In the meantime, notwithstanding their sloppiness on detail Zeiss reported record profits while Leica skirts with viability for years, foregoes the 35mm DSLR market, fixates on rangefinders fewer and fewer people buy into and dives into €20,000 medium format DSLR's. Who knows what's right...
I do think Leica may be doing much better financially these days but regardless, I am surprised at the sloppiness of Zeiss in failing to post accurate specifications where the majority of folks will be looking. The average customer for high end Zeiss is not generally the average lay person and I would think their prime customer base would appreciate accuracy. It reflects poorly on a company renowned for precise optics when they show such sloppiness imho.
I'm seeing more and more lay persons opening threads about which Zeiss they should buy, tbh. And Zeiss just have sloppy web designers/bad QC on the website. It would be nice though if they would just provide direct links to the data sheets instead of hiding them under service>download center>recent data sheets.
AhamB wrote:
And Zeiss just have sloppy web designers/bad QC on the website. It would be nice though if they would just provide direct links to the data sheets instead of hiding them under service>download center>recent data sheets.
The odd/ worrisome thing though is that if you download the actual product flyer brochure for the lens - which looks like it is also a printed piece - Zeiss lists the same specifications as the website. So, this begs the question - will Zeiss no longer be listing accurate focal lengths for their lenses going forward in all marketing material? Will they also eventually do away with publishing MTF's (which is not listed in the product flyer for the lens by the way)? In fact, on the Zeiss lens page, I no longer even see how to get to the MTF's. Seems a slippery slope.
I must say, in all of the images you have posted, I really like the R28 images better. I bet I would like them better at 100% as well. That is high praise coming from a Zeiss-o-holic like me, but the R28 is pretty damn special. One day I will find a copy for the right price, and all of my other 28's will be hitting the road...
If CZ strike a high level of market success with all the Canon FF DSLR users (many of whom seem quite excited to spend up bit on white lenses, believing them to be the best thing since sliced bread), perhaps Leica will re-enter the market with their own line of warmed over 'digital quality' R lenses.
Zeiss should buy some decent space in the mainstream photographic press for something similar to denoir's comparison tests, a lot of people in more accepted fora are still ignorant of what is on offer and how easy and affordable buy in actually is, for the cheaper ZEs, at least.
This is why I say that if Zeiss ever feels like making a fabulous 24-70/2.8 AF ZE, watch them go. They should also insist on cross-platform marketing for any Sony lenses in future.
If the mags would publish such promotional material, of course.
philip_pj wrote:
...with all the Canon FF DSLR users (many of whom seem quite excited to spend up bit on white lenses, believing them to be the best thing since sliced bread...
So Philip, what Alts do you suggest I should get to replace my EF 70-200/2.8L IS II and EF 500/4L IS?
May 08, 2011 at 10:04 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
The question is not whether you need alternatives, but whether you want them. If you don't care about AF and IS (they have their utility but don't directly contribute to the aesthetic of images), but attach more importance to pure IQ, Leica may offer something superior to the Canon big whites. Douglas/telyt mentioned in a similar discussion that the Canon 400/2.8 disappointed him, compared to his Leica's.
I have the Mamiya A 200/2.8 APO for the rare occassions when I need better IQ than the 70-200/2.8L IS II can provide. Even then, the A 200 APO is only better in the corners, and not by much. The A 200 APO is even better than the Apo-Telyt-R 180/3.4, which I recently sold.
May 08, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
AhamB wrote:
The question is not whether you need alternatives, but whether you want them. If you don't care about AF and IS (they have their utility but don't directly contribute to the aesthetic of images), but attach more importance to pure IQ, Leica may offer something superior to the Canon big whites. Douglas/telyt mentioned in a similar discussion that the Canon 400/2.8 disappointed him, compared to his Leica's.
There are not any real alternatives for those 400/2,8--600/4--800/5,6 lenses even if you skip the IS and AF
And you can't replace the 400/2,8 with the Leica 280mm f/4 APO as suggested in a couple of threads before
John -- Thank you -- I love seeing these lenses compared. According to what I'm seeing there, the Leica is the winner, but not by a huge margin. The Zeiss 25mm seems to suffer most from CA fringing, but otherwise do well on sharpness and color.
Not to be too picky, but am I right in noticing perhaps the intitial set has the image order transposed? It seems the wider angle 25 is in the middle, not at the end of the series there. Possibly I'm mistaken, but please take a look at the overall and detail shots and let me know.
The 28 and 25 appear different enough in AOV that you might want to keep them both, and off-load all the Oly's and such for now.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
There are not any real alternatives for those 400/2,8--600/4--800/5,6 lenses even if you skip the IS and AF
And you can't replace the 400/2,8 with the Leica 280mm f/4 APO as suggested in a couple of threads before
The Leica APO-Telyt-R 400/2.8, 560/4 and 800/5.6 are not real? Probably not easy to find (or afford), but Leica has made them.
philip_pj wrote:
If CZ strike a high level of market success with all the Canon FF DSLR users (many of whom seem quite excited to spend up bit on white lenses, believing them to be the best thing since sliced bread), perhaps Leica will re-enter the market with their own line of warmed over 'digital quality' R lenses.
Zeiss should buy some decent space in the mainstream photographic press for something similar to denoir's comparison tests, a lot of people in more accepted fora are still ignorant of what is on offer and how easy and affordable buy in actually is, for the cheaper ZEs, at least.
This is why I say that if Zeiss ever feels like making a fabulous 24-70/2.8 AF ZE, watch them go. They should also insist on cross-platform marketing for any Sony lenses in future.
If the mags would publish such promotional material, of course....Show more →
The most funny thing is when you imply that the white Canon super teles have bad image quality
Jason_Thames wrote:
I must say, in all of the images you have posted, I really like the R28 images better. I bet I would like them better at 100% as well. That is high praise coming from a Zeiss-o-holic like me, but the R28 is pretty damn special. One day I will find a copy for the right price, and all of my other 28's will be hitting the road...
-Jason
+1
May 08, 2011 at 11:47 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Alternative lenses should of course be lenses that you can find and buy without problem. Otherwise they are NOT any real alternatives
Actually, that litmus test would eliminate many alts folks around here use as many older lenses have become more difficult to easily find recently. When you find them though, they still serve as great alternatives!
