Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5      
6
       7       end
  

Archive 2011 · Followup to zeiss 25 review

  
 
ulrikft2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #1 · p.6 #1 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Good point, I keep forgetting about that function. Thanks for the tip.


Dec 04, 2011 at 03:31 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #2 · p.6 #2 · Followup to zeiss 25 review





Dec 04, 2011 at 03:32 PM
akul
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #3 · p.6 #3 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


AhamB wrote:
@akul: I think you're posting your question in the wrong thread. You probably meant to post your question in reply to this post: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1065413/1#10136622


Oops my bad. Thanks, I don't know what happened. Sleepy eyes I guess.



Dec 04, 2011 at 11:04 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #4 · p.6 #4 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


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.




Dec 05, 2011 at 09:52 AM
robinlee
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #5 · p.6 #5 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Sorry if this has been posted here




Dec 05, 2011 at 12:46 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #6 · p.6 #6 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


The porno background music is an interesting choice!

Sexy photo gear. Ha-ha!



Dec 05, 2011 at 01:52 PM
philip_pj
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #7 · p.6 #7 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


A heads up for those interested in tech isues associated with the 25/2 is CZ's latest newsletter, which looks in depth at Distagons among other lens types.

http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/en_CLB41_Nasse_LensNames_Distagon.pdf



Dec 06, 2011 at 12:13 AM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #8 · p.6 #8 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Thanks for the link to Dr Nasse's tech paper.
Very interesting read. He of course just talks about the good things about ZE 25/2.
Doesn't't mention corner performance stopped down to f8.



Dec 06, 2011 at 05:38 AM
alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #9 · p.6 #9 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Wasn't there an example in the paper showing perfect corner for the ZE 25/2 at f/8, but at close distance?


Dec 06, 2011 at 06:07 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #10 · p.6 #10 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


alundeb wrote:
Wasn't there an example in the paper showing perfect corner for the ZE 25/2 at f/8, but at close distance?


The weak corners are only at infinity. No problem at closer distances.

Knowing Zeiss glass very well, I wouldn't be surprised if corners become excellent if the focus is slightly pulled.



Dec 06, 2011 at 06:23 AM
alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #11 · p.6 #11 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


edwardkaraa wrote:
The weak corners are only at infinity. No problem at closer distances.

Knowing Zeiss glass very well, I wouldn't be surprised if corners become excellent if the focus is slightly pulled.


I haven't followed the discussions closely the last few months, did we get a conclusion about the field curvature for the ZE 35 1.4? Is it possible to get sharpness across the frame at infinity at f/8 for that lens?



Dec 06, 2011 at 06:56 AM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #12 · p.6 #12 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


alundeb wrote:
Wasn't there an example in the paper showing perfect corner for the ZE 25/2 at f/8, but at close distance?


Yep, the Zeiss paper shows perfect F8 corners at 25cm! compared to the very soft ones at that distance for the 25 2.8 - sort of an odd, extremely close distance to do a comparison at but it does show the close to Macro abilities of the 25 2. The floating element design of the 25 2 is cited for allowing great performance "even at close range". What is not explained - and I don't understand - is why the performance at the corners does not carry though to greater distances, say at 100 feet or so to infinity. Isn't the main advantage of a floating element design great performance at both close and distant distances? In the case of the 25 2, it seems the lens is still optimized for one range of distances - close - whereas the older, non floating design of the 25 2.8 is optimized for longer distances.



Dec 06, 2011 at 07:00 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #13 · p.6 #13 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Tariq Gibran wrote:
In the case of the 25 2, it seems the lens is still optimized for one range of distances - close - whereas the older, non floating design of the 25 2.8 is optimized for longer distances.


Tariq, I certainly agree with the above statement, but only if we are talking about the extreme corners. It seems to me that the f2 is superior to the f2.8 at infinity on almost the entire frame. At close distances there is no doubt about the outstanding performance of the f2. So the only weakness is at infinity and in the extreme corners. If the corners are really important, then I would say the f2.8 would be the better choice. But when you disregard these infamous cornersat infinity, the f2 has better resolution and sharpness at all distances, including the corners at anything but infinity. Not a bad performance at all in my opinion.



Dec 06, 2011 at 07:23 AM
alundeb
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #14 · p.6 #14 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


I agree that only the extreme corners, the last ~2mm, are affected. If you crop to an aspect ratio of 5:4, it is completely gone.



Dec 06, 2011 at 07:30 AM
Tariq Gibran
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #15 · p.6 #15 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


alundeb wrote:
I agree that only the extreme corners, the last ~2mm, are affected. If you crop to an aspect ratio of 5:4, it is completely gone.


That's a lot to crop - to a 5:4 ratio- if your doing so solely to correct this issue. I'm hoping someone here will thoroughly test the 25 2 Zeiss and show corners at longer distances as might be used for landscape so we can see if it's really an issue or if perhaps the sample Lloyd had was not representative.



Dec 06, 2011 at 09:05 AM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #16 · p.6 #16 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Or just use the 21 for landscapes.
What I want is the PC apodistagon 3.5/25 lens which was designed along with the 21 but not productized. Hey Zeiss, make me a ZE version. It can be $3k, we will buy it!



Dec 06, 2011 at 11:47 AM
atran
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #17 · p.6 #17 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


wayne seltzer wrote:
Or just use the 21 for landscapes.
What I want is the PC apodistagon 3.5/25 lens which was designed along with the 21 but not productized. Hey Zeiss, make me a ZE version. It can be $3k, we will buy it!

Yeah I am actually amazed that they don't release it. I think it will be expensive but so does the 24 TSE from Canon and the 24 PC-E from Nikon. Also they will be even more comparable due to no AF. May be the quality of the current Canon and Nikon offering is already high and they thought that the Zeiss edge in quality may not justify its higher price tag



Dec 06, 2011 at 03:37 PM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #18 · p.6 #18 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


wayne seltzer wrote:
Or just use the 21 for landscapes.
What I want is the PC apodistagon 3.5/25 lens which was designed along with the 21 but not productized. Hey Zeiss, make me a ZE version. It can be $3k, we will buy it!



I suspect the price today would be more like $5000. It is essentially a 25mm medium format lens with a complex mechanical lens barrel. The current Zeiss ZV 50mm lens for Hasselbald costs about $4000. A much more elaborate PC Apo-Distagon 25/3.5 could easily cost $5000.




Dec 06, 2011 at 04:02 PM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.6 #19 · p.6 #19 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Lotusm50 wrote:
I suspect the price today would be more like $5000. It is essentially a 25mm medium format lens with a complex mechanical lens barrel. The current Zeiss ZV 50mm lens for Hasselbald costs about $4000. A much more elaborate PC Apo-Distagon 25/3.5 could easily cost $5000.



No, it was a 17 lens retrofocus lens with lots of special low-dispersion glass:

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/pc_apodistagon/01.jpg

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/pc_apodistagon/02.gif

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/pc_apodistagon/03.gif

It is the Schuster masterpiece!
We should celebrate Schuster's birthday here on the alt forum and go out and shoot are 21's!



Dec 06, 2011 at 05:24 PM
philip_pj
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.6 #20 · p.6 #20 · Followup to zeiss 25 review


Maybe they are out to create some product differentiation, but it seems odd to make a wide angle that excels at very close range IF the trade-off was a loss of all-of-frame infinity excellence. Maybe my joke of using the 21mm and cropping to ~25mm is not such a bad idea, but I would hate to lose the extreme corners, they really help the 21's images, I feel.

For APS-C this 25mm is going to be great lens, however, a little longer than 35mm FL. But it's full frame Weird or what?



Dec 06, 2011 at 05:45 PM
1       2       3              5      
6
       7       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              5      
6
       7       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.