Beyond L; is Zeiss better?

If Zeiss has autofocus capability, then probably yes, it's better than Canon. Imagine this: I'm taking photos of marine critters that constantly move while maintaining my buoyancy and using manual focus lens; that would be tough. IMO: Canon is still better because of the auto focus. It's not all about the lens sharpness.

Ebwly wrote in post #12374434
Although Canon's lenses cant produce the 3d effect i often see on the Zeiss lenses.

I'll put myself out on a limb here but how about these? Surely they have a 3D look?

I think those are bit flat, which isn't bad at all since Leica lenses tend to have this look too. Certain Zeiss lenses exhibit that sense of space when stopped down and wide open and certain Canon lenses do to (the 200/2 is said to have this effect, possibly due to the amount of detail its able to pick up).

BlueTsunami wrote in post #12374831
I think those are bit flat, which isn't bad at all since Leica lenses tend to have this look too. Certain Zeiss lenses exhibit that sense of space when stopped down and wide open and certain Canon lenses do to (the 200/2 is said to have this effect, possibly due to the amount of detail its able to pick up).

It's funny because the 200 f/2L IS was used to take those photographs!

What I've come to realise is that people are always going to predisposed to thinking there's some magic out of certain things. For instance I think that FF sensors have something that APS-C cameras can't replicate - and I'm sure many people think I'm imagining things as a result!

I would NEVAH exchange my 85L for the Zeiss counterpart.
That said, the Zeiss 100 Makro-Planar is just MAGICAL. You can easily tell a picture taken with that lens from a picture taken with any other macro lens.

BlueTsunami wrote in post #12374831
I think those are bit flat, which isn't bad at all since Leica lenses tend to have this look too. Certain Zeiss lenses exhibit that sense of space when stopped down and wide open and certain Canon lenses do to (the 200/2 is said to have this effect, possibly due to the amount of detail its able to pick up).

I agree and IMO you need to stop down to around f8.0 and make your comparisons between the Canon & Zeiss glass.

Below are simply just one persons personal opinions but he has owned quite a few lenses both Canon, Zeiss & others and this was his findings in regards to 3d rendering:

---------------

Overall 3D effect in my C/Y lenses:

25/2.8 Distagon - Medium
28/2.8 Distagon - Very strong
35/2.8 Distagon - Medium
50/1.7 Planar - Very strong
50/1.4 Planar - Strong
60/2.8 Makro Planar C - Strong at closeups,medium at infinity
85/2.8 Sonnar - Strong
135/2.8 Sonnar - Strong
180/2.8 Sonnar - Strong
200/3.5 Sonnar - Medium
200/4 Sonnar -Low
35-70/3.4 Vario Sonnar - Strong
80-200/4 Vario Sonnar - Strong

Overall 3D effect in my Z series lenses:

21/2.8 Distagon - Very strong
28/2 Distagon - Medium
35/2 Distagon - Strong
50/2 Makro Planar - Very strong
50/1,4 Planar - Strong
85/1,4 Planar - Strong
100/2 Makro Planar - Very strong

Overall 3D effect in my Canon EF prime lenses:

135/2L - Low
100/2.8 macro - Low
100/2.8L IS macro - Medium
85/1.8 - Low
50/1.4 EF - Low
35/2 - Low
28/1.8 - Low
20/2.8 - Low

As for Tamron SP 90/2.5 Macro - Medium

---------------

Now you can take his opinions with a grain of salt but with the 4 Zeiss lenses i personally own my findings are the same comparing them to the Canon glass i currently own and have had in the past.

Zeiss 21/f2.8 ZE
CY 35-70/f3.4
CY 50/f1.7
CY 85/f2.8 Sonnar

I absolutely like my Canon AF glass but also the MF lenses and its nice IMO to have both if your shooting styles allow.

Below are alot of Zeiss pics to glance at depicting the rendering. Some average and some real nice ones mixed in also:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/89164​5/0

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/86278​3




Regards,