Gunzorro Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
I've been thinking about the comparison and the discussion now for several days.
A possibility comes to mind that might skew the "test" results.
The possibility is that perhaps (worth a thorough check) the Canon has severe spherical aberration or curvature of field where the center and sides won't come into focus on the same plane (the strong CA is an indication), but will focus and "join" at smaller apertures for overall superb performance. Wide open shooting could make it hard to get accurate focus across the frame, and if the center were focused, the sides might not be, and vice versa. Then again, it may have been the Canon is fine, but was misfocused on the shots.
The Zeiss does look to be fairly well corrected for CA and seems to have better flatness of field, but those also need more testing and confirmation, and again it starts out slower at f/2. With such a limited sample base, it is really hard to tell anything conclusive.
I liked KR's review and it seems fair, and also sort of humorous -- better IQ than the 28/1.8 and a few zoom lenses! (I like the 16-35L II very much, but would expect the ZE 25/2 to trounce it handily.) He seemed to have his tongue in his cheek. Like many others, I would prefer to see the ZE tested against the fastest Nikon, Canon or other 24mm lenses. It does seem a shame that Zeiss hesitated to build a 1.4 lens.
|