edwardkaraa wrote:
Absolutely, the ZE and ZM are completely different lenses. On the M9, it is ridiculously sharp across the frame and no CA whatsoever.
Don't tell me that! I keep telling myself that he ZM25 is plenty wide for me.
To echo other posters, the M mount version is different optical design: the SLR version is 13 elements in 11 groups and the M version is 10 elements in 8 groups.
The ZM18 is one of my favorite wide angles on the Sony NEX, it has that bold contrasty "Zeiss" signature. If you look at the MTF chart of the ZM18, it is very good wide open @ F4 all the way to the APS-C corners. Unfortunately, on a full frame, it is too wide for me. Larger
AmbientMike wrote:
I lost interest in this lens after looking at images shot with it posted on photozone
Clearly no one needs to change your mind, but as with any lens, it takes the right application to make it shine, even the ZF18. Take a look at the photos by member donuss.
CVickery wrote:
Don't tell me that! I keep telling myself that he ZM25 is plenty wide for me.
That's what I think as well. The ZM 18 is my least used lens because I rarely feel the need for such an ultra wide angle. But every time I use it, it produces spectacular results.
The problem is M performance on NEX is not the same as on the Fuji. My ZM 25 which is very good on the NEX 5N decided to do poorly on the XE-1. That goes too for the 35 summarit. I recall someone posted shots with Voigt 15 and that didn't go well either..
So..just stick to Fuji lenses for the XE-1. The 35, 18-88 and 14 are superb. No reasons at all for M lenses below and 35 mm.
Is the ZE that bad? I am strongly considering this lens, because I want something in that FL, covered from 24 on up. Didn't care for the Tokina 17. Also could do a zoom like the Tokina 16-28 which is excellent or the Canon 17-40 which is so-so. If the ZE can't beat either of those, than maybe I should drop it from consideration.
For use on the Fujifilm cameras, you want to try before you buy or find someone whose work with the lens you can check out. I'd be concerned about smeared edge detail and worse corners with the ZM18 on any of the Fujifilm X cams.
On NEX-5N and 6, it does pretty well.
On Ricoh GXR/M, it does fantastic.
I've never used it on a full frame digital camera and rarely used it with film as I did not own a finder for it.
Made with the ZM18 on the GXR, this slightly cropped snapshot had/has good detail right to the edges.
I've recently sold mine because I'm not expecting to ever see from anyone other than Leica a full frame mirrorless camera that works well with M wides and ultrawides except by accident, and, if such an accident should occur down the road, I can always rebuy it.
speaking of FM contributers with quality 18mm Zeiss work, if you are considering the ZM 18 distagon I urge you to look up NateVenture and check his work with that lens.
'I lost interest in this lens after looking at images shot with it posted on photozone'
hahahahahahaha. I sometimes wonder how many lens purchases never got made due to the 'lens graveyards' aka the test websites, dpr, pz et al. Can anyone make worse photographs outside of a brick wall? - and that is being unkind to brick walls some of which are attractive. I just hope their application to da measurements are of better quality than the images, how could they be any worse?
frezeiss wrote:
The problem is M performance on NEX is not the same as on the Fuji. My ZM 25 which is very good on the NEX 5N decided to do poorly on the XE-1. That goes too for the 35 summarit. I recall someone posted shots with Voigt 15 and that didn't go well either..
So..just stick to Fuji lenses for the XE-1. The 35, 18-88 and 14 are superb. No reasons at all for M lenses below and 35 mm.
Why don't RF lenses perform well on Fuji? I thought taht RF wideangles had corner problems with NEXs but not with Fuji. Isn't it true?
Thanks, francesco
The 18/3.5 is probably a good lens but I didn't think it was enough better than what I had to warrant a purchase. Pretty much any good lenses can take good photos.
I would say the Leica mount would be preferable, otherwise you will probably need an adapter with perfect sensor to flange distance or performance will suffer on ff.
fracas wrote:
Why don't RF lenses perform well on Fuji? I thought taht RF wodeangles had corner problems with NEXs but not with Fuji. Isn't it true?
Thanks, francesco
Their thick filter stack causes heavier smearing effects due to refraction
You mean the IR filter? are there other filters?
do the smearing effects happen also with Fuji native lenses or with retrrofocus design lenses?
thanks, francesco
Francesco: Fuji designed their own lenses differently to work with the sensor reducing the angle of light that hit the sensor and Fuji explain it themselves, articles can be found on the web. The 18mm seems to still suffer a little smearing. The 14mm seems to do better and looks like a great lens for the Fuji system.
Non Fuji retrofocus wide lenses does not do as well on the X-series. I am not sure if they have improved the XE-1 sensor in any way, judging from Freezeiss posting it seems to be the same.
I keep telling myself that he ZM25 is plenty wide for me.
