deepbluejh wrote:
The wide open shot is overexposed, which certainly doesnt help the appearance of it. I cant imagine that lens being too bad wide open.
I think I see purple fringing CA on the dog's tongue. How much does this lens cost?
Andi Dietrich wrote:
Yashica / Kyocera made the MM and N Contax lenses, I think. I guess Zeiss made the deal with Cosina because Kyocera disapeared from the market
I didn't know Kyocera made lenses, I thought they're only mobile phone company.
n0b0 wrote:
I didn't know Kyocera made lenses, I thought they're only mobile phone company.
They owned and marketed the Contax line for many years, and much of the camera and lens production was either handled by them or contracted to other Japanese companies, AFAIK.
So, not so shocking that Cosina was chosen for the new ZS/ZF/ZK/ZE lines of lenses. It is par for the course. Cosina easily proved themselves worthy with their Voigtlander SL and SLII series of lenses (yes, Cosina owns the Voigtlander name). The Zeiss lenses are still designed by Zeiss, and Zeiss plays a key role in overseeing the production, particularly with respect to QC.
Not to start another focus-shift battle as per EF50/1.2L (but it may be inevitable with the Zeiss 85/1.4) ... but it should be noted that this lens does not have a floating element design and has been demonstrated in controlled testing (Lloyd Chambers at Diglloyd.com) that this optic will visibly shift its plane of critical focus rearwards as it is stopped down.
davidrwilliams wrote:
Not to start another backfocus battle as per EF50/1.2L (but it may be inevitable with the Zeiss 85/1.4) ... but it should be noted that this lens does not have a floating element design and has been demonstrated in controlled testing (Lloyd Chambers at Diglloyd.com) that this optic will backfocus significantly as it is stopped down.
I thought front/back focus issues were a function of AF which the zeiss will not have.
davidrwilliams wrote:
Not to start another focus-shift battle as per EF50/1.2L (but it may be inevitable with the Zeiss 85/1.4) ... but it should be noted that this lens does not have a floating element design and has been demonstrated in controlled testing (Lloyd Chambers at Diglloyd.com) that this optic will visibly shift its plane of critical focus rearwards as it is stopped down.
Not defending Zeiss, but this problem seems to afflict much more expensive lenses too, such as the 50 1.2L and the 24 1.4L.
adam613 wrote:
No, focus shift has nothing to do with autofocus...it happened on lenses long before AF was even invented.
Adam is correct. Focus shift is an aspect of the optical formula, not the AF system. As the lens is stopped down, the focus shifts. So, if focus is attained wide open, and then the lens is stopped down for the exposure, the focus shifts, due to the optics in the lens. It is a design flaw that is difficult to avoid sometimes. Even if you manually attain focus wide open and then the blades are stopped down any amount for the exposure, focus will shift. AF has nothing to do with it.
That's really bad news. I have no doubt that the lens they got is a dud, because other reviewers have nothing but praise for the ZF version.
However, I believe many of us who use Zeiss do it for the main reason that they have no duds. Otherwise what's the difference with Canon? The 85 1.2L is the best lens out there but the chances of getting a dud or a "not as sharp as the best copies" are close to 50-70% as a conservative estimate. If Zeiss are going this way, I will stick to my good old Contax lenses.
edwardkaraa wrote[/b
However, I believe many of us who use Zeiss do it for the main reason that they have no duds. Otherwise what's the difference with Canon? The 85 1.2L is the best lens out there but the chances of getting a dud or a "not as sharp as the best copies" are close to 50-70% as a conservative estimate. If Zeiss are going this way, I will stick to my good old Contax lenses.
Zeiss, no duds? Hmm. I had to send my new ZF 18 to Germany for repairs, also the 24-70 Sony-Zeiss Dpreview used for the a900 samples has a decentring defect. Compared to the ZE lens the 85L has AF and is faster, it much more complicated to build and it can be repaired in most countries around the globe within a couple of days. Also Canon CQ seems to be much better these days, there are never as much as 50% of duds in the Canon camp
adam613 wrote:
No, focus shift has nothing to do with autofocus...it happened on lenses long before AF was even invented.
Okay, it seems like splitting hairs, but we can say the lens is "subject to backfocus" or "causes backfocus" or "backfocuses, but not due to autofocus". Focus shift is a problem with the lens regardless. I never meant to imply that focus shift had anything to do with autofocus. Technically speaking, though, the lens does backfocus because when you manually focus it perfectly, which occurs wide open, you get the subject sharp; then when the lens stops itself down for the shot, the focus is shifted.
I'm not salivating over a soft, backfocusing MF-only lens. Maybe it's just me.
Nov 19, 2008 at 06:35 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
We'll see in time, but I suspect that what has happened with this test is that the digital picture tests the lens from a fairly close distance and the lens just performs poorly in this range. If you look at the review of the the ZF version of this lens at 16-9.net, you will see that the ZF version tested did quite poorly between 1 and 2 meters, but was an excellent performer at greater than 2 meters. I would expect the ZE version to show this same characteristic. As more people get this lens I expect this sort of picture to emerge. Many will love the lens if they shoot from farther away, but others will really dislike it if they shoot from close range. This weakness in close range shooting is also to be more or less expected in a lens without a floating element design and perhaps not coincidentally it is in such close range shooting that focus shift problems will be their worst.
Steve Spencer wrote:
We'll see in time, but I suspect that what has happened with this test is that the digital picture tests the lens from a fairly close distance and the lens just performs poorly in this range. If you look at the review of the the ZF version of this lens at 16-9.net, you will see that the ZF version tested did quite poorly between 1 and 2 meters, but was an excellent performer at greater than 2 meters. I would expect the ZE version to show this same characteristic. As more people get this lens I expect this sort of picture to emerge. Many will love the lens if they shoot from farther away, but others will really dislike it if they shoot from close range. This weakness in close range shooting is also to be more or less expected in a lens without a floating element design and perhaps not coincidentally it is in such close range shooting that focus shift problems will be their worst....Show more →
All quite possibly true, but wouldn't you agree that Zeiss ought to have done better? For the price, and to maintain their reputation, Zeiss should have made this lens perform like a Zeiss.
