What's so special about ZEISS lens?

Doc Fluty wrote in post #9924018
you might be different.. hell some people can quit smoking by just deciding. Other people need patches..

for me.. the zeiss helps

You are right. People are different. Some people don't need a prime or MF only lenses to stop and think about a shot.

If what you need is a Zeiss to help you slow down, then by all means, enjoy it.

But I beg to differ when it comes to gear and Photoshop not making you a better photographer. It's all part of the package.

I think there are 2 schools here when it comes to MF lenses.

Those who are "old school" and I don't mean that in a bad way, and can MF proficiently and appreciate the "finer" glass. Perhaps you don't even have to be old school. Perhaps you just have an immense appreciation for other glass and like the control MF give you and again, you are proficient at it and don't miss any shots b/c of it.

Then you've got those who see a name like "Zeiss" and immediately feel that somehow it raises their status as a photographer. Obviously they won't admit to this but let's be honest, they are out there. I joked around about the "It sounds European" thing before, but I think there's some truth to it.

I can respect the former, but I've got to laugh at the latter. I guess it's human nature...like somehow owning a fancy famous painting all of a sudden makes you classy. It doesn't. It just makes you more ignorant.

Me? Since I pretty much stink at MF, I am not all that interested in these lenses. I am not a pretender either. Hence I don't own any Zeiss glass.

Could me that I am just a lazy MF...

nicksan wrote in post #9924996
You are right. People are different. Some people don't need a prime or MF only lenses to stop and think about a shot.

If what you need is a Zeiss to help you slow down, then by all means, enjoy it.

But I beg to differ when it comes to gear and Photoshop not making you a better photographer. It's all part of the package.

I think there are 2 schools here when it comes to MF lenses.

Those who are "old school" and I don't mean that in a bad way, and can MF proficiently and appreciate the "finer" glass. Perhaps you don't even have to be old school. Perhaps you just have an immense appreciation for other glass and like the control MF give you and again, you are proficient at it and don't miss any shots b/c of it.

Then you've got those who see a name like "Zeiss" and immediately feel that somehow it raises their status as a photographer. Obviously they won't admit to this but let's be honest, they are out there. I joked around about the "It sounds European" thing before, but I think there's some truth to it.

I can respect the former, but I've got to laugh at the latter. I guess it's human nature...like somehow owning a fancy famous painting all of a sudden makes you classy. It doesn't. It just makes you more ignorant.

Me? Since I pretty much stink at MF, I am not all that interested in these lenses. I am not a pretender either. Hence I don't own any Zeiss glass.

Could me that I am just a lazy MF...

You need to find equipment that works for you because the image is all the that matters.

First Nick your sarcasm went over my head so take my sincere apology. Heres the deal find equipment that works for you because it doesn't mean a a thing if you can't get the image. The photograph is all that matters. How you get the image is pretty much irrelevant as long as you get it.

There are some here that as soon as someone says they shoot all manual or prefer a manual focus lens they either right out say or infer that the only reason you have that stuff is for show and that you somehow think because you use that kind of equipment you're a better photographer. All ya gotta do is go into the threads and read for yourself.

Like you just pointed out some are very good at using all manual gear because they've been doing it for so long and like anything if you do it all the time for a long time you either get very good at it or you get out.

Most of the time in a thread like this you see someone trying to explain why they there could me a market for something thats not auto focus and why they prefer it and then you see some come out of the woodwork to try and tell them how wrong they are for their thinking that.

Theres lotsa different photographers out there that shoot with an amazing variety of gear and shoot all different kinds of subject matter. The work always shows who the posers are and who the photographers are and thats all that matters. The work.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9925266
You need to find equipment that works for you because the image is all the that matters.

First Nick your sarcasm went over my head so take my sincere apology. Heres the deal find equipment that works for you because it doesn't mean a a thing if you can't get the image. The photograph is all that matters. How you get the image is pretty much irrelevant as long as you get it.

There are some here that as soon as someone says they shoot all manual or prefer a manual focus lens that the only reason you have that stuff is for show and that you somehow think because you use that kind of equipment you're a better photographer. All ya gotta do is go into the threads and read for yourself.

Like you just pointed out some are very good at using all manual gear because they've been doing it for so long and like anything if you do it all the time for a long time you either get very good at it or you get out.

Most of the time in a thread like this you see someone trying to explain why they there could me a market for something thats not auto focus and why they prefer it and then you see some come out of the woodwork to try and tell them how wrong they are for their thinking that.

Theres lotsa different photographers out there that shoot with an amazing variety of gear and shoot all different kinds of subject matter. The work alway shows who the poser are and who the photographers are and thats all that matters. The work.

Agreed Alan.

There's absolutely nothing wrong getting the job done either way.

I've met a few photographers in the past that were all too willing to show me their MF glasses, unsolicited, as if they wanted to convince me that using them validates them as photographers. I think it's pretty silly and comical. There's definitely some kind of "cult following" mentality with some folks. They buy MF lenses and use them just b/c it makes them look cool...

Whatever, you know?

I've become a bit conscious about several things here on POTN ...

1) Associating brand or IQ with skill.

It was worse for me with L lenses which came before Zeiss and Leica. There was a period when I would post an image and proudly display the gear used. I still do but the cheerleader long disappeared and I attribute much of this initial effect to being a newbie in 35 after 10+ years away and sheer gear lust.

2) Respecting the choices people make and the forums central brand focus.

Lot's of Canon shooters here gee I wonder why. I'm big on choices and less concerned with egos and brand wars. I'm more into optic profiles then who's using what. I have been pleasantly surprised by the quality of images posted in this forum.

3) Photography has many different requirements each with a comprehensive stable of gear for the given genre. That's why I don't engage much in prime vs zoom threads. Different tools. Same with MF and AF discussions.

4) I'm interested in raising the bottom line 24/7

Make sure my tin foil hat allows me to continue to learn here and to have some fun with all this.

nicksan wrote in post #9925297
Agreed Alan.

There's absolutely nothing wrong getting the job done either way.

I've met a few photographers in the past that were all too willing to show me their MF glasses, unsolicited, as if they wanted to convince me that using them validates them as photographers. I think it's pretty silly and comical. There's definitely some kind of "cult following" mentality with some folks. They buy MF lenses and use them just b/c it makes them look cool...

Whatever, you know?

think that applies to the red ring lens crowd as well...

me for example i got the zeiss 35mm because i could not afford the 35L - after selling the 24L - which i never liked, I wanted a good 35mm and since im using it either on f2 for events or on tripod for landscape i dont mind the mf.

zincozinco wrote in post #9925724
think that applies to the red ring lens crowd as well...

And the anti red ring crowd to. And the Canon vs Nikon crowd and the_____ vs_____ you get the point. There are posers everywhere. Find equipment that allows you to express your vision. Its that simple. Don't worry about anyone else or what they have because if you do, suddenly you've become the poser. It don't matter, only the photographs matter. The rest in bull****.

I had a turn of the century (1895) Kodak 5x7 field camera with a heart shaped level on the side and a custom pin-hole lens board. It was so light, so simple, and a completely enjoyable experience. 2 holders, 4 shots, and an afternoon creekside finding the best images.

bohdank wrote in post #9922979
Doing my Canon/Zeiss/Oly WA comparison, I can say that either the Oly/Zeiss exposes 1/2 stop brighter or the Canon is 1/2 stop underexposed. This is shooting in Manual and then normalizing Exposure.

That mimics what I've found. I use 3 Oly WAs, 28,24 and 21. As soon as I mount the lenses I dial in -2/3 exposure for all three.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9925266
The photograph is all that matters. How you get the image is pretty much irrelevant as long as you get it.

I respectfully disagree.

For someone like me still on the learning path, sometimes learning/trying to get the shot can be as rewarding as geting the shot itself.

Just a couple of years ago, I was trying to get some images of the Leonid meteor shower. After driving 45 min out of the city to get some decently dark sky, I was trying very hard not to fog up the viewfinder nor the lens (it was -10C or 14F, out in an open space so it was fairly windy). If you ever had to manual focus on stars with a wide-angle lens without LiveView (didn't have my 7D at that time yet), you know how much of a crap shoot that can be. With automatic darkframe noise reduction, I had to wait 5 to 10 minutes after each shot to see if I caught anything. Of course, I was doing all this under the non-night-vision-robbing dim red light, and had to wear sunglasses to change any settings on my XTi/400D since any change would bring on the bright white status screen on the LCD....

Anyway, by the end of the night (after burning through quite a few pocket warmers but still barely able to feel my feet, fingers and nose), I had NOT A SINGLE shot I was happy with.

Without a presentable image to show for it, does it mean my night was a total waste? Like I said, I respectfully disagree....


(FWIW, I started shooting film SLR in the late 1990s with the Nikon F Photomic and 2 primes -- a 28/2.8 and a 135/2.8. For those who know the Photomic, the shutter speed and aperture had to be set manually for every single shot, not to mention manual focus, manual film load/wind, and ISO setting. I processed my own B&W film, and did most of the printing myself on Ilford or Kodak paper. However, to this day, I still consider myself on the learning path when it comes to photography, and probably will always be....)

RetroBlader, you took the words out of my mouth. i have had days where i go through 7 or 8 rolls of Kodak Plus-x in my Mamiya and i dont get a single print worthy negative to show for my hard work. does that mean it was a waste, ABSOLUTELY NOT!. the process is just as important as the result. i would rather get a crappy result and understand what i did wrong so i can try to fix it next time than be clueless and get a wonderful image. but thats just me. the secret is combining the two of course, lol.

kauffman v36 wrote in post #9927000
RetroBlader, you took the words out of my mouth. i have had days where i go through 7 or 8 rolls of Kodak Plus-x in my Mamiya and i dont get a single print worthy negative to show for my hard work. does that mean it was a waste, ABSOLUTELY NOT!. the process is just as important as the result. i would rather get a crappy result and understand what i did wrong so i can try to fix it next time than be clueless and get a wonderful image. but thats just me. the secret is combining the two of course, lol.

I never said taking photographs was a waist. You learn more from mistakes than you do from success but in the end no one cares how long it took in the journey ultimately all that matters is what you produce. Sure its fun for you getting there and the journey is important but ultimately its what you produce that matters to a client or a viewer of your work. Not the equipment that you made it with no more than the type of paint brushes that Van Gogh or Picasso used.

I have a friend who is a complete point and shoot novice. She comes back with some pretty amazing images for being a complete point and shoot novice. If I shot 7 rolls of film and came back with 0 I would spend some time wondering about that.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9925266
You need to find equipment that works for you because the image is all the that matters.

First Nick your sarcasm went over my head so take my sincere apology. Heres the deal find equipment that works for you because it doesn't mean a a thing if you can't get the image. The photograph is all that matters. How you get the image is pretty much irrelevant as long as you get it.

There are some here that as soon as someone says they shoot all manual or prefer a manual focus lens they either right out say or infer that the only reason you have that stuff is for show and that you somehow think because you use that kind of equipment you're a better photographer. All ya gotta do is go into the threads and read for yourself.

Like you just pointed out some are very good at using all manual gear because they've been doing it for so long and like anything if you do it all the time for a long time you either get very good at it or you get out.

Most of the time in a thread like this you see someone trying to explain why they there could me a market for something thats not auto focus and why they prefer it and then you see some come out of the woodwork to try and tell them how wrong they are for their thinking that.

Theres lotsa different photographers out there that shoot with an amazing variety of gear and shoot all different kinds of subject matter. The work always shows who the posers are and who the photographers are and thats all that matters. The work.

I'm just curious to ask what does a poser mean in the world of photography? Is it the one individual who has tons of glass and 10 camera bodies but, makes crappy images. Or is it the guy with one DSLR with few lenses and makes quality images? It never dawned on me to think about it until I read it here.

jdizzle wrote in post #9928407
I'm just curious to ask what does a poser mean in the world of photography? Is it the one individual who has tons of glass and 10 camera bodies but, makes crappy images. Or is it the guy with one DSLR with few lenses and makes quality images? It never dawned on me to think about it until I read it here.

JD to me a poser is someone that buys gear just to impress others and wears it like an accessory and the work is taking a back seat to that.