OK, I'm back from my travels, and running some more tests on the various Zuiko lenses, comparing them to similar offerings from Zeiss and Canon.
Tonight I did a "close-focus" test. I was mainly interested in seeing how the floating internal element would help close-focus situations. The Zuiko 21/2 and Zeiss 21/2.8 have internal floating elements. The Zuiko 21/3.5 does not.
I also threw in the Canon 16-35L (zoomed to 21mm) into the comparison. This is an incredibly sharp copy of the 16-35L (the sharpest copy I've seen out of about 8 I've tried), but it can't hold up to these great prime lenses.
The test subject was about 6 feet from the lens (all shot with Canon 1DsII), and the Zuiko 21/2 did outperform the Zuiko 21/3.5, so apparently the internal floating element does make a difference in these situations. In other testing I've done, the two Zuiko models are essentially identical in sharpness, CA, fall-off, etc, once you get out to medium-range focus (beyond about 12 feet).
My question is how many real life shots do you take of pictures and small text? Why don't you just do a real life test (eg a picture of a church) use the same focus point and post a link to the RAW files. Lets see what's what. I can tell a lot from RAW files.
In the couple weeks that I have been a member of these boards, I have noticed a particular tendency among certain people who eschew certain beliefs about equipment that they own. My perception of these people is that the more expensive their equipment, the more entrenched their opinion of that equipment’s superiority.
mike thie is a very interesting result. I think the zeiss is sharpest in the corner but not by much. However, if i am seeing things correctly, both zuikos have less distortion than the zeiss. Both the zeiss 3.5 and 2.0 are close in edge sharpness but I agree the 2.0 is a tad better. Amazing these are so close to the zeiss too. Since most of my wide angle shots are past 6 ft, either zuiko will do me well. However, after 4 months my zuiko 21mm/2 showed up from europe after I was told it was lost but i am out of town and have not had time to test it out.
Mark - I agree, the Zeiss is the sharpest 21mm lens. But it's surprising how close the Zuikos are to the Zeiss. The Canon 16-35 performance really puts into context how well these tiny, low-cost Zuiko's really perform.
Agreed but this is a nice way to quantify results and give the ultimate potential of a lens 10Tenths wrote:
My question is how many real life shots do you take of pictures and small text? Why don't you just do a real life test (eg a picture of a church) use the same focus point and post a link to the RAW files. Lets see what's what. I can tell a lot from RAW files.
In the couple weeks that I have been a member of these boards, I have noticed a particular tendency among certain people who eschew certain beliefs about equipment that they own. My perception of these people is that the more expensive their equipment, the more entrenched their opinion of that equipment’s superiority.
Real world examples please! with RAW files. ...Show more →
Sorry to upset you. And of course I didn't mean that you in particular held preconceived opinions. You asked for comments I gave mine.
I considered buying the Contax Zeiss 21mm last week, but after a recent experience with Contax Zeiss 25mmf2.8 I just purchased (cost me $541, failed test against 16-35L, badly) I would rather not make another mistake at a cost of $3500.
NO SIR, No thank you!
Its up for sale if you want a mint 25mmf2.8 I would sell it now for $400.00 based on what I have seen of its performance. After a brief foray into the exotic world of Contax Zeiss, I think there is a reason why canon is still in business.
Sorry you had a bad experience with the Zeiss 25/2.8. Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of lens to lens variability, even within the same make/model, so you may have just hit upon a bad copy.
The Zeiss 21 is in a different class from the Zeiss 25/2.8. But these exotic non-Canon lenses have some drawbacks - lack of autofocus and lack of EXIF information in the shot. Depending on your shooting subjects and style, they may or may not make sense.
I use my "exotic" 3rd party wide-angle primes only for landscape shooting. For all other types of shooting, I use my Canon lenses, because I love the AF and EXIF shooting data.
That is exactly what I had planned to do with the 25mm - use it for landscape. I expected it to wipe the floor with 16-35L. I found 16-35 to be one heck of a sharp lens. If CZ 21 is better then that performance would be mind boggling!
I had also bought a CZ 50f/1.7 this is a keeper and is permanently on my camera 24/7 - manual focus and all.
I will buy a split screen on Monday just for this lens.
Thanks for your continued work Mike. I have been using the Oly 21/2 and really love it, and in fact I quit using my Zeiss 21. One reason I love the Oly lenses is because it is SO MUCH easier to stop the lens down, especially when you are in a hurry - because the diaphram is on the front of the lens instead of the back of the lens and a lot easier to reach - with the 1Ds2 I have more trouble reaching around to stop down when it is next to the body. But with the Oly lenses it is right out in front and easy to get to. Back in the film days I used to think this f-stop on the front deal was very strange, but it makes a lot of sense now for me.
Seems like a lot of folks miss out on one of the best techinques of using the ultra wides - that of very close focus. I shoot a lot of my "landscape" images with close focus at 1-2 feet and so the Oly 21/2 is very sweet. In fact a subject at 6 feet focus would be in the background for my shots! You can do some really neat things with your subject - a rock or leaf or wildflower - that is very close to the front of the lens, then stop the lens down and get the rest of the world in focus right along with it because of the great depth of field. And with the extra stop of brightness with the Oly f2, it is really easy to focus. And for a guy with a heavy camera backpack, the Oly vs. Zeiss size/weight makes a large difference.
I have not been able to tell any difference between a Zeiss 21 and the Oly 21 in a 16/20 print from this camera, all other factors being equal (and I paid the same price for the Oly 21/2 as I did my last Zeiss 21 - $1400). I've owned three of the Zeiss 21's and loved them all, but in the real world the Oly f2 is a better lens for me.
By the way, I have been using a plain ground glass focus screen that was modified by Bill Maxwell. While I have no way to do an actual comparision test of the brightness vs. unmodified screen, it seems as though it is easier to focus these wides with the modified screen. Since my subjects can fall at any point on the frame, I have no use for a split screen or prism - all I do is look at the subject and focus until it comes into sharp focus on the screen, just like in the old 4/5 days. So very simple, and I don't have to focus, then recompose to shoot as I would have to do if using a split screen or prism.
As you know I have been a fan of the Oly for quite a while, though I've been accused of heresy for suggesting the tiny Oly can hold its own against King Zeiss. One poster on another forum even referred to me as a "low-end" shooter for suggesting the Oly over a CZ... That's a laugh for anybody who has seen my gear collection!
Overall, I agree with Mark's assesment -- the CZ21 is a tad sharper in the corners than both Oly's, but the Oly's have visibly less distortion -- pick your poison. Might just be my eyes, but it also looks like the Oly's have a tad more falloff in the very corners, though this is a usual tradeoff against less distrotion in wideangle lens designs.
Personally, I like the Oly due to its diminuative size compared to the CZ and am willing to sacrifice the minute loss of image quality shown above since it basically won't be notable in a print. So others can see how different they are, it might not be a bad idea show folks a size comparison shot...
Any way you cut it, IMO the Oly is a great option to the expensive CZ at about 1/4 to 1/3 the cost (and size) of the CZ
Its up for sale if you want a mint 25mmf2.8 I would sell it now for $400.00 based on what I have seen of its performance. After a brief foray into the exotic world of Contax Zeiss, I think there is a reason why canon is still in business.
10Tenths, the 25mm is generally considered the worst of the Zeiss wides. One reason why it is rarely discussed around here. Don't draw too many conclusions from it. --c
I think the zeiss is sharpest in the corner but not by much.
It doesn't look very close to me at all. Look at the text in the poster on the Zeiss shot and the Zuiko 3.5 shot.
Look at the color, contrast and definition of the black line on the left edge of that poster in the Zeiss shot and Zuiko shot. The Zeiss line is black -- the Zuiko line is basically the same color as the guy's pants!
And this is at f/8? I can only imagine what the differences would be at f/3.5 or f/4.
Disclaimer: I own Zeiss glass and not Zuiko glass. But the differences seem rather obvious to me. The Zuiko lenses may be a better value than the Zeiss lens but they are not in the same league in terms of performance. --c
My statement was referring to the zuiko f2 and zeiss. I said the f2 and zeiss were close followed next but not that far off the f3.5. I think in most prints the differences are going to be marginal. However as jack stated you need to factor in distortion, which the zuiko 2.0 is better. mark
Yup, no question that the Zeiss is better at 100% crops when viewed on screen. After 30 years in the business I have not sold a single 100% crop on screen though. In a print you simply cannot tell the difference - folks around here sometimes seem to forget all about the real world - we sell prints and images in books and calendars and magazines and not pixels. Also, when making standard prints like 8/10, 11/14, 16/20, 20/24, 24/30, 30/40 - guess what - those corners are cropped out so any light falloff or corner softness become mute (I typically will burn in the corners anyway). I still love the color and contrast of the Zeiss/Leica glass when shooting film, but with photoshop that is also kind of mute...
Jack Flesher wrote:
As you know I have been a fan of the Oly for quite a while, though I've been accused of heresy for suggesting the tiny Oly can hold its own against King Zeiss. One poster on another forum even referred to me as a "low-end" shooter for suggesting the Oly over a CZ... That's a laugh for anybody who has seen my gear collection!
jack,
just to clear this up, you really need to go back and read what was posted. no one called you a low-end shooter. in fact, here is the quoted statement, word-for-word:
The Zuiko had no effect on the Zeiss except from low end shooters who wanted an MF option, but didn't want to outlay for the Zeiss (and a few higher end guys who have/had a ton invested in it).
The Zuiko f/2 isn't close in corner performance to the Zeiss either. Not in terms of sharpness nor color.
And again, these are massively stopped down. I have to believe even a Canon prime would do pretty well at f/8. Wouldn't it have been better to include the Canon 24 1.4L in this test rather than a zoom that is known to not be a great performer? --c
Edited by charlesk on Aug 07, 2005 at 09:13 AM GMT
Yup, no question that the Zeiss is better at 100% crops when viewed on screen. After 30 years in the business I have not sold a single 100% crop on screen though. In a print you simply cannot tell the difference - folks around here sometimes seem to forget all about the real world - we sell prints and images in books and calendars and magazines and not pixels. Also, when making standard prints like 8/10, 11/14, 16/20, 20/24, 24/30, 30/40 - guess what - those corners are cropped out so any light falloff or corner softness become mute (I typically will burn in the corners anyway). I still love the color and contrast of the Zeiss/Leica glass when shooting film, but with photoshop that is also kind of mute...
If that's the case then why bother with exotic lenses at all? Boggle. --c
