CY Lens Collection Question

[lytton]

Also, Zeiss has made their prestige lenses too, but prestige does not mean it's the best. The BMW 850 CSI is a great case in point. It had the same V-12 engine as the 750 IL, while the 840 had the same V-8 as the 740. Funny thing is that the 850 was actually so much heavier that it lost the extra power of the engine to carry itself while the 840 had one of the best and most efficient weight to power ratios V8s that they ever produced. Why did people buy the 850 then? Well, it cost a WHOLE lot more and a V-12 is so much "smoother" than the V-8(?).

With lenses, I think the cost to performance ratio is greatly out of proportion and "prestige" has a lot more to do with why people buy certain lenses, or cars for that matter.

For God's sake people, take a couple weeks on a photo expedition in Slovinia with the money you'd save buying a 1.4 instead of a 1.2 and you'll thank yourself later.
Bling Bling.

 

[djg]

Nice horse portrait, Woody! Now quit horsing around with those CZ lenses ...

I have a couple Leica and a whole bunch CZ lenses - love'em all! CZ tends to be mucho much more affordable. You're definitely up in the diminishing returns zone.

But never underestimate the power of Bling ...

 

[wang]

"Zeiss has made their prestige lenses too, but prestige does not mean it's the best."

Although Zeiss lenses might not be considered as the "best" by some people, many of them suit my taste very well.

For ex&le, being an owner of both 85 1.2 50yr and Leica M90 2 ASPH, I can tell you that Leica do better at f2 than the 85 1.2 in terms of resolution and contrast. However, I still prefer to use my 85 1.2 most of the time. It is something difficult to explain in scientific terms but is a matter of personal taste. Overall, I do find the image from 85 1.2 aesthetically more pleasing. I do prefer the colour spectrum from this Aniversary lens. It does give a rich colour, but it makes me feel like going back to the colour of early days.

 

[woodyspedden]

Chi

I think the answer is that Leica has a major advantage most of the time in terms of pure resolution, micro contrast and ultimate sharpness to the corners. However and perhaps because of these advantages the results can tend towards clinical. Take the magnificent 100mm makro elmarit. I have never seen a sharper lens in my life. But as a portrait lens it is just too clinical looking for me. Whereas the (technically) inferior Zeiss 85 1.2 gives the most pleasing portraits I can imagine. So it all comes down to viewing lenses as tools so you can pick the right tool for the right job. A good reason to use the Canon 1DsMkII as your body. With adapters I am using Zeiss, Leica and Nikon lenses. Yes Nikon.........the 17-35 is as good as any zoom in this range that I have ever seen and I own the Leica 21-35 as well. Plus the newest 200 f4 Makro is just magnificent. Horses for Courses as they say. There is no "Best" brand; there are only "best" lenses.

 

[fotografz]

Well said Elwood.

I also am a fan of the Nikon 85/2.8 T/S Macro even though I no longer have any Nikon gear. Very useful lens.

Have you seen anything from the new Nikon 200/2 VR? I am very curious about that lens.

 

[djg]

As Marc says, well put, Woody. And ultimately the reaction to the end resulting image are up to the eyes of the beholder, and every instance of beholder will have their own ideas ...