philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #8 · Zeiss 25mm 2.0 vs Zeiss 21mm 2.8 ... discuss plz | |
I had the 21, acquired the 25, wompared them, and let the 21 go. let's skip over the obvious, suchg as FL, price, weight, cost. In terms of IQ, they both have one "nasty". The 21 has mustache distortion, and, while it can be corrected in LightRoom, obviously it would be better if it weren't there. It has only visible affected some 2% of my shots, though. The 25 has extreme corners that aren't totally sharp, even stopped down. It is only extreme corners, mind, just a few pixels.
But it s the performance across 85% of the frame for 85% of the shots that I careabout more than any extreme performance, and that is where the 25 pushes the 21 to show its age. Colours are just a bit better differentiated with the 25, transitions are more gradual, indicating a greater affinity for very small detail. Items retain a very precise spatial placement even in OOF areas, again indicating the same. Note that the 21 isn't exactly bad at this, not at all, but the 25 is just a bit better, and I could tell the 25 from a cropped 21 whenever I looked for the signs.
As to "pop", it is possible that one would think the 21 has more, as the more detail a system has the more gradual its transitions, as the ZE 35 f:1.4 shows in comparison to the more "pop"-y but less detailed f:2.0, but the 25 is actually more accurate at 3D.
A simple way to assess the 25 is to say that it is vey close indeed to being a wider 65 f:1.4. Those two lenses have a very similar rendering. And, while the 21 is always wonderfully spectacular, even dramatic, the 25 can do this, but can also render very lean, austere shots. That absence of a visual signature is the sign of a more transparent lens IMHO.
But, before you read too much into the above, both lenses, as befits stablemates, are still closer to each other than to any other lenses from othe makers.
Hope this helps.
|
