Sold on Zeiss. New Fanboy

Sir_Loin wrote in post #13118911
I can't see what you're seeing in those images I'm afraid. Also, the CA on the wheel nut is pretty bad. Maybe the RAW files are better, but don't get wrapped up in all the hype over Zeiss.

watt100 wrote in post #13119663
yes, I think the OP got caught up in all the hype. But Zeiss does look a lot better with full frame models - which is what it's designed to do

kf095 wrote in post #13119685
+ one here.

I can agree that these shots are certainly not representative of what Zeiss glass is capable of, but there is a quality to their rendering that is not just "hype". I would go so far as to argue that the only lenses that rival the ZE 21 from a quantitative perspective in the Canon lineup would be the TS-E 17 or 24, but even if nudged out slightly on one characteristic or another, there is a qualitative difference that appeals to some (not everyone) that is noticeable right away in the Zeiss sample photo threads. If you don't see it, you're blinded by your own argument or by the amount of money you have poured into L lenses. (only joking with that last comment, but flame on if you need to)

As for the other ZE heavy hitters, the Canon counterparts definitely fall short of the 35 1.4, 50 f2 MP, and 100 MP quantitatively and qualitatively. Whether or not giving up IS and AF is worth it depends on your style of shooting and subject matter.

retour wrote in post #13119705
PS it's hard to find too many primes that don't have CA wide open

That should be "it's hard to find too many FAST primes that don't have CA wide open"

The Zeiss MP isn't a fast prime. The crappy 100L doesn't show that kind of behaviour.

MNUplander wrote in post #13120031
If you don't see it, you're blinded by your own argument or by the amount of money you have poured into L lenses. (only joking with that last comment, but flame on if you need to)

I wasn't flaming, I told it as I saw it and I certainly wasn't blinded by how much I've spent on L glass. I didn't see it because those images show me nothing to rush out and buy Zeiss. I've seen excellent images taken with Zeiss glass as I have with Canon and Nikon glass. I suppose that comes down to the skill of the photographer.

I don't see the point of being a detractor. Zeiss lenses have unique qualities that delight some and unimpress others. It just never occurs to me to pop in on a thread about something I'm not wowed by and dumping a load of negativity on it. But, as evidenced in this thread, dumping is an irresistably tempting thing to do apparently.

Congratulations to the OP for getting some new Zeiss lenses that you're finding satisfying!

Funny, isn't it. Great photographs get taken on all kind of cameras, on all kind of lenses. More time spent taking photos and less time worrying about what lies under every pixel will raise the standards of our picture making faster than a heap of Zeiss lenses, or Canon L lenses for that matter.

Not withstanding that, there is a great joy to be had from fine quality glass once you can do it justice!

David Arbogast wrote in post #13121119
Zeiss lenses have unique qualities

No one said they didn't. Everyone is saying exactly the opposite, they do have qualities, and we recognise that, its just the OP used shots to show those qualities to us -thereby inviting comment- and the shots he used unfortunately do not show those qualities, which is what everyone is pointing out to him.

If he wants to take these comments as personal insults, or if you want to consider them as such toward the OP, by all means you, and he, are free to do so, or the OP could use them as a means to motivate himself to get better and do justice to the lenses he owns.

Sir_Loin wrote in post #13121058
I wasn't flaming, I told it as I saw it and I certainly wasn't blinded by how much I've spent on L glass. I didn't see it because those images show me nothing to rush out and buy Zeiss. I've seen excellent images taken with Zeiss glass as I have with Canon and Nikon glass. I suppose that comes down to the skill of the photographer.

I didnt say you were flaming, I just figured my last line could provoke something if it didnt come across as the joke I intended.

The main point I was trying to make is that the quality of ZE glass is not just hype - there are marked differences between the ZE heavy hitters and their Canon counterparts, its just a matter of whether or not those differences appeal to you and if you're willing to give up AF and IS to get them.

And, you're right - more difference will be seen between photographers than between lenses. But, I've used all kinds of nice "L" glass and my ZE lenses give me results that I've never seen from my "L" lenses. Although there may be some ebb and flow to which line of lenses wins on certain characteristics, the ZE glass ALWAYS wins in micro-contrast and for landscapes, what I shoot 99% of the time, that is more important to me than anything else.

congrats on becoming a fanboy. i have been one for years but i now finally am able to start saving money towards actually being a owner rather than renter

Because Zeiss.