DxO sharpness ratings of FE lenses: Zooms vs. Primes

[apocolibri]

HI, Ken –
For an overview, here's the best case one can make that lens renderings differ in rendering micro-contrast – and that there's a definite 'Leica look':

The Leica Look – ARTPHOTOACADEMY

IMO modern lens designers are trying too hard to create pore-and-nose-hair sharpness by maximizing resolution and microcontrast. This results in a tendency for the viewer of an image to notice '2D' surface texture at the expense of a more rounded '3D' impression. This is a religious belief of mine – I know of no scientific proof.

Kirk

As soon as I saw your post with your mention of Mandler, Kirk, I couldn't help but smile and think: "this guy knows his glass!"

I also agree with your comment that: "modern lens designers are trying too hard to create pore-and-nose-hair sharpness by maximizing resolution and microcontrast. This results in a tendency for the viewer of an image to notice '2D' surface texture at the expense of a more rounded '3D' impression."

I find this especially applicable to Leica's newest designs. In my opinion Leica has lost the "Leica Look", or rather changed their own definition of what they now regard as the "Leica Look."

Personally I prefer the Mandler look. The newer designs are just too clinical and cold for my needs.

Lawrence

 

[Vivek]

I am unsure if most who talk about "Chandler look" know what they are talking about. What about Barnack look and other looks?

 

[Pradeep]

Hmmm......

I am not convinced of any 'look' that is typical of a camera system that cannot be duplicated with large aperture glass from other makers. Sensors do have a particular look because of noise related to particular ISO, at least from what I have seen with various brands I have used. Having owned Leica glass and two M bodies (albeit digital, not film) I did not find anything special though I tried hard.

There was a huge debate raging over CCD vs CMOS 'look' when Phase One came out with their CMOS based backs, purists claiming the older technology was 'more pleasing'. I remember a guy had posted shots taken with identical settings of the same subject with the two different bodies inviting people to guess which one was which, the point being that majority of people couldn't tell the difference.

I suppose in carefully controlled studio shots with proper lighting etc having Leica or C-Z glass would bring out subtle peculiarities that may be aesthetically more pleasing, especially for fashion and portrait work, but in everyday travel or street photography I doubt it would be obvious.

I may be in a minority here and am willing to accept the possibility that I may not possess the necessary ability to appreciate 'art' when I see it

 

[Vivek]

Pradeep, Do you know of the study showing the frontal cortex of meditating believers exhibiting increased activity vs non activity in atheists who were also meditating?

It is something like that.

 

[thompsonkirk]

Very interesting study. Since the purpose of meditation is to reduce the activities of the 'mad monkeys of the mind,' it must be the atheists who are getting the most out of their meditation?

Now I have to figure out how this relates to lens preferences –

 

[Vivek]

Kirk, there has got to be a point of focus while relaxing. Atheists do not get the benefits it seems.

 

[jerome_m]

Looking at FE lenses for the A7rii on DxOMark, I notice that most of the zoom lenses have sharpness ratings below 30, while many primes have ratings well above 30. Are these numbers meaningful or reliable ?

Probably not.

I tried a comparison between the Sony GM 24-70 f/2.8 and the Sony-Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 today. The only reason for the choice of lenses being that I had access to both at the same time.

So I put the 2 lenses on an A7 R II camera, point them at a distant subject and try all apertures between f/2.8 and f/8 (the zoom being put on 35mm of course).

I don't see a winner between the two lenses. There are some tiny differences peeping at pixels, but there is no clear winner. Yet the DxO ratings are markedly different.

 

[Pradeep]

Pradeep, Do you know of the study showing the frontal cortex of meditating believers exhibiting increased activity vs non activity in atheists who were also meditating?

It is something like that.

Not that one particularly, but seen plenty of believers going into a euphoric trance-like state while I was sitting there wondering if I was truly abnormal that I couldn't -