From what we know about these WA, it would be interesting to make a list for each lens of the areas where it excels and others where it doesn't. I own none of the lenses and have experience with none but am considering to upgrade my old Contax line up.
For instance:
35mm f/2: Zeiss calls it the reporter lens but many users here say it is excellent for landscapes.
28mm f/2: Supposed to be excellent for close range portraits due to the floating element, and users here don't find it sharp enough at infinity.
25mm f/2.8 seems to be the ultimate landscape lens.
18mm f/3.5: doesn't seem to get much use by forum members.
Please let me know your opinions and feel free to expand it to the rest of the ZE/ZF line up.
It's well worth the $49.99 if you are planning on buying one of the lenses and not sure which one. It goes in to detail regarding the individual character of each lens in the lineup.
my first response is: Don't be so quick to lump the ZE's and ZF's together.
It's not entirely clear, yet, if they are the exact same design with just a different mount. You would think so (so would I) but there has been some speculation to the contrary.
-And you can't call the 25 the ultimate landscape lens, just (probably) the best landscape lens in the ZF series. The 21mm CZ clearly owns the title, for now.
I don't know where you read that, but the ZF25mm is hardly the ultimate landscape lens. It does a decent job of it, but for landscapes with close objects, field curvature causes the corners to not be critically sharp. Of course for most shots it's more than good enough.
http://carlwongphotography.com/misc/sechelt.jpg
For me, it's main draw is the combination of a wideangle that focuses very close. It makes it almost to 1:2.5 (from what I remember). It's an interesting walkaround lens. Unfortunately it's known as one of the weakest ZF lenses, maybe apart from the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm.
@cableaddict: The ZF and ZE lines are the same optical designs, this has been clearly indicated by Zeiss (For starters, Zeiss posts one set of optical designs and MTFs). The barrels and aperture mechanisms differ entirely.
That's exactly what I wanted to hear. Thanks for sharing your experience with this lens. Do you own any other ZF? What's your impression?
Valorin wrote:
I don't know where you read that, but the ZF25mm is hardly the ultimate landscape lens. It does a decent job of it, but for landscapes with close objects, field curvature causes the corners to not be critically sharp. Of course for most shots it's more than good enough.
http://carlwongphotography.com/misc/sechelt.jpg
For me, it's main draw is the combination of a wideangle that focuses very close. It makes it almost to 1:2.5 (from what I remember). It's an interesting walkaround lens. Unfortunately it's known as one of the weakest ZF lenses, maybe apart from the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm.
edwardkaraa wrote
28mm f/2: Supposed to be excellent for close range portraits due to the floating element, and users here don't find it sharp enough at infinity.
I haven't heard this from anyone here. In fact my understanding is quite the opposite.
Can you quote anyone on this? I'm not sure where you're getting this. And to make such a broad generalization, hopefully you have more than one opinion (which could just be a crazed outlier).
In addition to the ZF25 I have the ZF50 makro and ZF85mm. They make a pretty good and lightweight versatile kit together. As has been said before, they have similar image rendition, which makes it easy to predict the consistent results.
Between those lenses, the ZF50 makro is by far the best. Outstanding at all apertures and focus distances. Easy to focus since the focus throw is very long, almost a full turn.
The ZF85mm is weak wide open slightly soft with lowered contrast, although for portraits that might be perfect. Great stopped down, but most lenses of this focal length are. A great lens, but I don't shoot this focal length often.
I should note that I'm currently using all of them on a D700, although I've used them on a 5D that I'm currently selling. Goodbye to stop-down metering, I won't miss you.
There was a thread about the ZF 28 a few months ago, and from memory, I recall that it performed better at medium to close range. Anyway, that's the purpose of this thread, to clarify what are the strengths and weaknesses of each of these lenses. Don't take my phrase below too seriously, it's just a starting point. If you have a different experience, please feel free to mention it.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I haven't heard this from anyone here. In fact my understanding is quite the opposite.
Can you quote anyone on this? I'm not sure where you're getting this. And to make such a broad generalization, hopefully you have more than one opinion (which could just be a crazed outlier).
Excellent idea.
I am a Canon user tempted by some ZE lenses, starting with the 21, when it is released, if price is right and image quality still the same.
I have had the 85 ZE in hand during a very short moment (took just one shot), and it looked quite nice to me, so I may actually consider it too (but I am not sure on that one, since 85mm is not really the kind of focal length I use the most).
I have 2/35 and 2/100. Both are excellent, both have classical Zeiss look in the images. Based on my experience I highly recommend both of them. With 1DmkIII's large pixels both are enough sharp even wide open, give extra creativity with narrow DOF and bokeh.
I plan to add 2/50 and wide angle, not sure yet 2.8/25 or 2.8/21. I have recently taken quite a lot of panoramas and I don't feel strong need for 21mm, on other hand I already have C/Y 2.8/28. Maybe I also update 35 and 100 to ZE mount, I don't mind the operation but keeping notes which aperture was used is really annoying.
If I would buy either of the 1.4 lenses I would buy ZF version so it would be easier to focus closed down, with EF lenses it's pain in the ### to do with DOF preview button. This is needed due to focus shift. However I most probably will not get either since I have 85L and I don't need fast manual focus lens anyway (other than narrow DOF point of view). Also Zeiss 1.4/50 bokeh doesn't attract me.
--
Samuli Vahonen http://www.vahonen.com
I'm still not 100% sold on the ZF 35. I compared it to the Leica Summicron 35 and it was certainly better in the corners (not too hard to be better there, though), but I'm just having trouble falling in love with it. I will compare it with a likely purchase of a Nikon 28 in the near future and see what I think.
The reasons I'm struggling to fall in love with the ZF:
bokeh is pretty average. Summicron bokeh was much better.
large and heavy for a lens of this FL/Aperture
58mm filter thread (I just don't have any other lenses with a 58mm thread)
comparatively expensive
perhaps TOO MUCH contrast which, I am beginning to suspect makes it appear sharper than it really is.
It is certainly a very sharp lens right into teh corners, with good colour and high contrast etc. It's just not perfect, and I could probably put its value into something else like a TS lens or something, which I've wanted to try for a long time.
In EOS mount, I would almost certainly keep the ZF 35, but its operation is also very annoying for me, being backwards to Contax.Leica and half backwards to Olympus (aperture is the same).
Ultimately, IMO, the 35-70mm may be just as sharp, from comparing different images of different subjects, though I have yet to test them directly against each other (no digital body until 5DII ships). The 35-70 would have considerably more distortion at 35, though. They look fairly similar, too. I have been looking for the perfect 35 for a while, but it appears there isn't one.
edwardkaraa wrote:
28mm f/2: Supposed to be excellent for close range portraits due to the floating element, and users here don't find it sharp enough at infinity.
I blame adapter issues for non-critically sharp infinity performance. I bet we'll see even better performance from ZE lenses on Canon bodies that what we've seen until now with ZF lenses on Canon bodies.
ISO1600 wrote:
i think w/ a full line of ZE's (eventually), it would be stupid to even talk about ZF's unless you're a Nikon user.
I think we can get some very useful information from Nikon users, even for me as a Canon user, since Zeiss has clearly stated that both mounts are optically identical.
Justin D wrote:
The reasons I'm struggling to fall in love with the ZF:
bokeh is pretty average. Summicron bokeh was much better.
large and heavy for a lens of this FL/Aperture {snip}
comparatively expensive
Expensive compared to the Summicron?? The comparable 35/2.0 Summicron-R, whose bokeh you feel is much better, costs 3 times as much as the ZF. It seems to me that the ZF 35/2.0 is comparatively inexpensive (and there are others who prefer the ZF's bokeh, which I think is quite nice).
Justin D wrote:
perhaps TOO MUCH contrast which, I am beginning to suspect makes it appear sharper than it really is.
Sorry to be somewhat confrontational about this point, but I really don't know hat this means. It looks sharp but it really isn't?? (its also not clear how you could not know for sure, and only "suspect") I've heard this before (and usually in reference to a Zeiss lens), and it's as if lens contrast is used by the manufacturer as a fig leaf to disguise that the lens is actually a piece of crap. Contrast just doesn't make something "appear" sharp, contrast is responsible for sharpness -- whether you are talking about resolution or acutance. If a lens can't produce contrast between 2 items (like a line pair used in testing) it can't resolve them and won't be sharp.
I might also point out, that this business is all about "appearance". There is no real difference between something that "appears" a certain way, and what "is" a certain way. If it appears sharp, it almost certainly is sharp.
Justin D wrote:
Ultimately, IMO, the 35-70mm may be just as sharp, from comparing different images of different subjects, though I have yet to test them directly against each other (no digital body until 5DII ships). The 35-70 would have considerably more distortion at 35, though. They look fairly similar, too. I have been looking for the perfect 35 for a while, but it appears there isn't one.
Having both the 35-70 and the ZF 35, I would say that the 35-70 zoom only potentially reaches the capability of the ZF35 by f8.0 (where most competent 35mm focal lengths will perform similarly in terms of sharpness). So if you never intend to use the lens at an aperture larger than f8, then the 35-70 might meet your needs (other factors beyond sharpness will be more important -- but I think the ZF 35 wins here as well, except for cost and the zoom's macro-focus function if those are important to you). I do agree, however, with your point that there is no perfect 35mm. "Horses for courses", as they say.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think we can get some very useful information from Nikon users, even for me as a Canon user, since Zeiss has clearly stated that both mounts are optically identical.
i think my point wasn't carried over in my post- what i mean, is when there is a full lineup of ZE lenses on the market, the ZF's will be completely pointless and a waste of time for the (exclusively) Canon Shooters.
As it is now, i don't think there is enough point for a few of the ZF's for Nikon users.
The 85's..... The Nikkor AIS/AF-D are great lenses... and the AF-D has the CPU chip (and AF!).
the Makro's are prob the only ZFs that are really "worth a damn" for a Nikon shooter. They're the best commercially-available Macros for F-Mount, right?
As for the 35/2.... it's huge, has no CPU chip, and what, $800? No thanks!
ISO1600 wrote:
i think my point wasn't carried over in my post- what i mean, is when there is a full lineup of ZE lenses on the market, the ZF's will be completely pointless and a waste of time for the (exclusively) Canon Shooters.
As it is now, i don't think there is enough point for a few of the ZF's for Nikon users.
The 85's..... The Nikkor AIS/AF-D are great lenses... and the AF-D has the CPU chip (and AF!).
the Makro's are prob the only ZFs that are really "worth a damn" for a Nikon shooter. They're the best commercially-available Macros for F-Mount, right?
As for the 35/2.... it's huge, has no CPU chip, and what, $800? No thanks! ...Show more →
I'd say the only ZF that's not interesting to Nikon shooters is the 85, and that may be useful if you want the Zeiss colour rendition. Both the Makro-Planars are of course very interesting, the 35/2 is the same price as a new 35/1.4, but has far better edge performance wide-open, the 28/2 is much sharper than the Nikkor AI-S 28/2 and much cheaper than the 28/1.4D, the 25/2.8 is better than the Nikkor 24/2.8 and cheaper than the 24 PC-E, the 21's still notably smaller than the 14-24, stomps the performance of teh 20/2.8 if the MTF's are even vaguely accurate and can take filters. Ditto the 18/3.5
Remember, if you can afford the ZF's other than the 50/1.4, you almost assuredly have a Nikon body which can meter with AI lenses.
