Optically, same as ZF 18 which we had threads here awile ago comparing it to the 14-24G nikon. Andi D. has one of these ZF versions and has posted shots here.
mawz wrote:
An odd choice for the next ZE with the 21 already on the way. I'd have expected either the 35 or one of the Makro-Planars first.
No shi#... I'm sitting on the side lines waiting for the 50/2 and 100/2 ZE and feeling a bit depressed because if the 18mm isn't due to until the end of the year, then I guess the Makro Planars won't come until 2010...
here
is one of my samples I uploaded some time ago
I'm not placing any bets on either lens yet, but I'd be curious as to why you think the Zeiss will be better than the Oly.
To my eye, Zeiss images are more crisp with slightly colder color than Oly images - the difference between oil paint and egg tempera. You may prefer oil paint, but Fra Angelico and Raphael did just fine with tempera -
One reason I dont think Zeiss did a very good job on this lens is the colour, it also vignettes heavily and contrast is a bit low. But even then I havent seen anything better from the Zuiko yet and the Zeiss seems to be slightly sharper all over the frame and significantly sharper in the corners.
Dont get me wrong, the ZF18 is not a lens to write home about, the 16-35ii is the better lens all together, for landscape photos the Zeiss is better though and certainly better than the Oly.
Maybe you know something I don't...
I certainly don't know anything you don't know. Maybe I'm just a Bartles-&-James/Cheez-Whiz/Ritz Cracker cheap date that falls for warm color.
Take a look at Andreas' (Anden's) early-on shot of the building in Stockholm in the Official Olympus 18 thread [NB Actually it's the shot of the Turning Torso in Malmo on p6]. That one's take-MY-breath-away glorious. I haven't seen a lot of shots from the Zeiss, but neither have I seen one that compares with that shot (with all due respect to your field of flowers).
I have an Oly 18, haven't gotten a good shot with it yet. Bummer weather, and I'm still scouting the countryside around my house for the views. I've seen enough images from the lens, however, to see the potential in it.
But again, I don't think it's a question of "better" - it's a question of preference. To win the "better" argument, one of us would probably have to kill the other. When it comes to preference, however, we can simply politely disagree.
Dave, for the last 3 years on this board every second post mentioned that this or that lens is better than the other. I agree with you, we hear this too often around this place. But then the OP asked exactly what people thought about the Zeiss against the Zuiko. It is just one opinion.
As you say yourself, Anden's Zuiko makes great shots, no other lens could have done them
Andi Dietrich wrote:
Dave, for the last 3 years on this board every second post mentioned that this or that lens is better than the other. I agree with you, we hear this too often around this place. But then the OP asked exactly what people thought about the Zeiss against the Zuiko. It is just one opinion.
As you say yourself, Anden's Zuiko makes great shots, no other lens could have done them
Andi, I've expressed more than a few of those this-better-than-that opinions myself, and after my years on this board (maybe two) I think I'm working through the "better" thing. I wasn't really curious about whether the Zeiss was "better" than the Zuiko - just how it was different. My Zeiss 28 is way different from my Oly 28, but I wouldn't want to be forced to settle for the Oly when the image called for the Zeiss -
davidearls wrote:
I wasn't really curious about whether the Zeiss was "better" than the Zuiko - just how it was different. My Zeiss 28 is way different from my Oly 28, but I wouldn't want to be forced to settle for the Oly when the image called for the Zeiss -
Yes, quite true, so let me put it this way:
The ZF 18mm is as sharp in the corners at f 5,6 as the Zuiko at f16 acoording to what has been posted here and on Hubsands site. So if you feel you need a lens which is sharp in the corners or not is up to you of course.
The Cx 28mm is still my favorite alt lens BTW, this lens saved my a lot of post treatment hours
Don't go by Hubsands LOUSY copy of the Oly 18/3.5 (which could have been influenced by a cheap adapter). I've mentioned that unusually poor showing many times. So much that he seems convinced I hold it against him
Have you missed my posts where I include 100% crops? Or what about the test done by Mike Hatam in the early days I know you have been around here long enough, to see it I posted some samples over on the Oly 18/3.5 thread a couple days ago. One or two are wide open, where the corners are still respectable. I don't own the lens anymore so I have no loyalty to it.
Andi Dietrich wrote:
Yes, quite true, so let me put it this way:
The ZF 18mm is as sharp in the corners at f 5,6 as the Zuiko at f16 acoording to what has been posted here and on Hubsands site. So if you feel you need a lens which is sharp in the corners or not is up to you of course.
The Cx 28mm is still my favorite alt lens BTW, this lens saved my a lot of post treatment hours
pdmphoto wrote:
Don't go by Hubsands LOUSY copy of the Oly 18/3.5 (which could have been influenced by a cheap adapter). I've mentioned that unusually poor showing many times. So much that he seems convinced I hold it against him
yes, I know his tests are not always very reliable.
pdmphoto wrote:
Have you missed my posts where I include 100% crops? Or what about the test done by Mike Hatam in the early days I know you have been around here long enough, to see it I posted some samples over on the Oly 18/3.5 thread a couple days ago. One or two are wide open, where the corners are still respectable. I don't own the lens anymore so I have no loyalty to it.
I remember you posted this image a couple of times already, but never uncropped and of course it also was shot on the AAfilter-less Kodak. Mike's test was done with the old Contax 18mm which is not as good as the new and not even as good as the 16-35II.
BTW I never would tell anybody to drop the zuiko and swap it against the z 18. The Zeiss is just not good enough, even though I think it holds some advantages against the zuiko. It is a shame for Zeiss IMO
The reason to pick the Zeiss/Oly over a lens like 16-35L or the 14-24 is weight in my opinion. No shame for Zeiss if other mfg's also make good lenses. Just makes pricing tougher for them.
I know you have been around here long enough, to see it