{"id":6087,"date":"2026-08-19T11:29:15","date_gmt":"2026-08-19T10:29:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/?p=6087"},"modified":"2026-08-19T11:29:15","modified_gmt":"2026-08-19T10:29:15","slug":"something","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/something\/","title":{"rendered":"Something"},"content":{"rendered":"

Every now and then I watch a review of some lens and then the reviewer says it has \u201cthat something\u201d, \u201cthe look\u201d, \u201csoul\u201d or some other stupid bullshit that people use when they can\u2019t define what they are talking about but still want to be taken seriously.<\/p>\n

At some point I started interpreting such statements as \u201cthe lens is shit\u201d, and that usually turns out to be exactly right. When someone can\u2019t define why something is good, it probably means it\u2019s shit in a way that reminds them of his faded-out family photos taken with a similar camera, that was also shit.<\/p>\n

Also, there are terms like \u201cmicro-contrast\u201d. What the fuck is that supposed to mean?<\/p>\n

\u201cMicro-contrast is the ability of a lens to capture subtle tonal variations and details within an image, enhancing the richness and vibrancy of colours and transitions between light and dark areas.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

Yeah, that\u2019s also known as \u201cresolution\u201d, defined as the ability to distinguish between pairs of black and white lines. Subtle tonal variations and details\u2026 What is that supposed to mean? The colours aren\u2019t muddy because the lens is sharp and apochromatic, meaning the photons of different wavelengths go where they\u2019re supposed to. Lenses are physics, not bullshit. In physics, when something happens, there\u2019s an actual phenomenon causing it.<\/p>\n

I hear that shit regularly whenever something from Zeiss or Leica is reviewed. Oh, it has \u201cthat something\u201d, it has the \u201c3d pop\u201d, it has \u201cmicro-contrast\u201d. Then you put the image from a Zeiss lens next to some other lens and they look the same and then you think \u201cwhat the hell are those guys smoking\u201d. I don\u2019t know, but it\u2019s not doing them a great deal of good. \u201c3d pop\u201d is a combination of sharpness, contrast and depth of field. Contrast is usually a function of resolution and anti-glare coating. In case of Zeiss, I think the coating might actually suppress the dark tones, boosting contrast at the expense of tonal gradient, which is, interestingly, the only actual characteristic that I can attribute to Zeiss lenses that isn\u2019t complete fiction. Other than that, yeah, they are sharp. So is almost everything else today. They are contrasty and have good coating. So does almost everything else. I actually prefer the coating on the Sony GM lenses because it doesn\u2019t suppress tonality in deep shadows as much as T* coating seems to, and for some reason the images from the Zeiss lenses feel \u201ccooler\u201d, while the Sony lenses feel \u201cwarmer\u201d, and it\u2019s not a white balance thing or a colour cast. I\u2019d say it has to be caused by the way T* coating deals with wavelengths; what is reflected, what is transmitted. It\u2019s a very subtle thing, and that\u2019s how you get the impression of micro-contrast; if you have a bush with light and dark parts of the leaves, and the dark parts are suppressed, you get the impression of increased contrast in the details, which can create the impression of three-dimensionality in the image. However, that might be the last thing you want if you\u2019re shooting portraits, and it actually seems to boost extreme colours at the expense of gradient, which is also not something you might want in portraits.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Sony A7II, FE 16-35mm f\/4 Zeiss Vario-Tessar<\/p><\/div>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Sony A7RV, FE 24-105mm f\/4 G<\/p><\/div>\n

So, basically, \u201cthat something\u201d the Zeiss lenses have is the Zeiss badge, which makes the reviewers go ape shit with hyperbole. The coating suppresses the shadows, giving you contrast and cooler tone at the expense of tonal gradient. That\u2019s great if you want it and shit if you don\u2019t, but it\u2019s not some mystical, magical property.<\/p>\n

The reason I love the GM lenses so much is partially because the coating seems to do the exact opposite from T*; it doesn\u2019t suppress, the way a polarizing filter would. The tonal gradient across the spectrum is preserved, and when you combine that with extreme sharpness, apochromatic design and incredibly smooth rolloff into bokeh, you get a combination properties that \u201cclicks\u201d with me so much that I basically went out and bought all of them.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Sony A7CR, FE 35mm f\/1.4 GM<\/p><\/div>\n

But it\u2019s not a GM feature. Sigma Art lenses are doing the same thing, for the most part. It\u2019s a function of extreme sharpness, modern coating and excellent bokeh. Put those properties together and the result appears magical, but it\u2019s just good optics; more than just good, in fact. You can say they have \u201cthat something\u201d. Yeah. Something is somethingating into quite a bit of somethinglings that somethingiggulate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Every now and then I watch a review of some lens and then the reviewer says it has \u201cthat something\u201d, \u201cthe look\u201d, \u201csoul\u201d or some other stupid bullshit that people use when they can\u2019t define what they are talking about … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6087","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-photo"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6087","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6087"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6087\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6091,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6087\/revisions\/6091"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6087"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6087"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6087"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}