes isn't worth the bother. YMMV.
You know something? I totally agree with both of these things and I would think this comparison would illustrate what you've said quite brilliantly.
In my first post I offered links to the two pictures, each enlarged to offer detail. Having done that, I now see the obvious difference between the two pictures when I observe them even casually. In printing, the effect of being drawn instantly to a "flaw" or item of "brilliance" could turn the client's mood from one extreme to the other. The more experienced clients being the most resilient.
I was drawn to your thread because I just purchased a zeiss 135 for my D7100. Problem is, it's very expensive and if I open the box, I'll forfeit 15% in restocking fees should I do the smart thing and return it. Your thread has only added confusion to my situation.
You've given folks inclined to look at this comparison a good starting point within the image to make their comparisons. However, 99% of my photography does not include such obvious straight lines.
It has taken me years to appreciate that it takes a great many opinions to make a consensus. I won't argue the validity where "the intent of the photographer outweighs the precision of the image". Let's face it, a lens is not a substitute for an eye and your "vision" in photography is by no means limited solely by what your equipment can deliver.
The reason I upload different variants of the images in this type of comparison is so that folks can apply their typical PPing regimen to the images at the image size they commonly use. It is possible that those special wunderkinds on PS and other editing software can mitigate the difference to a degree in some parts of the image on characteristics involving sharpness, color and contrast.
I don't think it is necessary to strive for equivalents in the images. There was no such intent on the part of the engineers that designed the lenses.
I do not want to color this thread with any more personal opinions but I will say that differences between the two images are more visible in certain small areas of the image at the size I generally use making the difference of the majority of area within the image a big Meh.
Interesting that you would conclude thus. Small areas within a big image made up the majority of the work of Georges Seurat, pointillist artist famous for his work "Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte". I would suggest that the Zeiss lens is a far more capable "artist" where it comes to all the detail in your photograph, the leaves on the trees, the buildings (which you might not consider consider part of "99% of your photography" but are a focal point of this image), and the other small details.
Looking at the two images, side-by-side, I am not particularly impressed by the differences. Frankly, I don't think the image is particularly engaging. (Believe me, I understand that wasn't your intention.) But in a clinical evaluation of the two, I continue to be impressed by the superiority of the image captured by the Zeiss lens.
BTW, My Zeiss lens has been returned. Perhaps someday I too will enjoy having the opportunity to handle such an extraordinary optical tool.
