Canon L vs. Zeiss glass

x_tan wrote in post #12856297
Seem 85L has more detail than Zeiss 85.

85 ZE is a tricky lens to use and its not for noobs. i bet kai didn't account for the focus shift from f/2-2.8 because my 85 ZE at 2.0 is stupidly sharp. he should've at least used liveview to take the pics since i doubt he has experience using that lens.

Honestly, people can talk about it all they want, but you should really look at some picture examples from each and decide. Both lines are exceptional glass capable of professional and beautiful results.

The only piece of Zeiss glass Ive used is the ZE 21, but it is far better than any Canon lens Ive used that covers at or near 21mm - keep in mind Ive not used TS-e's and those are probably closer competitors.

But, The micro-contrast is out of this world as is the sharpness out of camera. The colors are also very unique to Zeiss. Im not sure if Ive noticed anything more 3D about it than other lenses Ive used though...

It also seems like Zeiss has some lenses that are more special than others. The ZE 21, 50 MP, and 100 MP come to mind.

One thing I do notice when using my Zeiss glass (mix of C/Y and ZE)...if I apply my base amount of capture sharpening that I use for Canon images to those of the Zeiss images, the Zeiss images just get obliterated with sharpening artifacts. They require much, much less sharpening than images taken with my Canon L zooms (and they're no slouch by any stretch of the imagination).

jdizzle wrote in post #12856082
I got into a debate with a few people about the differences between Canon L and Zeiss glass. They aren't convinced that there is no difference between the two. So, the three questions I have are:

1) What makes it so special?
2) Is the microcontrast really there?
3) Is Zeiss better than Canon?

Let's discuss! Thanks!

Have you seen this: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1002900

I have shot Canon L's and Zeiss, and to me they are totally different lenses. Some things that the L's do very well you can't do with the Zeiss, and vice versa. In my opinion it really depends on the type of shooting that you want to do. Now that I have the option, I wouldn't take Zeiss glass out to shoot sports and I wouldn't take the L's out to shoot landscapes, even though they are both capable. That being said the image quality and the "feel" that you get from the Zeiss glass one ups the L's in my opinion, the colors, contrast, and rendering are just more vibrant. The first Zeiss I bought was the 2/35, which led to the 2/50, which led to the 2.8/21 and I will say that the L's haven't been on the camera in a long time since the switch. Obviously it is possible to get great results with either, but Zeiss has been my go to option these days and couldn't be happier.

To Permagrin's mention of focusing. It is definitely harder to get sharp accurate results with MF lenses. Particularly with fast moving, low light, or wide angle subjects. While I can still focus pretty close to spot on manually I can't do that and track a subject very well. Leica is probably my favorite color rendition with the 180/2.8 APO at the top of the list and the 50/1.7 Zeiss is excellent. I agree that L's have their own world and in fact I was recently surprised at the fidelity with a nifty-fifty and a 5D. I find that there is less PP with Zeiss and Leica. Less need to saturate and sharpen and compensate for a warm rendition or lost shadows and highlights (fast L glass). I have never shot a white L so I can only imagine that Canon pulls out all the stops for this series.

Wow! The responses are overwhelming! I just want to thank everyone who gave their feedback. I just was unsure if Zeiss IQ was really that good. I've been shooting with the Zeiss 21 for a while now and never thought to expand the lineup. Now, with new delivery of the Zeiss 35 f2, I'm totally convinced that the IQ has the edge over Canon. Someone put a bug in my ear and said they couldn't tell the difference even with PP. I beg to differ since that person never shot Zeiss glass.

So, as long as you don't shoot anything move, should pick Zeiss over the L then?

Another point: Zeiss will not need to replace USM, ever !

x_tan wrote in post #12861164
So, as long as you don't shoot anything move, should pick Zeiss over the L then?

Another point: Zeiss will not need to replace USM, ever !

My point of discussion is not AF or MF. My point is being able to differentiate between Canon and Zeiss IQ. I'm going to keep my AF lenses bcoz' I'll need them for sure but, MF with Zeiss is just plain fun to use. I highly recommend at least trying one of their lenses.

argyle wrote in post #12857440
One thing I do notice when using my Zeiss glass (mix of C/Y and ZE)...if I apply my base amount of capture sharpening that I use for Canon images to those of the Zeiss images, the Zeiss images just get obliterated with sharpening artifacts. They require much, much less sharpening than images taken with my Canon L zooms (and they're no slouch by any stretch of the imagination).

The one thing I do notice when pp'ing images in LR is to not touch the Clarity slider. It messes with the detail imo.

interesting read...i've been wanting to try zeiss and now i want to try it even more.

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #12861893
interesting read...i've been wanting to try zeiss and now i want to try it even more.

You should.

What I've learned in my own tests and experience (I have tested the Zeiss 50mm f2 MP, and the 100 f2 MP) surprised me.

The first surprise and my first experience was with the 50mm. I tested it against the Sigma 50 1.4 (not a canon lens, but well-regarded and comparable to canon's best 50mm options). When I examined the test images in Lightroom I was amazed by the extra detail visible in the Zeiss images. The sharpenss of the test images were about the same between the two lenses, I just got more textural detail in the Zeiss images. Very, very impressive. However, better IQ doesn't necessarily translate into a buying decision and after my tests I sent the Zeiss back and kept the Sigma. The Sigma had AF and is nearly 1/3 the cost.

The second surprise was spending a couple of weeks with the Zeiss 100mm MP. I thought it would eat my 70-200mm f/4L for dinner. But, while some shots from the Zeiss 100mm were outstanding, I discovered that the 70-200mm did extremely well too. The Zeiss 100mm shots were loaded with detail, but so were my shots with the 70-200mm. I feel that the Zeiss 100mm is great, but that my 70-200mm also has excellent IQ. In this case the IQ difference was not as obvious or pronounced. This translated into another non-buying decision regarding the Zeiss.

So, what I've learned from the combined knowledge gained from my own tests and the detailed reviews from others (especially Chambers' exhaustive IQ pay-per-view reviews)is that Canon's best work is in the telephoto range. Canon's best telephotos are outstanding imo. But, in the wide-angle to normal range the IQ difference between Zeiss and Canon (or Sigma) is more pronounced. So, I have no plans or interest in either the Zeiss 85mm or 100mm, but I am keenly interested in the Zeiss 21mm, 28mm, 35mm f2, and perhaps even the 50mm f2. Since I already have the optically excellent 17mm and 24mm Canon tilt-shifts, I'm presently overlooking the 21mm and wrestling with the decision to pick either the Zeiss 28mm or the 35mm f2. Eventually, I can also see a place for the 21mm in my bag, the presence of the TS-E 17mm and 24mm notwithstanding.

David Arbogast wrote in post #12863199
What I've learned in my own tests and experience (I have tested the Zeiss 50mm f2 MP, and the 100 f2 MP) surprised me.

The first surprise and my first experience was with the 50mm. I tested it against the Sigma 50 1.4 (not a canon lens, but well-regarded and comparable to canon's best 50mm options). When I examined the test images in Lightroom I was amazed by the extra detail visible in the Zeiss images. The sharpenss of the test images were about the same between the two lenses, I just got more textural detail in the Zeiss images. Very, very impressive. However, better IQ doesn't necessarily translate into a buying decision and after my tests I sent the Zeiss back and kept the Sigma. The Sigma had AF and is nearly 1/3 the cost.

The second surprise was spending a couple of weeks with the Zeiss 100mm MP. I thought it would eat my 70-200mm f/4L for dinner. But, while some shots from the Zeiss 100mm were outstanding, I discovered that the 70-200mm did extremely well too. The Zeiss 100mm shots were loaded with detail, but so were my shots with the 70-200mm. I feel that the Zeiss 100mm is great, but that my 70-200mm also has excellent IQ. In this case the IQ difference was not as obvious or pronounced. This translated into another non-buying decision regarding the Zeiss.

So, what I've learned from the combined knowledge gained from my own tests and the detailed reviews from others (especially Chambers' exhaustive IQ pay-per-view reviews)is that Canon's best work is in the telephoto range. Canon's best telephotos are outstanding imo. But, in the wide-angle to normal range the IQ difference between Zeiss and Canon (or Sigma) is more pronounced. So, I have no plans or interest in either the Zeiss 85mm or 100mm, but I am keenly interested in the Zeiss 21mm, 28mm, 35mm f2, and perhaps even the 50mm f2. Since I already have the optically excellent 17mm and 24mm Canon tilt-shifts, I'm presently overlooking the 21mm and wrestling with the decision to pick either the Zeiss 28mm or the 35mm f2. Eventually, I can also see a place for the 21mm in my bag, the presence of the TS-E 17mm and 24mm notwithstanding.

I also own the 17 TS/24 TS II and are great lenses for what they're capable of. Your analysis with the 100 MP is interesting bcoz' a lot praise it for it's rendering. Will it replace my 70-200 MK II? Not in the least. As for the 21 and 35 f2, they're excellent!