Snowboarder:
thanks for posting a link to my review.
I'm glad people are interested in these Zeiss lenses for Canon mount as much as I am...
Just letting everyone know that I updated the review with some brick wall vignetting/distortion tests as well as some more 100% crops.
I should be reviewing the 21mm Distagon ZE in the upcoming weeks, so please let me know if there is anything you'd like me to include in the tests... Canon's selection of primes is limited at 21mm (lol) so I will likely be using the TS-E once again as well as the 24 1.4 L, a 16-35 L and possibly (fingers crossed) a Nikon 14-24 if I can get ahold of the adapter in time...
Mac,
It looks like your update reinforces your conclusion. Thanks for the work put into the review. Another way to look at it is that the 17 TSE is a very impressive lens, but I don't know how it compares to the Nikon 14-24?
Mike K
I own also a Nikon 18mm 3.5. It is almost as sharp as the Zeiss but has more LCA. Looking at the link, which Oly users often quote, I'd say the Oly is not on level with the Zeiss.
Zeiss should have made the Z18 20 years ago and we would all rave about it. For a 2010 lens it is nothing more than average IMO. Not very fast, not very light weight, not very sharp, just a bit too much CA, not very well corrected for flare or distortion either. It is a compromise and not worth 1200€
Alf Beharie wrote:
Reviews have shown that the Tamron SP 17mm f3.5 is sharper than the Oly...and its a lot cheaper to buy due to the over inflated price of the Oly.
Umm. no. Not any reviews I've seen. Own one of each and you can easily decide which is better. There's a reason the Oly is expensive and the Tamron isn't. It's not to do with scarcity, really, but quality. IMNSHO. Even "overinflated", the Oly is still cheaper than the ZE 18, EF 16-35II, Leica 19, TSE 17/4 or any other comprable lens I can think of.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Umm. no. Not any reviews I've seen. Own one of each and you can easily decide which is better. There's a reason the Oly is expensive and the Tamron isn't. It's not to do with scarcity, really, but quality. IMNSHO. Even "overinflated", the Oly is still cheaper than the ZE 18, EF 16-35II, Leica 19, TSE 17/4 or any other comprable lens I can think of.
-Ed
The Modern Photography tests show that the Tamron is indeed higher-resolution than the Oly in the centre at all apertures, and across the frame at mid apertures. Contrast however was lower on the Tamron aside from f8-11.
The Oly is very good but suffers from the price inflation typical of the rarer OM lenses, but the Tamron is a long-time bargain due to a combination of being far more common and also the usual 3rd party price penalty.
The Oly should be somewhat cheaper than it is, the Tamron should be significantly more expensive than it is. Both are excellent lenses and you likely will not go wrong choosing either option.
How about the "Tokina AT-X 17mm pro" lens ? It is a much more modern design (aspherical, special glass from Hoya ... ) than Oly, Tamron SP, Contax Zeiss.
mawz wrote:
The Modern Photography tests show that the Tamron is indeed higher-resolution than the Oly in the centre at all apertures, and across the frame at mid apertures. Contrast however was lower on the Tamron aside from f8-11.
The Oly is very good but suffers from the price inflation typical of the rarer OM lenses, but the Tamron is a long-time bargain due to a combination of being far more common and also the usual 3rd party price penalty.
The Oly should be somewhat cheaper than it is, the Tamron should be significantly more expensive than it is. Both are excellent lenses and you likely will not go wrong choosing either option. ...Show more →
Now, I remember seeing some Modern Photography tests in this forum, according to them Oly was better in centre in all apertures but f3.5. It was corners were Tamron won. However, these test confused me a bit by measuring resolution and contrast separately. I was convinced that contrast is about the same thing we call "sharpness" and look for in MTF graphs. they measured contrast at 30lpm - Oly won convincingly in all apertures in centre, lost in corners apart from wideopen.
here I found a little part of the test in a discussion: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/870924
It normally takes Zeiss several years to design a lens. Hence the ZE line is mostly updated Contax designs with a few exceptions. I'm sure we will see newer designs appear gradually in the coming years. As for the 18, I agree with lotus' comments. It is a great little lens with a lot of Zeiss character but it's no 21.
AlanGeli wrote:
How about the "Tokina AT-X 17mm pro" lens ? It is a much more modern design (aspherical, special glass from Hoya ... ) than Oly, Tamron SP, Contax Zeiss.
Any experience ?
I recently compared the SP 17/3.5, AT-X 17/3.5 and EF 17-40L. The two primes are generally sharper in the corners and the zoom is sharper in the middle. IMO, the AT-X is better in all respects than the SP. I can post some comparisons later. Right now, I'm stuck in Sweden by a stinking volcano in Iceland. The AT-X is at home on my shelf, the SP is in the mail to it's new owner in beautiful BC.
For a moment there, I had a vision of jumping up and down while vigorously shaking my fists at the sky.
My corporate travel wizard is working on it. The airport here in Gothenburg is currently open for flights to many places, but not to Heathrow, where my connection was booked. I'm confident that I'll be out of here before the end of the weekend, but which weekend is not yet known.
Andi Dietrich wrote:
The word which defines the Zeiss 18mm best is "average".
If I had to compare it to an other lens in my line up I would pick the 24-105. The 16-35II has more sparkle and magic than the Zeiss, on the other hand, the 18mm offers better corner sharpness. I never would take this lens as a typical example for a Zeiss lens.
That's a brave comment on this forum Andi, you could get drummed out of the club.
