The Zeiss ZF 25mm f2.8 is finally en-route . . . will share pix shot with it on a 5D early next week. Anyone else like to share experiences with theirs?
It is available now directly from zeiss website..but does not seem to have reached the shelves of any shops yet.
In uk price direct from zeiss+ tax+shipping comes to same price as buying from shop here (robert white)..not sure what price differences will be for states.
I too am awaiting stock in stores to pick one up..will share my experience of it..and the zf 35mm lens I have..once it, and my adapters arrive..
I noticed your review of the ZF 85mm f/1.4 wasn't as favorable as I would have hoped. Does using an adapter to mount these on a Canon body compromise their performance compared to mounting directly on the Nikon?
marcwilson wrote:
In uk price direct from zeiss+ tax+shipping comes to same price as buying from shop here (robert white)..not sure what price differences will be for states.
Marc
Surely as the lens would be sold from Germany to England, both within the EU, there should be no tax (import duty or VAT) added?
I've bought lenses from Europe before and never had any taxes levied, it may make a difference if this makes the lens 20-25% cheaper.
ZF25 arrived yesterday . . . collected this morning. No time to test it properly until tomorrow, but a few grab shots wide open and into the sun look very impressive indeed. Extremely well controlled vignetting and flare resistance, and superb resolution right from f2.8. There is some CA, but we'll try a few adaptors to see if the problem lies with the lens or not. The minimum working distance of 6cm is brilliant. A future classic, perhaps?
British Journal of Photography [Jan 24] carries a review of 25mm and 35mm lenses - but unfortunately in three pages crowded with text they manage to say very little: Mostly historical or derived from manufacturer's literature.
Tested lens with 35mm film on Nikon F4
Of 25mm lens
"Zeiss claims its sharpness goes far beyond the resolving power of any current colour film, and this is immediately apparent from negative frames captured on a first test roll"
Otherwise its mainly rhetoric, I'm afraid so I will join everone who is looking forward to husband's conclusions.
Edited by greenfields on Jan 26, 2007 at 09:01 AM GMT (Reason: Typo)
Well I'd like to report that down here in OZ, I've had mine for three days. And I was going to one up Husband but alas my Chineese Nikon to Canon adapter has'nt arrived! I'm reduced to borrowing a real Nikon D2X.
I've noted the Film v's digital debate again and I can't believe that anybody who has actually used 6 by 7 could think it produces better enlargements than 5D with 50mm of more. The exception to the rule has always been the wides where M7 43, 50 and 60 are king (I have all 3) and I've long hoped that Canon would pull its finger out - no luck.
I love my 28mm f2.8, 35 f2.8 and 35-70 Zeiss for Contax but none are near the angle of M7 43 or 50, now maybe we have a chance of using the pixels in the 5D and 1Ds3.
Mike keep me from my misery, UPS China has'nt arrived, what is the verdict?
Your review shows the lenses compete well with each other in optical performance, but you warn that you wonder if the Zeiss was held back by an adapter problem. Let me ask, then, since you have already compared the ZF to Nikon and have a good sense of what this lens can do: "should" the ZF have performed better than it did on the Canon?
If your results are verified by others, it would seem the Canon is the winner by virtue of it's bigger aperture and autofocus/autoaperture.
Many of the points won by the Canon were done in a convincingly manner, while almost all the points assign to the Zeiss are just by a very slight margin. In my opinion, even if the Canon was just a f2.8 lens, I would still have thought it is better unless one only cares performance beyond f8. Then throwing in the whole 2 stops light and the superb close up performance, the choice is very very easy in this case. So far I have not been impressed by any of the Cosina made Zeiss. Tried one, and returned it.
Bruceconnelly wrote:
Well I'd like to report that down here in OZ, I've had mine for three days. And I was going to one up Husband but alas my Chineese Nikon to Canon adapters has'nt arrived!
I hope you are not as disapointed as I was with my Chinese made Nikon-EOS adapter. Mine was way too thin and not flat. They appear to be very cheaply made. Not all chinese made adapter are bad though. My Chinese OM-EOS adapter is much better quality and doesn't show any image degredation with wide angles.
The only good thing about the cheap Chinese made Nikon-EOS adapter is it can be modified. It's two peices that can be taken apart, shimmed, then re-assembled. Mine was so thin I had to use two sets of shims. Before shimming infinity on a 35mm lens was at 15ft and the lens performed very poorly (left side very poor). Now the infinity scale is very close to actual, and the image quality is much improved. I saw this procedure on a website, and it works. Forgot to copy the link though.
Cinstance wrote:
Many of the points won by the Canon were done in a convincingly manner, while almost all the points assign to the Zeiss are just by a very slight margin. In my opinion, even if the Canon was just a f2.8 lens, I would still have thought it is better unless one only cares performance beyond f8. Then throwing in the whole 2 stops light and the superb close up performance, the choice is very very easy in this case. So far I have not been impressed by any of the Cosina made Zeiss. Tried one, and returned it.
I would also see the Canon in advance for the aditional features. Probably these 2 lenses are just as good as it gets, the Canon with AF and f1.4 and the Zeiss probably with better build quality and precise MF. It comes down to the user preference which he may choose.
Hubsand, thanks for the test. Do you think the Zeiss had a true handicap by the adapter? I do not see a significant improvement on the earlier Zeiss on D2x test.
Too sad you do not do your tests with Kodak Cameras which are available either in Canon and Nikon mount. Nobody would ask you to do this of course, though that would finaly rule out any such doubts
I hope that somebody who has acquired this lens would shoot a few shots to really detail what this lens can do at the closeup end of its range. The closeup test shot on husband's website was shot at 2 feet. I want to know if anything funky happens when this lens is shot at the range of 6-18 inches. There are a few zooms that go down to around foot, and of course a few of the sigma wideangles. But the sigma wideangle macros are not very good because at the close end of the focusing range they have some real funky distortion in addition to poor sharpness and CA. I know as I have tested several copies of the sigma 24 and 28mm lenses with macro mode. I am interested in a 24mm lens that focuses below 12 inches to use for some serious image stacking, near-far photos that you can't do with the canon 24mm TS or any other 24mm lens. Putting a slim extension tube or closeup lens on a 24mm lens loses the infinity focus making it unuseable for near-far image stacking.
