November 22, 2017, 07:05:07 PM

Author Topic: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon  (Read 22508 times)

NancyP

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1176
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2014, 11:56:42 AM »
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Perfect. Lens.

There. We have that settled.

Even the almighty Otus may not be perfect for some esthetics. I am starting to shoot LF (4 x 5 B&W film) and I am amazed at some of the interesting effects that people get by using the crude 19th century lens formulas ("Petzval lens" and the like). I am starting out with a modern era (1960s multicoated) lens, but there seems to be a large group of experimenters in LF.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2014, 11:56:42 AM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4016
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2014, 12:05:31 PM »
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Perfect. Lens.

There. We have that settled.
Well said :)
CPS Score: 111 points, those 0 and 1 point items really add up

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2014, 12:15:32 PM »
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Perfect. Lens.

There. We have that settled.
Well said :)

Oh, if one could wish... These debates are never settled...closed minds cannot handle alternative points of view. :P

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4016
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2014, 12:39:09 PM »
There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Perfect. Lens.

There. We have that settled.
Well said :)

Oh, if one could wish... These debates are never settled...closed minds cannot handle alternative points of view. :P
True.  The closest lens to perfection I've found is the 300 2.8 IS II, but it still has some vignetting wide open and it's not exactly small or light.  And it doesn't do macro. And it's expensive.  Maybe the 50 1.8 is actually the perfect lens.  Sharp, fast, not many flaws considering the price, and cheap enough to replace a whole lot.
CPS Score: 111 points, those 0 and 1 point items really add up

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21774
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2014, 01:09:03 PM »
Would you like to address the comment I made about spherical aberration without referring to bokeh or polarisation?

Polarization was merely an analogy as an effect, like bokeh, that cannot be fully replicated in post-processing.  As for addressing your comment about spherical aberration without referring to bokeh, the point is that the residual spherical aberration designed into the 50L is there because the lens designers chose to emphasize bokeh quality over sharpness for the designof the lens.  If you're going to slam the 50L for not being as sharp as other 50mm lenses, the reasons behind that somewhat reduced sharpness are an integral part of that discussion. 

Next up, let's discuss the interactions between planets…but we must avoid referring to gravity in that discussion.  ::)


If spherical aberration is so important and necessary to photographers then why do lens manufacturers go to such great lengths to eliminate it?

As has been established and accepted by many people (other than you), Canon intentionally chose to not eliminate spherical aberration from the 50L design.
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 21774
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2014, 01:21:39 PM »
btw, let me refer you to the wikipedia page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration
what does it say about the top lens?
Is that the word perfect used to describe a lens without spherical aberration?
Gee, dilbert, yes it sure is.  So, you're saying that you think a 'perfect' lens has only one optical element that focuses only red light?  Do you have many lenses like that?   ::) ::)

It's a diagram - a pictorial representation to illustrate a concept.  The use of the word "perfect" is in contrast to the use of the word "real" to describe the bottom lens.  A perfect lens is, "...an ideally corrected glass element that is free of aberration and focuses light onto a single point."  Similar to the thin lens approximation, it's a way to simplify the relevant concepts so that most people can understand them…clearly, it's not a universally effective method.


"In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."
Neuro could you please guide me where I could read more about this? Find this so difficult to believe. Thx.
The relationship between spherical aberration and bokeh has been frequently discussed (for example, see this).

As for deliberately designing a lens with undercorrected spherical aberration, Nikon states, "When spherical aberration is left a bit undercorrected, flares surround the out-of-focus background, thereby resulting in a close-to-ideal out-of-focus background.

If you'd prefer to hear it from Canon themselves, in a white paper on Cinema EOS lenses, Canon states, "By a tightly controlled design, a small and precise amount of spherical aberration is introduced into these 4K lenses that has precisely the softening effect shown in Figure 7.

Yes, Canon designs and produces lenses that aren't as sharp as they could be, on purpose, by intentionally undercorrecting spherical aberration, and does so even with lenses costing $5,000 - $46,000. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M2, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4016
  • Master of Pain
    • My Personal Work
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2014, 01:35:27 PM »
"In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."
Neuro could you please guide me where I could read more about this? Find this so difficult to believe. Thx.
The relationship between spherical aberration and bokeh has been frequently discussed (for example, see this).

As for deliberately designing a lens with undercorrected spherical aberration, Nikon states, "When spherical aberration is left a bit undercorrected, flares surround the out-of-focus background, thereby resulting in a close-to-ideal out-of-focus background.

If you'd prefer to hear it from Canon themselves, in a white paper on Cinema EOS lenses, Canon states, "By a tightly controlled design, a small and precise amount of spherical aberration is introduced into these 4K lenses that has precisely the softening effect shown in Figure 7.

Yes, Canon designs and produces lenses that aren't as sharp as they could be, on purpose, by intentionally undercorrecting spherical aberration, and does so even with lenses costing $5,000 - $46,000.
You reference Nikon and say that Canon would intentionally make a lens less than perfect???  That's heresy, I say, heresy ;) :o ;D ;) :o ;D
CPS Score: 111 points, those 0 and 1 point items really add up

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2014, 01:35:27 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2014, 03:26:56 PM »
@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Eldar

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3213
    • Flickr
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2014, 03:44:05 PM »
Up to a certain point it does have its entertainment value, but then ...
More equipment than skills, but everything is used :)
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/eldarhauge/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/eldarhaugephotography

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3446
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2014, 04:21:48 PM »
I guess it's the same reason why Canon have kept both the old 100 f2 and 85 f1.8 in the catalogue. You'll hear many people stating that the 100 is the better of the two because it's slightly sharper and has less purple fringing wide open. But the out of focus transition isn't quite as smooth and dreamy as the 85 - because the 100 is better corrected for chromatic aberration.

Ruined

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 796
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2014, 05:34:13 PM »
So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?

Only as a compliment to, not as a replacement for, the Canon 50mm f/1.2L.  I have an entire bag of sharp lenses (many sharper than both the Sigma and the Zeiss), but the only lens that has a similar special look when shooting people with the Canon 50mm f/1.2L is the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II.  That special look is unique, and elevates my work greatly.  The 50 can be used in a lot of situations that the 85 cannot, thus it is good to have both if you shoot people!
« Last Edit: April 16, 2014, 05:37:13 PM by Ruined »

sagittariansrock

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1689
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2014, 06:23:24 PM »
However because of the extremes in construction and pricing between the 50L and the 50 f1.4, the former is often misinterpreted as the 'high - end option', and to correct this Canon should introduce a better constructed, higher end 50mm than the 50 f1.4 to fill the gap. ( 50/1.8 IS perhaps).

This makes sense, except Canon has really handicapped the 50 1.4 for some reason. The sharpness isn't great and nor is the bokeh (and I am not even talking of 50L levels here), and clearly no adjustment was done there intentionally. It doesn't even have a ring USM.
Indeed a allrounder standard lens has its place, and I am sure an updated 50mm 1.4 or a 50mm 1.8 IS is a matter of time (although I know I'd prefer a 1.4, the majority of people might not, and that is what matters).

Thanks for the explanation, jrista! It did seem to me the issue might be focus shift but then I felt Eldar has probably seen all the AFMA drift at f/1.4.
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 85mm f/1.2L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

sanj

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2900
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2014, 12:04:19 PM »
I guess I was wrong:

Canon should not make a 50mm which is sharp at wide aperture.

It is ok that Canon does not update its lenses for >20 years.

It is ok that other companies are making sharp 50mm lenses that are priced and not the company whose equipment I use.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2014, 12:04:19 PM »

sanj

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2900
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #43 on: April 18, 2014, 12:11:49 AM »
@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Totally rude and unnecessary. How can a person use such words to make a point?  :(

jrista

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5319
  • EOL
    • Nature Photography
Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #44 on: April 18, 2014, 12:15:45 AM »
@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.

As for your assuming, you assume that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply explaining what Canon does. You assume that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are simply fans, others are simply customers and might otherwise not care about the brand. You assume a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.

Totally rude and unnecessary. How can a person use such words to make a point?  :(

You might want to go through and read a couple weeks history of Dilbert's posts. Then make a determination of who's rude. Dilbert LOVES to make assumptions about people, then create little fantasies about why people write the posts they do based on those assumptions. You know what they say about people who assume, right? "When you assume, you just make an A*s*s of you and me?" Hence the donkey comment. I thought it was rather appropriate, given the whole discussion of assumptions at the time. :P I think everyone else got the joke.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« Reply #44 on: April 18, 2014, 12:15:45 AM »