|
Sunny Alan Registered: Aug 13, 2012 Total Posts: 61 Country: India |
I am buying a Zeiss wide for my 5d Mark2, say Distagon T 28, 25 or 21mm. Price vary @ $1283, $1700, $1843. B&H. |
|
martines34 Registered: Jun 23, 2008 Total Posts: 2623 Country: United States |
Have you looked at the "Reviews" portion of this board?? |
|
RustyBug Registered: Feb 02, 2009 Total Posts: 9422 Country: United States |
The wider you go, the more optical compromises (i.e. mustache distortion, size, weight, etc.) must be encountered in the design. That being said, many praise "The King" i.e. the 21, but ... when you say "assuming IQ is same", they do have differences. |
|
johnahill Registered: Jan 08, 2006 Total Posts: 1848 Country: United Kingdom |
Many here will know i keep singing the praises of the original ZF.1 25mm f2.8. |
|
Gary Clennan Registered: Mar 29, 2007 Total Posts: 3559 Country: Canada |
ZF25/2.8 is superb! |
|
taemo Registered: May 23, 2006 Total Posts: 121 Country: Canada |
while they are all great, I find the 25 or 28 to be not wide enough. |
|
Steve Spencer Registered: Nov 08, 2006 Total Posts: 6326 Country: Canada |
What is wide enough? To me that is like asking how long is a piece of string. IMO, it depends on what you shoot, i.e., the particular scene. The Zeiss 21mm is an exceptional lens for lanscape with very high microcontrast and for the scenes I typically shoot, a very nice perspective. I find the distortion of the new ZE lens a complete non-issue for landscapes (I can occasionally see it for architecture). I think from seeing others images the 25mm f/2 ZE is in many ways as good as the 21mm, except at the extreme corners (and really just the last few). Both are exceptional lenses, but both come at a steeper price. For landscape, I agree with the above that the ZF 25 f/2.8 is the best bargain. It isn't available new anymore, but is available used fairly regularly. It doesn't have a floating element like the other lenses you are discussing here, so its performance will probably not be as good when shooting images at close focus distances, but for distance landscapes it should be great. |
|
Xtobolic Registered: Oct 17, 2010 Total Posts: 106 Country: Netherlands |
Is there a reason you are not looking at the 18mm zeiss? |
|
crazeazn Registered: Jul 16, 2005 Total Posts: 1597 Country: United States |
cy 28 2.8 if u dont need the width. |
|
carlitos Registered: Feb 12, 2010 Total Posts: 163 Country: United States |
what about c/y 25/2.8? especially for 5d II |
|
Cadaver Registered: Dec 03, 2008 Total Posts: 257 Country: N/A |
The samples I've seen of landscape photography from the 25mm 2.8 are outstanding. Another vote for this underrated lens. |
|
helimat Registered: Apr 06, 2008 Total Posts: 3521 Country: Canada |
+1 for Contax 25/2.8. Not super impressive wide open, but stopped down it is ridiculous. |
|
Jabberwockt Registered: Aug 22, 2011 Total Posts: 366 Country: United States |
In your shoes, I would choose based on the focal length that works best for my shooting. A few MM may not sound much, but is substantial on the wide end. |
|
kosmoskatten Registered: Oct 11, 2005 Total Posts: 2768 Country: Sweden |
Having had the Contax 25/2.8 I'd say it is quite fuzzy wide open at any range. |
|
Edgars Kalnins Registered: Mar 09, 2007 Total Posts: 674 Country: Latvia |
It might be subjective but I find the drawing from ZF 25/2.8 quite different compared to my other ZF lenses. Mind you I have not had 21 and 25/2. Has anyone else noticed it? |
|
billsnature Registered: Dec 10, 2004 Total Posts: 1176 Country: United States |
I have owned all 3 lenses meanng the 28 f2.0, the 25mm f2.8, and the 21mm f2.8. |
|
carstenw Registered: Dec 26, 2005 Total Posts: 12735 Country: Germany |
The 25s and the 28 are quite different though, so if lens character is important to you, they are not really interchangeable. The 25/2.8 is of course not as fast as the others, and its character is also that of a lens with a lot of depth of field, like the 21. Closer up, it needs stopping down at least once, but it is generally very sharp. The 25/2 I have not personally tried, but it seems to have some of the character of the 35/1.4, with subtle rendering and a more narrow depth of field, although of course a lot less than a 35. It has smudgy extreme corners until stopped down a bit, like the 50MP. The 28 is maybe the most different from the usual Zeiss look, with gentler colours and contrast (until stopped down somewhat), and it does have some CA (as does the 25/2, i think, but I don't think the 25/2.8 has much; someone else should confirm, it has been too long), but when you get the ratio between foreground and background just right, it has just gorgeous rendering. I own the 21 and 28 and they make a nice pair. Once stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4, the 28 also starts to have that sharp all-over Zeiss look, and it gets more punchy. IIRC, my current shot in Briantho's competition threads is with the 28/2. |
|
timballic Registered: May 21, 2011 Total Posts: 538 Country: United Kingdom |
johnahill wrote: |
|
Sunny Alan Registered: Aug 13, 2012 Total Posts: 61 Country: India |
Thanks a lot friends for valuable advices... |
|
naturephoto1 Registered: Nov 09, 2005 Total Posts: 489 Country: United States |
Sunny Alan wrote: |