Microcontrast 35L vs 24L II ?

I read here something about the microcontrast :
https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1218​320&page=4

How would you define the microcontrast, are there any example pictures of what difference the microcontrast can make ?
Is 24 1.4LII a lot better in microcontrast terms, and what's the difference, more detail ?

Be careful, mentioning microcontrast will have the Zeiss fanboys swarming all over this thread before too long! :p

Microcontrast is the representation of tonal differences in the fine (small) details of an image. More contrast in these finer details results in a more detailed looking image for most viewers. Unfortunately I cannot speak to how the 24L compares to the 35L in this area because I've only used the 24L, sorry.

I recall that micro contrast can be measured and represented on an MTF chart but I fail to remember how it is shown.

As Sir_Loin eludes, Zeiss lenses are known for their ability to capture a high level of microcontrast. The MTF charts will probably show that the differences aren't as great as you might gather from listening to a Zeiss fanboy, but they are indeed very good. I can say that my ZE21 is definitely better in this department than the 24L I had.

I had a 35L and it vs my zeiss 35mm f/2 pretty big diff. there

Not totally sure, but I imagine the 24L II is better than the 35L when it comes to microcontrast, simply because it's a newer, more modern design.

That said, I can't say that I've ever complained about the microcontrast on either one of them... or on any of my lenses for that matter.