Tariq Gibran wrote:
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!
So how many people here have found and bought these lenses
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
That depends entirely on the effort and money you're willing to put into getting them. I didn't suggest they were an alternative for just any person with a Canon DSLR.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
So how many people here have found and bought these lenses
I could not say but your statement reads as a generalization. I know I seek out - and buy - a number of alt lenses that are unavailable pretty much anywhere on any given week.
May 08, 2011 at 02:27 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
It was not a generalization. It was a reply to this comment that started it:
"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"
If you should buy alt lenses instead of the long white super-teles like it was suggested. Then you can not sit and wait a few years to maybe get them. Some people actually use their lenses also. Either as their work or hobby.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
It was not a generalization. It was a reply to this comment that started it:
"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"
If you should buy alt lenses instead of the long white super-teles like it was suggested. Then you can not sit and wait a few years to maybe get them. Some people actually use their lenses also. Either as their work or hobby....Show more →
Another hornet's nest shaken up. My mistake, I should have used the term 'L lenses' rather than 'white lenses'. Thanks all for leaping to my assistance in understanding Canon lore, such as it is ;-)
May 08, 2011 at 08:41 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
And what about reading your own links. At least one of those two will not ship to my continent.
Maybe you should spend more than 60 seconds so you get it right the next time
In any case I would not buy a used lens from China on Ebay. Especially not when it cost $ 10-15k
Truly, one should not judge a lens without having used it for themselves. As for the Canon Super's, they are the Bees Knees! At least the ones I have used are... Now back to your regularly scheduled Leica/Zeiss comparison.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
And what about reading your own links. At least one of those two will not ship to my continent.
Maybe you should spend more than 60 seconds so you get it right the next time
In any case I would not buy a used lens from China on Ebay. Especially not when it cost $ 10-15k
The point is that if you are serious about really wanting one of these lenses, you can track it down... and it will not take a year. I have no doubt one could also call around and find one in less than your ridiculous time frame of a year. None of these lenses under discussion are exactly cheap. For some, these lenses are viable alternatives, notwithstanding your personal litmus test.
Whoops, I presumed you were still in Thailand.
The item location is Germany and in the description below it's said that the shop ships worldwide, so the ebay info at the top isn't correct I'm sure.
I also had an 18x12 print of this scene from either lens (I think I printed the f5.6 shots) and they were very difficult to tell apart except the wider view of the ZF lens.
thanks a lot johnahill for responding to my call, but there seems one wide shot missing? In the center crops the R28 seems to be sharper (buildings) but interesting how similar the rendering is. In the edge crops the ZF 25 has a slight halo around the light, the R28 does not. Are these 50% crops?
are you using them differently in any respect? Have you compared them at close range as well other than what you showed before?
John, just curious.. did you notice any softer corners with the Distagon compared to those with the Elmarit? The other thread is discussing this. (BTW, your tests so far did not indicate any difference..) Thanks.
kosmoskatten wrote:
I'd be hard pressed to tell them apart - except for the angle of view.
Seems like two solid performers. (I had the R28/E55 myself.)
I've come to that conclusion too, both very good and similar rendering style.
I was uploading more samples for Cyra who has the zf25.
Bob YILDIRAN wrote:
John, just curious.. did you notice any softer corners with the Distagon compared to those with the Elmarit? The other thread is discussing this. (BTW, your tests so far did not indicate any difference..) Thanks.
Bob
No, the corners on this distagon are amazing, but this is the old ZF 25mm f2.8, not the new 25 f2.0
I used to have the Zeiss (my first copy was broken, but Zeiss replaced it
and my 2nd copy was as good as yours), now I shoot with the Leica.
IMO, your examples are not difficult enough and don't show a scene where
the difference in rendering would be easily seen.
Those two shots are showing some difference, take a look at
the amount of CA in the leaves and check out the lower left corner,
it's not only the sharpness, but the separation of the reds and greens:
IMO Leica is just great to render difficult color situation, mostly deep greens
vs deep blue sky. Red is also rendered differently.
The separation and contrast makes this lens quite unique IMO.
When I shoot with it I'm almost always amazed at the way it renders the image.
I never had that impression with my Zeiss.
I think you should try to go into a forest and shoot it agains the Zeiss
in some more difficult situations.
I agree the sharpness might be closed in the city, although Leica
is better wide open in my opinion.
Also CA is very well controlled comparing to Zeiss, which is famous for large
amount of CA when shot wide open (every Zeiss).
Zeiss is better for the closed subjects, has a very short min focus distance.
A few Leica examples to try to show what I'm talking about...
Look at this silly shot taken yesterday, look how reds nicely rendered against the bg:
