The Zeiss effect...

postcardcv

postcardcv

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,661
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
I have seen a number of comment on here and elsewhere recently talking about the enhanced 3D effect that Zeiss lenses give. Having never used one myself I don't quite get what they are referring to so was wondering if anyone could post some examples. What I'd really love to see is some shots taken with a Zeiss and also with another lens with the same settings (if anyone had two lenses hat cover the same range).
 
You mean those expensive manual focus primes made in Japan by Cosina? They're magic, but you have to believe in magic to see it.
 
I guess Richard doesn't think much of them! I have the 21mm ZE and wouldn't part with it. It's a great length for me for landscapes and despite the above comments it is superbly built and manual focusing is very precise. I like the images it produces and have no regrets buying it. Is it magical? Probably not, but like anything else in photography, if you like it, can afford it, then buy it.
I wouldn't be as derisory as Richard, but then again, I wouldn't wax lyrical as many do. :)
 
Peter,

I can do some comparison shots for you if I have the focal lengths you're interested in.
Zeiss 35/2 v Canon 35/1.4
Zeiss 50/1.4 v Canon 50/1.2
Zeiss 50/2 v Canon 50/1.2
Zeiss 100/2 v Canon 100/2.8 IS

The 50/1.4 doesn't have the same look as the other three when it comes to contrast and saturation but is more of a dreamy rendition. You'll need some files better than 200k to appreciate the difference so PM me your email address and I'll sort something out when it cools down a little (forecast of a possible 40 degrees here today so I'm laying low)

Like Trevor, I'm more than happy to give them space in the bag and it doesn't really bother me by whom and where they were assembled. Richard is of course entitled to his opinion too but, like all things, individual taste comes to the fore.

Here's a low res shot to give some idea although it looks much better at full size.

Bob

10120_12633661504fc8f06b1ab44.jpg
 
Hi Peter

I have a few Sony Zeiss lenses (16-35f2.8, 24-70f2.8, 85f1.4) and they are really what attracted me to the Sony system.

I previously had all the Canon L equivalents of the aforementioned lenses tested them side-by-side on Canon 60D and 1DsIII bodies v Sony a700 and a77 and prefered the Sony Zeiss images in pretty much every case.

I'm a bit pushed to post images at the minute and I guess these things are very subjective anyway. Have to say though that for build quality, sharpness across the image and "colours" the Sony Zeiss lenses take some beating.

Not sure about the 3D side of things though ?

You may not, of course, regard these as real Zeiss lenes either ?

Regards

Gary
 
happy haggis said:
I guess Richard doesn't think much of them! I have the 21mm ZE and wouldn't part with it. It's a great length for me for landscapes and despite the above comments it is superbly built and manual focusing is very precise. I like the images it produces and have no regrets buying it. Is it magical? Probably not, but like anything else in photography, if you like it, can afford it, then buy it.
I wouldn't be as derisory as Richard, but then again, I wouldn't wax lyrical as many do. :)
Click to expand...

That's not true, and not what I said. I was responding to the OP's question about the 'enhanced 3D effect' and some of the other mythical and elusive qualities assigned to anything with an old legacy name from West Germany.

The new Zeiss primes are very good, optically excellent. Just no better than most other top grade lenses.
 
I find the zeiss lenses sometimes have more believable colours, although not necessarily prettier. A 3 D effect is something I think is down to other factors. My 'blad gear beats the hell out of my walkabout, but threatens to break my back.
 
postcardcv said:
I have seen a number of comment on here and elsewhere recently talking about the enhanced 3D effect that Zeiss lenses give. Having never used one myself I don't quite get what they are referring to so was wondering if anyone could post some examples. What I'd really love to see is some shots taken with a Zeiss and also with another lens with the same settings (if anyone had two lenses hat cover the same range).
Click to expand...

There is no magical 3D effect with any lens. You are basically paying for the name. Don't get me wrong zeiss lenses are high quality items but the image quality is not any better than canons offerings if you compare like for like
 
if you want good 3d effect you need to change your sensor, larger the better, upgrade to a phase one or the likes, the size of the sensor makes a real difference

even on 35mm cameras you dont really get it you get a burry background with a larger aperture but the separation doesnt compare to a medium format
 
The Zeiss lenses are more pleasing to my eye. Warmer colours, higher micro contrast, strong MTF performance across the frame, but can suffer badly from CA. I've used them on Canon, Nikon and Leica cameras and I like their rendering. I prefer Leica rendering, but the Zeiss are a very close second in most cases. Don't worry about Japanese made it's the same optical glass no matter where it is made, plus it is made to Zeiss specs and has a very high quality control.
 
manualfocus-g said:
Zeiss lenses have extremely good micro contrast, and to me give a nicer rendition than Canon lenses (whose images look flat IMO). I'm not sure about 3D, but Zeiss images certainly have a pop to them.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Where?

With respect, I'm not seeing it.
 
I'm afraid that I agree with the more sceptical view. The 3D effect and separation from the background is (IMVHO) created by a relatively large aperture and contrast. The full sized images will no doubt be lovely but looking on line I've seen nothing that couldn't have been taken with any of my own more humble wide aperture primes.

Again, IMVHO, what you get with these lenses is arguably better than mass market big name build quality and a lens biased towards manual use and those things in themselves may justify the additional cost.
 
Last edited:
The Zeiss is more pleasing to the eye again. If autofocus wasn't a major concern then I'd get the whole Zeiss line up for a megapixel monster like the D800.
 
Laudrup said:
The Zeiss is more pleasing to the eye again. If autofocus wasn't a major concern then I'd get the whole Zeiss line up for a megapixel monster like the D800.
Click to expand...

Actually why wouldn't Zeiss make any AF versions? There was contax-N AF, and sony has some Zeiss branded glass. Well, 18-21mm doesn't really need it, but 35 - 85mm would benefit a lot. At the end of the day almost all dslrs don't even have appropriate focus screens for these lenses.
 
Canon and Nikon wouldn't let them because who is going to buy a Canon 24-70 when the Zeiss may beat it?
 
Laudrup said:
Canon and Nikon wouldn't let them because who is going to buy a Canon 24-70 when the Zeiss may beat it?
Click to expand...

How could they stop them?

Zeiss won't make an AF version, or IS, because they don't have the tech to hand and it would be very expensive.

But mostly I think because it would be 'off-brand'. Manual focus is part of the 'pure' ethos and modus operandi of the whole West German lens thing.
 
Laudrup said:
Canon and Nikon wouldn't let them because who is going to buy a Canon 24-70 when the Zeiss may beat it?
Click to expand...

Except the Sony zeiss does not. The tamron 24-70 vc lens is pretty Stella and out performs the canon but people will still buy the canon.
 
HoppyUK said:
How could they stop them?

Zeiss won't make an AF version, or IS, because they don't have the tech to hand and it would be very expensive.

But mostly I think because it would be 'off-brand'. Manual focus is part of the 'pure' ethos and modus operandi of the whole West German lens thing.
Click to expand...

By not cooperating closely and interfacing with their AF electronics.
 
Laudrup said:
By not cooperating closely and interfacing with their AF electronics.
Click to expand...

Well yes. They'd have to develop their own tech like all other third parties.
 
POAH said:
Except the Sony zeiss does not. The tamron 24-70 vc lens is pretty Stella and out performs the canon but people will still buy the canon.
Click to expand...

The Zeiss on the Sony offers you something that will seemingly never come soon to the Canon with the ability to stabilize. Zeiss make far more complex and expensive lenses than a jack of all trades like the 24-70 so no doubt they could build a Canon or Nikon killer.
 
In our visual system (i'm talking eyes through to brain here) we percieve depth and dimensionality in many ways

- we notice that in the distance we see less texture
- we notice the effects of pollution & haze, so we then conclude distance (which is why in the mountains we underestimate distance)
- we notice the order of objects - the car was in-front of the lorry
- we notice the scale of things - i.e. a house brick, or tree, and make on the fly comparisons to gauge depth
- we notice shadows, and hilights and deduce structure
- we rotate our eyes inwards for for things that are very near
- if things are moving we notice overlaps and apparent changes in speed of movement as we move or the objects move
- we notice converging parallels

So in essence, for a lens to give us an image in a 2D plane that looks to our eyes as fairly three-dimensional, it needs to be able to convey a lot of these subtleties

i.e. not particularly distorting, not too contrasty etc.

Isolating a subject by shooting at 1.4, and using a high contrast lens gives a "look" but it inst a three-dimemsional one
 
HoppyUK said:
Well yes. They'd have to develop their own tech like all other third parties.
Click to expand...

They have though, and their working closely with Sony shows that it can be done. Without closely working with Nikon it couldn't be done as who wants great optics with crappy Sigma-esque reverse engineered focusing? Nikon wouldn't work closely though as who is going to buy their Nikon lenses?
 
you don't half talk some rubbish - have you actually used a sigma lens with HSM ? chances are nikon don't see any reason to work closely as they already have a wide range of high quality glass (unlike sony) , but there is nothing stopping zeiss from coming up with their own AF if they wanted to - thing is they don't.

Also like for like i can't see any difference anyway - high quality glass is high quality glass - it doesnt become higher quality just because it has the zeiss trademark (particularly as that is now owned by cosina)
 
An AF lens tend to have relatively small rotation during focussing to avoid being slow. MF lenses have much greater rotation for the precision needed to be accurate. It's when the two try to combineyou end up with an imprecise, slow focussing lens like the EF180/3.5L from Canon.

Bob
 
big soft moose said:
you don't half talk some rubbish - have you actually used a sigma lens with HSM ? chances are nikon don't see any reason to work closely as they already have a wide range of high quality glass (unlike sony) , but there is nothing stopping zeiss from coming up with their own AF if they wanted to - thing is they don't.

Also like for like i can't see any difference anyway - high quality glass is high quality glass - it doesnt become higher quality just because it has the zeiss trademark (particularly as that is now owned by cosina)
Click to expand...

"Hi Cal,

Carl Zeiss has a lot of experience designing auto focus lenses for the Contax and Sony systems. This requires a close working relationship with the camera company and permission to interface with their electronics and AF systems. To date, we have not had permission to offer this feature with our ZF lens series.

Sincerely,
Richard Schleuning
____________________________________________________________________
Carl Zeiss MicroImaging, Inc. - Photo Division
www.zeiss.com/photo

Richard Schleuning - National Sales Manager, International Sales Americas
PO Box 112, Roseland, NJ 07068 USA
Click to expand...

No doubt you probably know more than him too.
 
big soft moose said:
you don't half talk some rubbish - have you actually used a sigma lens with HSM ? chances are nikon don't see any reason to work closely as they already have a wide range of high quality glass (unlike sony) , but there is nothing stopping zeiss from coming up with their own AF if they wanted to - thing is they don't.

Also like for like i can't see any difference anyway - high quality glass is high quality glass - it doesn't become higher quality just because it has the zeiss trademark (particularly as that is now owned by cosina)
Click to expand...

I think we need to untangle the clever electronics with the ability to produce excellent optics. Historically, across the board, Zeiss have made spectacularly good lenses, and lens systems. from binoculars, to microscopes to Ophthalmic and camera, Zeiss have always been very good with glass, for a very long time
 
Richard King said:
I think we need to untangle the clever electronics with the ability to produce excellent optics. Historically, across the board, Zeiss have made spectacularly good lenses, and lens systems. from binoculars, to microscopes to Ophthalmic and camera, Zeiss have always been very good with glass, for a very long time
Click to expand...

Indeed they have - rather like practika (who were the half of zeiss who got left in the east zone after germany was partioned)

However both trademarks have now been sold

zeiss to cosina - who's track record with lenses isnt great , but who's zeiss primes are quite good (but not as magical as some fanbois would have us believe)

and practika to kyocera - who now use the brand on digital compacts which are, IMO, frankly crap
 
big soft moose said:
Zeiss to cosina - who's track record with lenses isnt great , but who's zeiss primes are quite good (but not as magical as some fanbois would have us believe)
Click to expand...


You do know that they've made some good stuff, don't you?
 
Laudrup said:
Yeah I have, and I still bought the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II unsurprisingly.
Click to expand...

Well, I have no complaints at all with my Siggy 50 and 85mm f1.4's, the HSM on my 12-24mm seems to work and my 150mm f2.8's focus seems ok-ish... for a macro lens.

Pesonally I think you've made a sweeping statement will little foundation and are floundering for justification :shake: Maybe you should stop digging? :)
 
woof woof said:
You do know that they've made some good stuff, don't you?
Click to expand...

they have - they've also made some truly appalling stuff like their version of the 100-400. which is why i said their track record isnt great , its mixed at best
 
big soft moose said:
they have - they've also made some truly appalling stuff like their version of the 100-400. Like isaid their track record isnt great , its mixed at best
Click to expand...

So, like others they've made good and bad?

Nice to see you backtrack so quickly :D
 
woof woof said:
Well, I have no complaints at all with my Siggy 50 and 85mm f1.4's, the HSM on my 12-24mm seems to work and my 150mm f2.8's focus seems ok-ish... for a macro lens.

Pesonally I think you've made a sweeping statement will little foundation and are floundering for justification :shake: Maybe you should stop digging? :)
Click to expand...

Your standards may be lower than mine. Third party lenses made for people on a budget with things like 'HSM' and 'APO' on them don't mean much to me, the way they perform does. The whole alphabet can be on them, but if it is soft and focus is leisurely then why bother with them and not the OEM? If you buy a top lens from Canon compare them to the Sigma equivalent.
 
HoppyUK said:
Where?

With respect, I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...

That's fine, then in that case your Canon lenses will serve you well :) I've tested literally hundreds of lenses over the past 4 years and the newer Zeiss stuff (Contax and Z series) give the best micro contrast and subsequent pop in my opinion (I haven't tried Leica kit though). They are also killer at infinity. Canon make brilliant long lenses though ;)

BTW, for others suggesting that your lens can improve to the same standard with pp...well... :lol:
 
woof woof said:
So, like others they've made good and bad?

Nice to see you backtrack so quickly :D
Click to expand...

no backtracking here - i stand by what i originally said - cosinas track record of making lenses isnt the best (ie they've made the ocassional gem but its been difficult to pick out from an awful lot of dross)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top