True to my ability to purchase gear >> ability to make a good image, I have placed an order for a ZE Distagon 21 through my local photo store (Store owner called the Zeiss representative directly to place the order). I'm told to expect a November delivery date. Has anyone read or heard anything different regarding a release date? Does Zeiss release worldwide pretty much at the same time, or does Europe or elsewhere usually get new product first?
(I know, another useless thread. I'm just filled with anticipation both for the lens and my wife's reaction to another impulse buy. After reading the reviews for the ZF21 on B&H this morning, I'm even more impatient).
Thanks for stepping out on that one - would love to see some early comparisons on the 21 vs. the 17-35 @ 21mm. I'm sure the prime will hold true to the last megapixel - but that zoom does really well at that FL & can stretch out to 17. I seem to have that lens pegged to 17mm all the time. Since I'm building my landscape kit around a 24 II TS-E - I'll probably pass on the 21 - but may be interested in the ZE 28 & 35 someday. Gotta love those Zeisses.
The French distributor for Zeiss indicated that the 21mm and 18mm Distagon ZEs would ship next week. I am supposed to get a 21mm from the first batch, so we will see. I have only been waiting 10 months, after all... I also have a 28 and a 35 on order, but they should come later, at some point between now and the need of the year according to Zeiss themselves.
"Yes, we plan to release all of the focal lengths (already available in ZF-mount for Nikon) in ZE version this year. One of the next lenses for EF mount will be the Distagon T* 3,5/18 ZE; it is scheduled for autumn this year. The other focal lengths are planned for the end of this year.
The exact date for the availability of each new lens will be publish by separate press releases."
This is what Zeiss wrote me in late August. Obviously it means the answer to your 2 questions is "yes, within 10 weeks". But many here have waited for the ZE 21mm Distagon a lot longer than Zeiss had promised, so will will have to see if they live up to this commitment.
Normally, ZE lenses cost just a bit more (around 50$) more than ZFs. It may have to do with just a little bit more electronics in the interface.
As regards the 35 f1.4, strangely with Zeiss, the very fast glass has not always been considered the best. Some very knowledgeable shooters prefer the Contax 50mm f:1.7 to any f:1.4, and the previous 35mm f:1.4 was not always considered superior to the excellent f:2.0. So, yes, I am interested, but it is not a foregone conclusion AFAIAC.
The supposed Floating Element in that 35/1.4 sound very interesting though. Its one of the reasons why I'm looking at the 28/2 over the 35/2 (I tend to shoot with one lens at a time and try to work it into various distances of shooting).
bluetsunami wrote:
The supposed Floating Element in that 35/1.4 sound very interesting though. Its one of the reasons why I'm looking at the 28/2 over the 35/2 (I tend to shoot with one lens at a time and try to work it into various distances of shooting).
Well, in spite of the lack of any indication in the leaflet and data sheet, the ZF/ZK/ZE Distagon 2,0/35mm has floating elements.
philber wrote:
As regards the 35 f1.4, strangely with Zeiss, the very fast glass has not always been considered the best. Some very knowledgeable shooters prefer the Contax 50mm f:1.7 to any f:1.4, and the previous 35mm f:1.4 was not always considered superior to the excellent f:2.0.
There was no 35/2.0 in the Zeiss lens line for Yashica/Contax. Otherwise there are so many aspects to lens quality, that two persons can prefer different lenses and both be right. A lens with floating elements will outperform a nonfloater at close range, but not necessarily at infinity. An f/1.4 lens at f/2 will have less vignetting than an f/2.0 lens at f/2, but the latter may deliver a higher contrast at intermediate aperture settings. It all depends on the application and what people find important in a lens.
philber wrote:
Normally, ZE lenses cost just a bit more (around 50$) more than ZFs. It may have to do with just a little bit more electronics in the interface.
You must mean a heap of electronics versus none!
Oct 11, 2009 at 06:51 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I always thought they charge the extra on the ZE lenses because they can. The extra cost seems to stay within the range of a decent adapter and getting auto aperture is clearly worth the cost, IMO.
TWoK wrote:
You must mean a heap of electronics versus none!
Actually, by today's standards, the content of Canon's electronics interface to be contained in a lens must cost all of $1.5 to $3.0. So charging 50$ extra is a compromise between cost and worth...
philber wrote:
Actually, by today's standards, the content of Canon's electronics interface to be contained in a lens must cost all of $1.5 to $3.0. So charging 50$ extra is a compromise between cost and worth...
Of course, you are also paying the time of Zeiss engineers and equipment needed for them to reverse engineer the canon electronics and design an electronic aperture that fits nicely in the lens. And, the bonuses of the managers in charge of the ZE project and the Zeiss CEO, and....
Yeah you finally got it. Great! I'll have mine next Thursday.
As mostly a landscaper and nature shooter, with some architecture, I never shoot wide open or near it. I'd like to see this leaf image made at f11 or f16. That's primarily where I live.
While the close-up performance is really nice, I think most people want to see landscape-type photos showing cross-frame sharpness. Since the optics are the same as the ZF, here's one of those samples.
