Originally posted by Todd Adamson Awesome post, great points, well-made. The part I've bolded sounds elitist as hell; bordering on Leica territory. But I agree fully, so I guess I am an elitist.
When I bought my first Zeiss lens, I was just highly curious to see if all of the hype was real. I was quickly caught up in the arguments about whether "Zeissness" was really a thing, or just some BS that people who dropped way too much cash on a lens needed to sell to themselves. Initial comparison testing with similar-but-way-cheaper glass led me to favor the "BS" theory; but over time, as I shot more and more with the lenses, and gained a feel for their rendering, I was swayed, and I firmly believe the Zeiss lenses I own have
something outside and above the standard array of mass-produced lenses. I believe the FA77 also has that. It does take a familiarity with the results that can only come from spending a lot of time with the lenses, shooting under a variety of scenarios.
Could I always pick out the images shot with the "pixie dust" lenses under blind tests? Not likely. But I guarantee I would get it right more often that would be predicted by random guessing. The fact that I can see it/not see it in my own images is evidence enough for me that the quality resides in the lens and not the shooter, though I'd love to take credit for having pixie dust in my personal technique. The very fact that it's not objectively identifiable is sort of what makes it "pixie dust," so endeavoring to find actual hard evidence for it is of debatable value.
And of course, it's always possible that I am a textbook case of Confirmation Bias.
I love the Zeiss, but I can tell you *why* I like 'em, and from my medium format days, I can pick out with about 90% accuracy which images were shot with my Hassy and which were shot with my RB67. I can tell you why, too. If you were here, I could show you.
Zeiss doesn't depend on statistical sampling for QC; each lens is adjusted individually for MTF. I don't think Leica does, either. This means that their performance bell curve is much narrower than other manufacturers that *do* depend on statistical sampling methods. More Zeiss lenses are critically sharp, optimally so, with less sample variation.
When I switched to Zeiss, there was a clear, quantifiable difference in sharpness and contrast, both micro and macro. With Ektachrome and a meter, there was a clear difference in these things. Flare control, as well - light sources in the frame were completely different in rendition - you could read the print on fluorescent tubes with the Zeiss, for instance. The enlargements from my Hassy are noticeably sharper than the ones from my RB-67, even though it took nearly twice the magnification to make a given format.
One of the differences I saw consistently between Bavarian glass and japanese glass was rendition of skies. Skies with the Leitz, Zeiss, and Schneider glass looked like they were shot with a polarizer by comparison with my Canon, borrowed Nikons, Minoltas, Olympus... Same for other colors. Reds were electric, blues deep and rich. Repeatable and measurable on
chromes.
Not pixie dust.
CLEARLY visible on slide film, no subtle "If you
get it I don't have to explain, if you don't, it won't do any good for me to explain" arguments. Lay 'em on the light table and marvel.
Digital processing has, to a certain extent, rendered this moot, as contrast and saturation is easily adjustable with a slider. I can pick up my chromes from the Hassy, lay 'em on a lightbox, and tweak my K-5 images to match in
seconds. You couldn't do that with slide film, and that's where these lenses earned their very well deserved reputations. Not print film, where the second solution is so variable. On slide film - Kodachrome, to be exact.