Two lenses compared

[marcmccalmont]

I know a jpeg over the web is not the best way to judge a lens but your opinion please, which do you prefer and why?
I tried processing them as similar as possible (DxO)
Thanks Marc

A:[attachment=11621:_MG_1254_DxO_raw.jpg]
B:[attachment=11622:_MG_1267_DxO_raw.jpg]

[Misirlou]

I know a jpeg over the web is not the best way to judge a lens but your opinion please, which do you prefer and why?
I tried processing them as similar as possible (DxO)
Thanks Marc

It's hard to judge much from those pictures. There aren't any really obvious differences in sharpness or contrast (at least through my weak eyes). I'd make my decsion based on handling and price, or do a much more extensive test series where you looked at characteristics like corner softness wide open, vignetting, etc.

[ddk]

I know a jpeg over the web is not the best way to judge a lens but your opinion please, which do you prefer and why?
I tried processing them as similar as possible (DxO)
Thanks Marc

A:[attachment=11621:_MG_1254_DxO_raw.jpg]
B:[attachment=11622:_MG_1267_DxO_raw.jpg]

Its impossible to judge anything based on these images, just as you couldn't. Both are way over-processed and over-sharpened and the small differences has more to do with the light than anything else.

[ddk]

dfasdfasdfas

[marcmccalmont]

OK the first images were not sharpened in DxO just focus fixer set at 0.7, these are the same but focus fixer set at 0.5 (lens sharpening still turned off in DxO)
Clicking on the image to zoom in makes them look more as they do on my computer
Marc

A:
[attachment=11632:_MG_1254_DxO_raw2.jpg]
B:
[attachment=11633:_MG_1267_DxO_raw2.jpg]

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Hard to say. Light is not exactly the same. Differences in lenses are mostly more visible on the edges/corners than at center. Any good lens should be very good when stopped down to 5.6 or 8. The A picture has a higher contrast and that may make the image look sharper, but I fail to see any significant difference in sharpness.

I'd also add that there is a certain feel to certain lenses. It may be for real or not. I have a couple of "Zeiss-labeled" Sony lenses I really like although they did not impress me in initial tests.

Best regards
Erik

I know a jpeg over the web is not the best way to judge a lens but your opinion please, which do you prefer and why?
I tried processing them as similar as possible (DxO)
Thanks Marc

A:[attachment=11621:_MG_1254_DxO_raw.jpg]
B:[attachment=11622:_MG_1267_DxO_raw.jpg]

[marcmccalmont]

Hi,

Hard to say. Light is not exactly the same. Differences in lenses are mostly more visible on the edges/corners than at center. Any good lens should be very good when stopped down to 5.6 or 8. The A picture has a higher contrast and that may make the image look sharper, but I fail to see any significant difference in sharpness.

I'd also add that there is a certain feel to certain lenses. It may be for real or not. I have a couple of "Zeiss-labeled" Sony lenses I really like although they did not impress me in initial tests.

Best regards
Erik

Erik
The crop is from the left edge of the frame, A is my Canon 24-105 which is reputed to be only OK and B is a Zeiss 35-70 on an adapter which is supposed to be stellar. On a full sized print I see only minor differences, the Canon a bit more contrasty, the Zeiss a few more nuances in the mids. The colors and prints are so close they look like they were taken with the same lens. My other Canons have the same characteristic (contrasty) must be a difference in the coatings? But the 24-105 is fully automatic, greater range, IS and is supported by DxO so it is the more practical choice.
Marc

[Dustbak]

I did not look at which was what lens. To me number B seems to show a bit more detail. I was especially looking in the left. The lower corner the flowers appeared to have more detail. In the left the tree appeared to have the promise of more detail. In the far on the left side the tree at the horizon appeared to be more clearly defined. If I would be staring at the right side I think I see similar things.

It is very difficult to say anything about which lens is the better one. This is also just one situation at one aperture. It is safe to say that under these circumstances the lenses perform quite similar

[fike]

I think the lighting differences make comparisons very difficult. One image has far more diffused light, the other brighter image has sharper shadows.  

I wouldn't draw any substantial conclusions by comparing these images.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

All I can see is that one lens shows more blue sky than the other. 

[Peterretep]

If you were to post two photos taken under identical conditions with the same exposures and processing, you would then be able to get some meaningful feedback.

[marcmccalmont]

If you were to post two photos taken under identical conditions with the same exposures and processing, you would then be able to get some meaningful feedback.

Peter
Same day within minutes of each other (clouds move!), same exposure (using the histogram, adjusted speed to match histograms), same processing!!!! I have now looked at several hundred shots and have come to the following conclusions:
1. The Canon L lenses and the Zeiss lenses have about the same resolution, a negligible difference. (24-85n, 35-70 f3.4, 45 f2.8, 24-105IS, 50 1.4, 70-200IS f4 and f2.
2. The Canons and Zeiss pass different amounts of light for a given aperture and speed (Zeiss are a bit darker)
3. The noticeable difference is the Canon's are more contrasty and 3 dimensional, the Zeiss's have better gradients in the middle range. (the effect of each can be recreated in post processing to look like each other)
4. The Canon's are fully automatic with IS so are more practical
5. The 24-105 IS turned out to be a stellar performer!!!!, better than the 24-85 and the 45mm
6. So my kit is the 24-105 IS, 70-200 f4 IS, 400 f5.6, and soon a Nikon 14-24 2.8
7. My quest is over!!!!!!!!!!!
Marc

[ErikKaffehr]

Great!

Erik

Peter
Same day within minutes of each other (clouds move!), same exposure (using the histogram, adjusted speed to match histograms), same processing!!!! I have now looked at several hundred shots and have come to the following conclusions:
1. The Canon L lenses and the Zeiss lenses have about the same resolution, a negligible difference. (24-85n, 35-70 f3.4, 45 f2.8, 24-105IS, 50 1.4, 70-200IS f4 and f2.
2. The Canons and Zeiss pass different amounts of light for a given aperture and speed (Zeiss are a bit darker)
3. The noticeable difference is the Canon's are more contrasty and 3 dimensional, the Zeiss's have better gradients in the middle range. (the effect of each can be recreated in post processing to look like each other)
4. The Canon's are fully automatic with IS so are more practical
5. The 24-105 IS turned out to be a stellar performer!!!!, better than the 24-85 and the 45mm
6. So my kit is the 24-105 IS, 70-200 f4 IS, 400 f5.6, and soon a Nikon 14-24 2.8
7. My quest is over!!!!!!!!!!!
Marc

[marcmccalmont]

One more lesson learned, any filter in front of the lens (UV, protector, Polarizer, ND etc) greatly reduces the sharpness on the 5DII where as it was a negligable difference on my 5D.
Marc

[Let Biogons be Biogons]

Here is one very qualitative opinion.  While they are both reasonably sharp, I was not looking at the relative sharpness between the 2 images.  Rather, I focused on the way they "look".

The first one (designated A), looks flatter, less 3-dimensional, even more artificial than the second one (.  B just looks more real, more tangible, and is overall more appealing.  I don't think the differences are all that subtle.