Would like a small WA Zeiss lens, most considering the zf.2 25 or 18. if you are familiar with these 2 lenses, could youngive your opinion ? Thank you joanlvh
Neither the 18 nor the 25 have a very good reputation compared to the rest of the Z* lineup. As a consequence few people use them. Both suffer from a number of optical flaws - primarily CA.
Zeiss announced a while ago that they are currently developing a new 25mm lens.
denoir wrote:
Neither the 18 nor the 25 have a very good reputation compared to the rest of the Z* lineup. As a consequence few people use them. Both suffer from a number of optical flaws - primarily CA.
Actually the 25mm is used by a lot of people and it sells well. I use the 25mm quite a lot and I rarely see CA. It shows no more CA than any of the other ZF/ZE lenses -- I have 6 of them so I feel qualified to make that statement. I think that mainly the 25mm is misunderstood, it is a moderately priced offering from Zeiss (certainly compared to the 21mm) that is compact, provides value for money and lots of character. Outstanding flare resistance as well.
Gary Clennan wrote:
The 25mm f/2.8 get's mixed reviews but I sure do love the way mine performs. You should give it a try to see for yourself...
The "mixed reviews" come from people that don't use the lens, don't spend time with it, and ignorantly test it with test charts up close. The photozone.de children don't recommend it, but diglloyd.com calls it "a gem". Who is the more reliable, more comprehensive, conscientious reviewer?
I agree completely with Gary. I love the way mine performs. You really need to try it, get to know it, understand it what it does and what it can do for you.
Vertigo2020 wrote:
I'd venture a guess that there has been many photos taken with the much maligned 25mm 2.8 that defy the reputation that precedes it.
Distagons 28/2.8 and 35/2.8 C/Y are considerably smaller than any Z series WA and have very good to excellent IQ.
Distagons 25/2.8 and 18/4 C/Y are smaller as well and feature good to very good overall IQ.They are all significantly cheaper than Z series WAs and a viable alternative if you can live with adapted lenses.
At least judging by the MTF's, the ZF 25/2.8 should be a definite step up from the Contax 25/2.8.
I have the Contax 28/2.8 though and it's definitely my best 28 so far. Wonderful colour and sharpness and it really does have a strong 3D effect. Not the most compact 28 but nice ergonomics. If only I wouldn't have to mess with adapters. At least a Leitax solution for Canon (a mount that stays in firmly in place, without play) would be nice.
Lotusm50 wrote:
The "mixed reviews" come from people that don't use the lens, don't spend time with it, and ignorantly test it with test charts up close. The photozone.de children don't recommend it, but diglloyd.com calls it "a gem". Who is the more reliable, more comprehensive, conscientious reviewer?
Lloyd calls it a gem yes, but he also says it has severe color fringing issues and that it's not any good for closeups. One more telling thing is that in the review he states that "The color rendition of the 25mm Distagon is more pleasing than the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, highly-regarded zoom of very recent design". Contrast this with his review of the 21/2.8 where he basically states that the 16-35 II is utter crap or for that matter his 16-35 II review where he concludes that "Both the 17-40mm and 16-35mm are disappointing...The mediocre performance is painfully obvious when viewed by comparison with a world-class lens like the Zeiss 21mm" etc.
So, when compared to the 25, the 16-35 is "highly regarded" while when compared to the 21 it's "disappointing" and "mediocre". Lloyd Chambers is a fantastic reviewer and his Zeiss guide has helped me a lot. He does however have a strong pro-Zeiss bias and even the worst Zeiss glass is an underappreciated gem to him.
Furthermore the examples Lloyd shows aren't very encouraging. Indeed as far as optical flaws go, the Canon zoom has fewer. I have the 16-35 II and it was it that drove me to Zeiss glass. A prime lens that can't match a mediocre UWA zoom doesn't get many points in my book.
Having said that, I know there are plenty of people that love it. Furthermore it does have the characteristic Zeiss rendering style which I do like.
As shown in my own infinity test, the 25 is extremely sharp corner to corner even WO. The close range rendition is very pleasing too with strong subject/background separation as well. CA is almost inexistant, better than the 35/2 for sure. Imho, this lens is a real gem for its intended uses: landscapes, architecture, interiors, group and reportage shots. It's no good for copy work and product shots due to strong field curvature at 17-50 cm distance, but only a mentally retarded would use a 25mm lens in such a way. I love this lens
denoir wrote:
Lloyd calls it a gem yes, but he also says it has severe color fringing issues and that it's not any good for closeups. One more telling thing is that in the review he states that "The color rendition of the 25mm Distagon is more pleasing than the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, highly-regarded zoom of very recent design". Contrast this with his review of the 21/2.8 where he basically states that the 16-35 II is utter crap or for that matter his 16-35 II review where he concludes that "Both the 17-40mm and 16-35mm are disappointing...The mediocre performance is painfully obvious when viewed by comparison with a world-class lens like the Zeiss 21mm" etc. ...Show more →
Now you are analyzing his words like Bible , I bet he did not think his words would achieve quite this status!
I have both 18mm and 25mm besides others. I like them both but I am no expert to talk about corner sharpness etc. I have just started shooting with the 18mm and I am amazed how sharp it is. When I started shooting with contax after canon they seemed very sharp. ZF seem to me a step above C/Y. 18mm is very good, especially if you compare it to alternatives. Used ZF 18mm is not that much more than Zuiko 18mm and only some 50% more than c/y 18/4. I bet it is much better than both.
here is one shot in direct sun, I think it does well (I also had a UV filter on). If the sun comes from a side it shows flare. critical focusing on 30D is very hard.
Well used zuiko 18's are now more expensive than the Zeiss 18mm on the used market! I have the Zeiss 18mm and have been very happy. It certainly way outperformed my Canon 16-35 L (version 1) for corner to corner sharpness on my 1DSmkII.
Virtually every argument I've read over the subjective values of the ZF/ZE 25mm harkens back to Mr. Chambers' review of the lens. No other individual has managed to damage the qualities of that particular lens more than him. Ironically, he then proclaims it's a "gem". Frankly, I don't put much stock in a reviewer that proffers such a contrary opinion. My own empirical experience does not support his conclusions. No lens is perfect, they all have their own weaknesses; the Distagon 25mm 2.8 is no different. Somehow, I've managed to produce some pleasant images with the lens in spite of Mr. Chambers review.
Vertigo2020:
Unless he had a bad copy his test results pretty much speak for themselves. As for his general competence as a reviewer - I have five Zeiss ZE (21,35,50MP,85,100) lenses and his reviews of them have been spot on each time. So my confidence in his reviews is very high.
denoir wrote:
Neither the 18 nor the 25 have a very good reputation compared to the rest of the Z* lineup. As a consequence few people use them. Both suffer from a number of optical flaws - primarily CA.
I am not sure your statement is right. I cannot speak about the 18 from first- hand experience (diglloyd.com gave it a very positive review), but my feeling is that many love the 25mm for it's versatility, goes from endless to macro range. I also find that it has a beautiful drawing style - typical Zeiss - quite plastic and 3d. In respect to CA, I did not find my 25mm to have more CA than my ZF.2 100mm Makro Planar which sort of dissappointed me in this respect (wider open, that is), sharp as it is otherwise....
denoir wrote:
Lloyd calls it a gem yes, but he also says it has severe color fringing issues and that it's not any good for closeups. One more telling thing is that in the review he states that "The color rendition of the 25mm Distagon is more pleasing than the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, highly-regarded zoom of very recent design". Contrast this with his review of the 21/2.8 where he basically states that the 16-35 II is utter crap or for that matter his 16-35 II review where he concludes that "Both the 17-40mm and 16-35mm are disappointing...The mediocre performance is painfully obvious when viewed by comparison with a world-class lens like the Zeiss 21mm" etc.
So, when compared to the 25, the 16-35 is "highly regarded" while when compared to the 21 it's "disappointing" and "mediocre". Lloyd Chambers is a fantastic reviewer and his Zeiss guide has helped me a lot. He does however have a strong pro-Zeiss bias and even the worst Zeiss glass is an underappreciated gem to him.
Furthermore the examples Lloyd shows aren't very encouraging. Indeed as far as optical flaws go, the Canon zoom has fewer. I have the 16-35 II and it was it that drove me to Zeiss glass. A prime lens that can't match a mediocre UWA zoom doesn't get many points in my book.
Having said that, I know there are plenty of people that love it. Furthermore it does have the characteristic Zeiss rendering style which I do like....Show more →
Calling the 16-35II "highly regarded" is not a comparative remark regarding the ZF 25mm. I think you are over-reading that statement. The 25mm's color rendition is better than the 16-35II, he says, and I would certainly agree with that.
No, it is not as good in MTF terms compared to the ZF 21mm. But then again, little is. That alone, does not make it a bad lens. But of course, the ZF 25 is only a little more than HALF the cost the 21mm and more compact. Quite frankly I consider its rendition to be smoother and less clinical than the 21mm. Further, as others have suggested, CA is virtually non-existent. While he suggests that it is "not any good for closeups" (your words), that is EXACTLY where a lot of people use it! It's artistic rendering there is one of its features. It's not meant to be a clinical macro copy lens close-up, but rather an artistic tool and it is well and justly appreciated for this quality.
Bottom line is that while it doesn't have the ultimate sharpness of the 21mm (where this is most noticeable is wide open in the corners), it is a fine, high-value, performer that is sharp with wonderful rendering and character. People love using this lens for very good reason. Again, as I and others have suggested, USE the lens and you will understand.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Bottom line is that while it doesn't have the ultimate sharpness of the 21mm (where this is most noticeable is wide open in the corners)
Right. And one of the reasons is lateral chromatic aberration, which is clearly existent in the D2.8/25. People who say that this lens does not show more CA than any of the other ZF/ZE lenses are very forgiving. Or perhaps other people are too critical when it concerns normal use of a lens. However, CA can be measured/quantified and the D2.8/21 is clearly the best Zx Distagon in this regard.
I have no personal interest in claiming that my ZS 25 has less CA than my ZS 35. It's just a fact, at least as far as my copies of the lenses are concerned. Both lenses have way less CA than my ZA 16-35 and 24-70 at similar FL settings. I have no idea about the 21 but if it ever becomes available in the ZS mount, I will find out for myself.
The 25mm 2.8 is a wonderful lens and as far as I am concerned out performs others in this range. I don't know what the big deal is but look at these samples http://zeissimages.com/galleryquickview.php?lenstype=440 and decide for yourself.
