OK, here's some feedback from my history with these lenses.
The Zuiko 21/3.5 will suck at wide apertures. Should only be shot at f8 or f11 or f16. Nothing wider. It's really a landscape lens, while the Zeiss and Canon can be shot wider for other uses.
For this particular Zuiko, your f8 shot shows more softness and abberations than a sharp copy would show. So I'd say you do not have a sharp copy.
Unfortunately, "good copies" are not common. After testing about a dozen copies, less than half were what I would consider really sharp. So you have have to hunt for a while to find a good copy.
One observation on your Zeiss 21 - I would have expected it to be sharper in the bottom-right corner (bottom image) at f8. In my tests, I was able to get better sharpness than that. Was there any wind, or the possibility of slight mis-focus on these tests?
Thanks for the comparison, Charles. The results are not surprising, at least not to me. Indeed, I heard that the specimen variation of Olympus lenses is significant.....
Mike Hatam wrote:
The Zuiko 21/3.5 will suck at wide apertures. Should only be shot at f8 or f11 or f16. Nothing wider. It's really a landscape lens, while the Zeiss and Canon can be shot wider for other uses.
For this particular Zuiko, your f8 shot shows more softness and abberations than a sharp copy would show. So I'd say you do not have a sharp copy.
Unfortunately, "good copies" are not common. After testing about a dozen copies, less than half were what I would consider really sharp. So you have have to hunt for a while to find a good copy.
I agree with most of your comments Mike - the Zuiko needs to be stopped down and f11 is the sweet spot. And it should be sharper than the shots shown here - this looks like a pretty bad copy.
With that said. I have had 2 of them and they both performed the same - very good for landscapes. I have another on the way and will compare, but so far I have had a couple of excellent ones. I think I'll keep my 17-40, but not for landscapes
I think maybe I had lower expectations from the Zuiko than you guys did. I expected it to be a bit better than the 17-40, and it is. Other than the corners it does very well.
And it's not useless compared to the 17-40 anyway, given that it is much less expensive and about 1/3 the size. I'm selling this one and will try another though. --c
I made a similar test with my 50/1,4 zeiss vs, the 50/1,8 canon 28-135/3,5-5,6.
No lens showed corner sharpness down to the last 10 pixel, there were I guess not very much better then your 21/2,8 zeiss. And I discovered that it did not hurt to stop down 4 or even 5 steps.
General resolution I'd say zeiss was a hair better than the canon 50, not to mention the zoom which was miles away to compete with the primes. My canon 16-35/2,8 would probably perform like your Oly.
Just to put this test in relation with the normal lenses wich should perform best.
Charles: your tests are always so far out of line from the consensus view!
How are you able to make transparently superior lenses look so bad every time?
Perhaps you should find test targets that don't blow in the wind, and pick better lit days.
You'll know when you've cracked the methodology when you can't get any two lenses to look alike; in your tests all the candidates appear to perform equally.
The function - and motive! - of any test is to differentiate, not homogenise.
From your numerous strongly felt earlier posts it's very hard to avoid concluding that the purpose of these tests is not purely a quest for image quality but rather a sop for your bias against third party lenses, which predates your current threads by many months.
Mike, Guy and many others (myself included) ARRIVED at conclusions at the end of many hours of testing, and were often much surprised by the results. We often had to re-evaluate our views. Our expectations were often confounded. But only when the results were in did we started telling people.
Your long-standing anti-Zeiss/Leica/Olympus agenda rather robs these conclusions of any credibility. The failure to make clear distinctions might suit your preconceptions, but it also leaves the door open to accusations of flawed practice.
I'm sorry to have to go on record saying this, because I know how much work is involved, but your recent results are just plain suspect. Your pro-Canon bias is showing . . .
We all can't do Grand Canyon scenics at the drop of a hat, but least go to a construction site where there are cranes, steel, glass, sky, and stuff that can make an interesting picture with things that challenge the lenses ability to resolve detail. My two favorite test areas are a nearby bridge shot from below, and a modern design theater with curved zinc panels, glass, and lots of masonry/mortar joints where I can check for detail. They are both in plain open light all of the time, rock solid, and never change.
Looking at homeworker tests is always completely subjectively. It can give you a hint. Its nice to give in something to discuss, but it does not tell you really the whole story about it. Leica, Canon, Zeiss or whatever would never publish a test based on a bad copy of a lens. Canon had even to recall a whole shipping of the new 24-105 when they had so many complains, altough they told us its a great lens.
So any home made test might be based on a very good or a very bad lens and it does tell you nothing about another copy of that lens. There might indeed be an adapter problem to a thirdparty lens too, so its not telling you anything about the lens itself.
If you want to know which lens you should bring to which trip or job, test your own lenses and make up your choice openminded. If you think about selling or buying it is more complicated.
Still we can discuss here and share our experience and so by these means, undermine the publicity gags which tell us how much everything gets better and how much more you get for less.
Creating a melting pot of experience, which i.e. tell you: don't drop your lens too fast before you use another adapter or choose to stop down a little more, that would be great.
I give no critic to these testing threads but would advice one which is not used to these topics to be carefuly beliving everything. People are normaly proud to have this or that lens. Not everybody needs one of these great Leica or Zeiss lens and might be completly happy with any junk lens aslong it got a canon sticker on it! Read my lips! Andi
However, I still think that when you choose a Contax/Zeiss or Leica lens you are far less likely to have a dog or a lemon. I think sample variation on Canon lenses is more likely than on Zeiss or Leica lenses. Of course, when buying second hand you also have the variable of previous owner abuse - which might cause problems in any lens - but as a whole I have yet to have a bad copy of a Zeiss lens. And I have had almost thirty of them. On the other hand I have seen, at work, sample variation on lots of Canon lenses, and other brands as well. I am not out to flame Canon at all, just telling it like it is. Canon makes a whole lot of excellent lenses for sure, but they lack some in a few departments too. Quality control is one of them.
Also I have done some of the ol' pitting lenses against each other throughout the years but there are many variables that can make or break such a test and I wouldn't make too much of them. Still, I think you can make something out of most tests, even a homebrew one. When in doubt I have repeated my casual tests and most often come to the same conclusion. Now I don't consider lens testing all that necessary really. The way I usually test a lens is by going out shooting some and see if I like how it handles. If I don't like the "look" of the lens I don't care what name is on it. I want to see if it handles flare well, has nice out of focus rendering and is reasonably sharp. That's it. If I can get good corner sharpness and good wide open performance I am all the merrier. It's not often I look at a great picture and think "pity he/she used an inferior lens" but sometimes I can get annoyed by gross distortion and ugly bokeh shots or other things that detract from the appeal of the image, like a case of bad flare in an otherwise great shot.
But it's not often I find lenses all that bad, except for that EF-S 18-55 I used on a group shot on a wedding when I was loaned an EOS 20D when they had just come out - man it was BAD. Even on a 5x7" it was almost unbearable, saggy corners, overall mush and lots of CA. I still regret I didn't shoot some extra group shots with the Leica R I used for the portraits of the couple. I honestly thought there was something wrong with that lens. Since then I have yet to hear of a person, experienced or not, who actually thinks its a good lens.
Ok, ok, there was actually this guy the other week who bought a Canon 50mm lens who thought it was worth what he'd paid for the lens. But he's the only one so far, and I have spoken to quite a few (work part time at a lab/camera store).
On the other hand I know of people who swear by Canon L glass and they don't believe the 24-70/2.8 can be beat by any lens. Period. Personally I think it's a good lens, but not great.
Sorry for the novel, just had to unload some drivel. Over and out.
Henrik
The only CZ lens that has had variation issues was the 50/1.4 as it was the kit lens with the last RTS package. Probably a victim of stepped up production demands, Kyocera, or something like that.
All my German glass has been sent overseas for inspection and adjustement as necessary. I felt it was a worthwile investment in my lens line-up. My Canon glass? I guess I'm a bit more blase' about those. I'll service 'em when I drop'em, or maybe they'll be replaced before such time arrives. (However, if I had an exotic Canon like the 200/1.8, you'd better believe I'd get it serviced post haste!)
Actually 10Tenths, I feel you are as out of place with that kind of comment, you take it to a personal level with a rant, verbally abusing people in person.
Stick to your own words and make a substantiated comment instead of drivel, this forum has managed to keep it civil and friendly so far - let's keep it at that.
(my own contribution is a few notches up, feel free to comment on that)
Some people are heavily pro Nikon / Canon / Leica or (insert your brand here) and some are purely interested in Q regardless of brand. I came from Nikon, via Contax, short stop at Leica, medium format and back to small format with Canon, found their lens set up inadequate for my needs and now stick with Zeiss, Leica and Canon's own glass - each to his own I guess. This is the ALTERNATIVE digital forum, I like it here.
I always take peoples comments at face value and find that people who belong to one stable, and one stable only, are usually less likely to accept that there can be better solutions out there. I pity them.
I find Charles testing interesting as it can give a clue to what's going on though I also agree they are not 100% pure science - nor do they have to be, I still enjoy them.
Also I feel he is not "branded" and makes honest call 'em as I see 'em contributions - then be they able to withstand solid argumentation or not is another story.
regards, Henrik, just woke up with one fresh latte needed to restore mood ;-)
If I mix up any proverbs or create my own you'll have to forgive me, English is not my first language.
Well, for me, I hope that Charles' tests knock the prices of the lenses I like right down... Trouble is, I've got most of the ones I want!
Charles, I'm sure you've been round the block a few times. Most of us have, here. And I just have to say that I have sunk ~$13,000 into German glass (mostly wides and PC) for just one reason: they produce noticeably better results that clients simply can see.
I don't know of any bias towards Canon, personally, but I'm a newcomer here. Personally, I appreciate your tests, as I said! cheers and merry xmas, kit
The lens tests on this forum become quite useful by their quantity (and quality). I feel very unsure thinking about future 24x36 sensors (22-30 MP) together with todays lenses.
Seeing the lenses I bought new the last, say 15 months, I' m afraid quality is very limited, seems to have difficulties already to go with 1Ds and 5D.
CaNikUs and other DigiCams Producers don't seem to waste their time making lenses which will be able to give good results on sensors they will try to sell us in 5-6 years time...
Hi kosmoskatten, try to translate your texts by a webtranslator from english to your mothers tongue. Pays me of instantly the work writing english...thats the real laugh
I expected it to be a bit better than the 17-40, and it is. Other than the corners it does very well.