gessman Loc: Colorado

There are many differences to lessor and more expensive lens, as noted already, but, for a relative beginner, those differences may be difficult to detect. As for the quality of a shot with a lens that comes with your camera body, if you can avoid shooting it at the extreme ends of both focus and aperture, you will find that the outcome from a cheaper lens will often rival that of the outcome from a more expensive lens. To put it another way, don't zoom all the way out or in and don't shoot at the widest or more open aperture or with it closed down as much as possible.

Lens have a "sweet spot" where you can get your best images. Some say that's 2 stops or so up from wide open aperture and many seem to think that shooting at f/8 will often be the sweet spot. When at all possible, avoid doing both at the same time, i. e., zooming all the way out or in with the aperture either wide open or completely closed down except when it cannot be avoided if you are to "get the picture." Somewhere in the middle will get you the better images. Shooting in auto mode will often get those settings for you when "it counts," about 90% of the time. You can experiment with other settings like aperture preferred, shutter preferred, or manual when time permits and the outcome isn't as important. Composition is very important and most of us have to study it to get it right, taking into account such issues as 'the rule of thirds' (google it). Then, when you know what you're doing, an investment in more expensive glass will usually improve the outcome.

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

In the real world, that does not happen. The sun WILL go down and your head will say "TAKE the damn shot - it is a once in a lifetime shot. Forget about the zoom out to max at wide open". You're done. Or it is a bright day and suddenly an opportunity is as rare as seeing a comet happens, no ND's on hand or polarizers, just that moment at widest angle. You're done.

Gents, just get good glass, bite the bullet and never look back. I have a so called Super performance Tamron SP17mm and it is garbage. All my past Kodachromes taken with it are junk in corners - terrible CA's. Can I shoot them again. NOPE. Am I disappointed - well, sure I am. I have the shot when looking back but some of the quality is just awful. I wished I had known back them.

Don't justify your cost vs performance

Sigh
Take 5

gessman Loc: Colorado

LOL!!! Looking back at the OP's question, I see I was responding more to what others had said than to the OP. I try to avoid that when alert and stick to the question. Not enough coffee this morning. My profuse apologies!

Here's you a comet shot, Hale Bopp, shot at 12,000 ft elevation on Mt. Evans, between 10 p.m. and midnight, in many degrees below zero and a few feet of snow, just west of Denver, on March 26, 1997 with a Nikon FA and a Vivitar 28-80 2.8 Series One lens, a top rated lens from the mid-'70s while freezing my butt off, "no ND's on hand, no polarizers." I don't think I advocated buying cheap lens - merely said what could happen to enhance your chances of getting as much quality out of cheap lens as possible but ignoring that in order to 'get the shot.' That said, I only shoot "L" glass and like you, have a bunch of shots not worth keeping from way back.

I am prepared to admit that beginning in the 1940s until today, there have been just a few improvements that leads us up to today when it appears to me that the capability of quality photography is about as good as it has ever been. I don't think I'll throw away my shots from yesteryear just because I can get better ones now just like I'm not going back up on Mt. Evans late at night to shoot another comet regardless of what glass I'm using. When it comes to comets, I'm good - got about fifty 36 exposure rolls worth stashed back, mostly Fuji Velvia slides, some Kodak ES100.

EDIT: Oh, and I meant to say that after about 45 years I'm still waiting on that, as you put it - "TAKE the damn shot - it is a once in a lifetime shot. Forget about the zoom out to max at wide open". You're done. Or it is a bright day and suddenly an opportunity is as rare as seeing a comet happens, no ND's on hand or polarizers, just that moment at widest angle. You're done."

Comet Hale Bopp over the Continental Divide...

chienfou Loc: Valley Stream, NY

"I once saw a great video where they compared the best Canon zooms to Zeiss primes. NO Comparison. Not even close. Zeiss was cleaner, clearest, sharper, better color, better contrast - in a word, just gorgeous."


It's basically a given that Primes are better that zooms..why didn't they compare Primes vs Primes"?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Its hard to get great results unless you bias the test.

chienfou Loc: Valley Stream, NY

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT, MTSHOOTER!

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

He did with a lens or 2. It was not an OFFICIAL hard core, uber pixel peeping test. It was by a DP who knows his stuff and his work has to be broadcast or in theaters. It is so easy to say: "I have Canon L glass zooms and therefore I will get uber high quality shots - don't need the inconvenience of primes". False assumptions I'm afraid..

So Den looked at a real world, what you see is what you get comparison just to find out the truth between the 2 - hey, he had the optics, the camera and why not? Go for it!. I like those tests better because you are not comparing charts, graphs, MTF etc. You are seeing the 2 side by side and it becomes a no-brainer. An eye opener for sure.

Bottom line. Zeiss Primes are much superior to Canon L glass zooms. For his work, he now knows what he can and cannot use for any situation and can be prepared to accept the results. He knows the limits and can work within them. Fair 'nuff.

For those who love zooms, this is something worth considering if prime quality photography is important to you. In movies it is everything. Why? Because the image is magnified to a 30' screen. Any imperfection will become readily apparent to about .1-100 million viewers. So we do not take any chances whatsoever. Not worth it. I mean the set up, the actors, the shooting is huge compared to the glass used. Let's see, Star Wars 4 was $100,000 a day. You think they are going to fidget over a lens saving of $500 or so? Don't think so. Gimme the best ya got and get the shots. No questions asked. Especially price.

Besides the movie camera sensors have less resolution than a FF image sensor (1920 up to 4,000 vs 6,000 px in a 24 Mpg camera). They are shooting up to 30 frames per second, not 1 shot. Sometimes they overcrank at 120 fps. Stills resolve at 14 bits of RGB and movies are 10 or 12, otherwise the movie data load is obscenely high.

By necessity, the optics have to be as high as possible and we simply cannot afford to take any chances whatsoever. Nada, nein, none. You will not / rarely see Canon L glass zooms on any serious movie camera.

it was a great test. Simple and no nonsense. And you can / could see other things like boketh, CA's, sharpness, saturation, clarity, contrast. I love tests like this.

So now ya know,
Take 5

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Take 5 Take 5 min and think about who you are writing to and what kind of equipment they use. This string is about glass used on DSLR's not movie cameras. I don't think you will see any Zeiss lenses on the sidelines of a football game. Lots of those big white lenses and those not white are Nikon with perhaps a few others but none/few Zeiss. Just another point most of us have not had that shoot that we could get with a Zeiss lens (the sunset) that we could not get with our Zoom's sweet spot. If it was that fast we probable could not get it with the Zeiss lens either. Many of us point out that a lesser lens can do a lot that the Lglass or equivalent in other brands do if the conditions are right. Of course the cannot if you need faster f stops etc. I think all of us should not be so stuck in our own type of shooting that we don't consider the type of shooting others do. By the way here is a quote from Ansel Adams book "Camera & Lens" - "As for for the quality of the lens itself, a simple statement suffices: Any good anastigmat lens produced by a reputable company forms images of adequate auality" I think most of us would do better concentrating on exposure, composition, light,etc. than worrying about how great a lens we have. Sorry I did go a little off the thread. - Dave

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

Not really. I was merely pointing out that there are some real solid comparisons between the 2 glass. Zeiss does not make big guns like the Canon or Nikons. And those guns are $10k and up with every refinement that Canikon can put in them. They are great glass.

Zeiss concentrates in the prime and movie glass, a few zooms, and industrial stuff (microscopes, lenses to make Intel's chips, astronomy etc.).

What I am saying is that, for those who are looking at zooms, 3rd party glass etc., do the research and make your own decisions. Did you look at the vimeo link? After you see it, you will think twice about Canon zooms that he used and any other optics you might want to buy for that matter.

In regards to Ansel Adams - not a fair comparison. Ansel used negatives of 8x10", not 1.5x1". In those cases, simple lenses work wonders and they were not zooms, not complex glass, not even big glass like f1.4 etc. Anyone can make a simple optic like Zeiss's 50mm 1.7 - they are the simplest and best to work with. But get into 15-24mm and throw in a mirror box and make it for a FF imager, and build a million of them and keep the prices low and keep the quality consistent - now that is a challenge.

All I am saying, is that before you buy any glass, research it to death, make your decision and shoot good stuff. The last thing you want is a fantastic shot opportunity and have sub-standard glass thus permanently degrading that wonderful image (unless you are prepared to spend a lot of time in PS - and even then it might be iffy).

Why take chances? GET GOOD GLASS. Bite the bullet and be happy.

I paid $550 for a Zeiss 60mm macro and I am blown away at the incredible images - absolutely unreal. It was worth it and no regrets.

Take 5

gessman Loc: Colorado

I'm not sure that I understand how such 'fine' glass as a Zeiss lens can make all that much difference in video when 1080p is shot at 2 megapixels. I don't understand all I know about that but I don't see much how lens resolution difference between a Canon and a Zeiss can make all that much of a difference on that size image made with a much smaller sensor than a FF 21 megapixel image - just how much can be resolved on a 2 mpx sensor? Nothing's coming to me. On the other hand, perhaps the smaller sensor would demand more and benefit from tighter resolution. I sure wish I was more technical and understood this stuff better.

Regarding your Zeiss 60mm macro, why don't you dazzle us here with a few shots from that lens and "store original" so we can see just how good it is for ourselves. I might just be talked into buying some Zeiss lens if I can truly see an improvement over what my Canon 100 2.8 II IS does. I'm always looking to do better and have plenty of room for that. I really appreciate having equipment that I know cannot be beaten because it helps me focus on the real problem - ME! If I know it's me, then I know I can make it better. Thanks for all your information and even though I'm not a videographer, I do have 1080p available on my 5D2. You never know - I might crank it up some day.

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

You are correct in your questions - valid ones too! There is more than resolution that is critical.
1: Contrast is really important. To have the cleanest, clearest possible image after going through 12-36 surfaces of glass, bent, focused, and arriving in all the colors at the exact spot without losing any quality is a tough act to follow. The glass costs about $11,000 a kilo (I think that is what I heard), so other mfgrs try to find alternate sources and glasses - some good, but many - nyeahhh.
2: Then there is a design itself. That is complicated -
3: There is moving optics in a zoom lens, stabilization issues, internal focusing etc. At the end of the day, what does that image look like?
4: What does the boketh, the out of focus areas look like? Is it soft and buttery smooth, or ragged, sharp multi-shaped images combined. This is where many lenses crater. My Zeiss 28, 2.8 is a bit like that and I have to be careful when I shoot to avoid them if possible like at night with lights in the background. Yet the 180 prime is gorgeous. See below. The 60 macro, 50, 85 and 300 beautiful. Colors are rich. Contrast lovely.

Now, can a 1920x1080p sensor see the difference between these lenses? YES! Look at the video link I had posted. It is obvious. They used a camera that resolves 2500x 1400 or so. It is far superior to any DSLR video out there, hands down. So you will see a good rendering.

Now, when projected on a big screen, the imperfections are magnified to 20-30' across and then you will notice the uglies plainly. Throw in the imperfections in the sensors, the codec used, the bit rate in recording.

For the DSLR user, these enlargements are not encountered as the pictures are relegated to enlargements, snap shots and the likes. So there is a certain amount of forgiveness and the camera also takes high bit rates (14 for many Canon's) for each shot - which can't be done in movie images. If you did that, you would be shooting at about 1.8 TB/hour. So they have to find other solutions. It gets tough out there.

But the bottom line, is that experience has proven over and over again, that movie DP's will use only the best they can get their hands on because so much is on the line. They have taxed this subject to death. They use only what works to perfection. And those optics are Zeiss, Cooke, Agnieux, Schneider, Panavision, Fujinon (for TV broadcast) and a new breed of very high ends
from Sony and Canon (starting at about $5,000 each).

In my research and experience, I am finding a Zeiss consistency that it is worth it to have great optics and a great camera. Film makers have to put a $100,000 a day shoot on a little tiny flat space of 24x14mm, be it film or digital. They better get it right or Roger Rabbit is going to get fired.

Cheers,
Take 5

Zeiss 180 2.8, 1/80 sec. Here is an example of beautiful boketh - that buttery smooth background. The highlights are even and lovely. The image tact sharp. The contrast bang on. And this was shot in lousy / awful lighting conditions handheld. Yet, the shot pulled off well.


Zeiss 28 2.8 or 4 (can't remember). Here is a shot with a lousy boketh - notice how the backgrounds are mulitple images - not as soft as it should be. The colors are wonderful, the resolution tops, but the boketh is sub-standard. This lens does not fetch a high price on the used market. The 28 f2 - that is a different story and does not have the problems of the 2.8


Zeiss 28-85 (defective) shot at 28, f8 or so. This is a typical example of what GOES WRONG with a bad lens. In this case the lens has some internal flaws on the guides tracks thus making it defective. But what I want to show is the CA's that are very noticeable in the upper right when you look at the full size image. You will see purple fringing around the steam engines black pipes and bright sky. In a blow up, this is glaring and bad and unusable. In the center - it is fine, but on the sharp edges, yikes. I have replaced the lens with a new one and the problem no longer occurs - super clean throughout

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

A Canon "L" lens will fit all Canon SLR bodies. No, Sigma nor Tamron have such a designation for their lenses. Yes I am a "pro" and have been since 1968. Many of the lens sizes that are "L" lenses do not come in non "L" form such as super telephotos (400, 500, 600 & 800mm) and T/S lenses. Those that come in both "standard" and "L" always have differences, such as 50mm lenses. L lenses are normally better built, contain better glass and come with a greater price tag. Are they worth purchasing ... when you have a choice? People say the fast 50mm (standard) is a better lens than the fast 50mm ("L") lens. I like the Sigma 150mm macro over the Canon 180mm "L" macro. You could go on and on about this subject, but the correct answer to your question is the first sentence to my answer. Just remember, put your money into lenses and not camera bodies unless there is a good reason for doing whatever your going to do! Have fun, J. Goffe and remember the f/stops here!

Sweet Willie Loc: Texas

Can a pro claim his equipment expenses on his income taxes as I used to do with tools. I am a retired machinist. A knife and fork are the only tools I use now. :) Sweet Willie

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thank you for your time here and all the information. I could keep this conversation going for a while longer with some more of my naive questions but that would be selfish of me so I won't pursue it any further at this time. I watched the video on vimeo a few times and, golly, it almost looks to me like he failed to focus a couple of the Canon lens some of the time. I seem to recall seeing several sharper shots from some of those lens here on uhh. I will admit that, while I appreciate you posting the images you did, which I think I've seen before, I was really looking forward to seeing some of the macro shots from the 60mm. Maybe later... Thanks again.

Oh, one other question that you may be able to answer, if you'll permit me the time. I'm just curious, are the Zeiss lens that are on several of the p&s and bridge cameras such as the Sony HX200 and the Lumix, fz200, etc., and especially the top of the line Sony DSLR lens, are those lens up to the same quality of the ones you refer to or are they made to some substandard specification. The reason I ask is because I've been thinking about getting one of the 'big boy' Sony DSLRs and a couple of lens. If the Zeiss quality is there in those Sony lens, It would seem that 1080p with a Sony A77 or A99 ought to be a lot better than that from a Canon of Nikon. Have you seen a comparison of the Zeiss and the Sony lens? What would your opinion of that be?

gessman Loc: Colorado

The tax laws are pretty universal when it comes to 'tools of the trade.' Up to a certain price point, equipment can be "expensed" or charged off, but beyond that point, it has to be depreciated over a certain number of years depending on whether it is new or used - shorter depreciation period for used equipment, longer for new, last I heard.