Upload & Sell: On
I am quite sure the Zeiss is a wonderful lens. I do have severe doubts about the "review" however.
"Although Nikon and Canon make great cameras and their new primes are really good, they still fall short of the the Zeiss. It's not about sharpness or pixels peeing but the overall picture is just so much nicer from the ZF 25. Of course this is just my opinion and you may feel totally different about this.
I do not have a direct comparison I can share with you but can only reference what I have seen on the net done by others"
1. No sharpness data
2. No pixel "peeing" !!
3. Zeiss "nicer" without any actual comparison to the Canicon lenses
4. Reviewer has only seen other people's (small) Zeiss images on the net
Fabulous though I am sure the Zeiss lens is, this "review" seems a joke. Zeiss deserves better. So do we.
Now an empirical, honourable, considered comparision between the Zeiss, Nikon and Canon fast 24mm lenses would be very, very interesting. Being a 24L Mk2 owner I am very interested in the "reviewer's" assertion that the Zeiss at "5.6 and f11 this lens is leaps and bounds ahead of anything out there". I've made sharp four foot prints from the 24L Mk 2 at f8, and I await with great interest to see if the Zeiss truly, objectively, delivers so much more! BTW the Nikon equivalent is a famously good lens too. Lets see.
EDIT - the "reviewer" references an old review based on the OLD Mk1 Canon lens for his striking observations:
Yes, your new Zeiss is better than a discontinued Canon!!!
Either this "reviewer" is a moron, or I am.