In his review of the Zeiss ZF 21/2.8 Distagon, Lloyd Chambers says the lens has "uneven color rendition, which results in cyan-tinted corners". Does the C/Y version of the lens suffer from this same problem? I've never heard of this with the older lens, nor have I seen it in any examples.
With prices of the older Distagon falling, would it be a better candidate for conversion to Sony/Alpha mount?

On the ZF 18mm (which has it probably to a stronger degree) this is not such a big issue, it can be corrected in PS with the help of the vignetting slider in the lens distortion filter, no color adjustment needed.

I haven't seen the report or the sample photos, but what he is describing sounds similar to the cyan drift you get at the corners on M8 with an IR filter on wide-angle lenses. This would be different from pure vignetting. Obviously, it will be dependent on the lens as well as the sensor. On 1DsM3 with C/Y 21/2.8 I did not have this problem. Neither with a 5DM2.

C/Y 21/2.8 on 1DsM3

surfotog wrote:
In his review of the Zeiss ZF 21/2.8 Distagon, Lloyd Chambers says the lens has "uneven color rendition, which results in cyan-tinted corners". Does the C/Y version of the lens suffer from this same problem? I've never heard of this with the older lens, nor have I seen it in any examples.
With prices of the older Distagon falling, would it be a better candidate for conversion to Sony/Alpha mount?


I can`t say I`ve seen it on my C/Y in fact I am hard pushed to see the mustach distortion that is spoken about.
I took a chance last year and paid the premium for a new boxed 21 and it`s starting to look a better deal. (I`m still paying the wife back for that lens

BTW Andi and PS

Nice images

Does the Diglloyd 21 ZF lens review also contain any comparison shots against the Nikon 14-24G?
I have the 14-24G and just wanted to see how much better the Zeiss is.

wayne seltzer wrote:
Does the Diglloyd 21 ZF lens review also contain any comparison shots against the Nikon 14-24G?
I have the 14-24G and just wanted to see how much better the Zeiss is.

There are numerous comparisons against the 14-24G in diglloyd's review.
It is probably worth signing up for one year of Lloyd's site to see how you like it.
It takes him a while to get new content up there, but it's pretty good once he delivers.

Both lenses are excellent. Lloyds photos do show the Nikon zoom holding up
incredibly well against the Distagon. I think for a Nikon user it's the better all-around
choice.

Tim

trumpet_guy wrote:
wayne seltzer wrote:
Does the Diglloyd 21 ZF lens review also contain any comparison shots against the Nikon 14-24G?
I have the 14-24G and just wanted to see how much better the Zeiss is.

There are numerous comparisons against the 14-24G in diglloyd's review.
It is probably worth signing up for one year of Lloyd's site to see how you like it.
It takes him a while to get new content up there, but it's pretty good once he delivers.

Both lenses are excellent. Lloyds photos do show the Nikon zoom holding up
incredibly well against the Distagon. I think for a Nikon user it's the better all-around
choice.

Tim

Thanks Tim!
I just wanted to make sure the Nikon 14-24G comparisons were in the review.
I'll probably subscribe now to see the review.

dave chilvers wrote:
I can`t say I`ve seen it on my C/Y in fact I am hard pushed to see the mustach distortion that is spoken about.

Look no further than the horizon in this image:

PSquared63 wrote:This would be different from pure vignetting.

it seems so, at least it is with the 18

I am most certain that most people on the alt forum still would go for the old 21mm and I am certain that the old has a couple of points which make it worthwhile. However on the long term most folks buy lenses which do not need an adapter. As a Sony user it may be worthwhile to get indeed the Contax as he has to adapt it anyway.

brainiac wrote:
dave chilvers wrote:
I can`t say I`ve seen it on my C/Y in fact I am hard pushed to see the mustach distortion that is spoken about.

Look no further than the horizon in this image:

I agree Dave - it is only a very tiny fly in the ointment, and the other advantages of the lens make it worth every penny in my opinion, if you need the best 21 money can buy. But equally I can understand anyone who shoots interiors or architecture making another choice, because it might not make sense to buy a lens that does this every time:

The wave form distortion is not my concern. Again, looking at the photo's posted here from the C/Y Distagon, I don't see any of the "uneven color renditon, which results in cyan tinted corners" that Loyd speaks of in regard to the new ZF version of this lens. Have any users of the C/Y Distagon ever encountered "uneven color rendition" with "cyan tinted corners"? Is the older lens superior in this regard?

I suppose you will only see the cyan tinted corners when you make pictures of a white paper. I have never done that and will never do that. In real world shooting I don't think it is a problem at all. At least up to now I didn't see it with my ZF 21/2.8.

The reviews of Lloyd Chambers are very helpful for me, but sometimes it is a little beyond the edge when he talks about issues that can only be seen in a lab.

surfotog wrote:
Have any users of the C/Y Distagon ever encountered "uneven color rendition" with "cyan tinted corners"? Is the older lens superior in this regard?

Last time I saw that phenomenon was on the D2x with 18mm. Maybe it's a Nikon microlens phenomenon with small exit aperture lenses. It would be interesting to see if the phenomenon occurs to the same extent with a ZF21 on D3x and a 1Ds3.

Hello,

I have a ZF21 and a 5D, and I'm seeing cyan-tinted corners. It's only really noticeable in shots with white or grey in the corners, but look for it and it is there in every shot.
It's easy enough to fix in PS, by just creating a duplicate layer, adding a layer mask with a big fuzzy black circle in the middle (covering all but the corners), then using curves on the duplicate layer to raise the red channel a little (and drop the blue a touch). I'd prefer not to have to do that of course.

I also have a Contax 21 distagon, and with that I can't see any colour shift in the corners.

For anyone who's interested, here are the main IQ differences I've noticed between the Contax and the ZF so far. I'm using Kindai adaptors. As far as I can tell, infinity focus is spot on with both lenses.

Colour rendition - as above, plus the Contax is slightly cooler

Sharpness - no real difference (at least not with the 5D). If anything the ZF is a tad sharper across the frame, but I reckon a 'good' copy of either lens would outdo a 'not-so-good' copy of the other.

CA - the ZF shows very slight red/cyan fringes, the Contax purple/yellow
In both lenses you only see any fringes when viewing the corners at >100%, and then only when the contrast is high (eg: dark branches against a bright sky).
With the ZF what little CA can be completely killed by dialling in -8 in ACR or +1 in the PS Lens Correction tool.

Contrast - no obvious difference but the ZF might be a touch more contrasty

Flare - The ZF is a lot better than the Contax, but when shooting straight into the sun it's still far from perfect (as you might expect). The ZF does have a few 'sweet spots' where flare and ghost images are minimised, if you compose to get the sun (or whatever other bright light) in the 'right' place. It needs a few pictures to illustrate what I'm trying say here, but I've not stumped up to upload images yet.

The ZF iris has 9 blades, the Contax has 6. So the ZF renders bright point sources with 18 rays, versus the Contax with its six points. Which you prefer is entirely a matter of taste. I prefer the ZF, and with its better flare performance it suits me a lot better for shots where the sun is in the frame.

Sample variation - I'm a bit dumb so I've wound up with two copies of the ZF21 (for now). At least I can say that the two I have are nigh-on identical. One seems to have just a whisker less CA and flare. They both show the same cyan-tinted corners. FWIW the serial numbers are about 850 digits apart.

Focal Length - my copy of the Contax is a just little bit wider than my two copies of the ZF, both of which are the same.

Distortion - yup, the ZF makes straight lines wavy, just like the Contax.

Is the ZF worth buying then?

Well I can't speak for anyone else but I bought it because I'm seriously thinking of getting a Nikon body and didn't like the idea of giving up the 21 distagon. For a wide angle view, 20mm seems to be the ideal FL for me - not too wide, not too narrow.

Apart from the cyan-in-the-corners, IMO the ZF21 has all the virtues of the Contax 21 *and* it almost matches the very good flare resistance of the 3.5 AI.

The Nikon 14-24 might well have been a better choice, but I shan't know until I've tried one for myself.

Cheers
Tim

Tim

Thanks for sharing that with us. So from reading your post (apart from not having to use an adapter) there doesn`t seem to be an awful lot in it. I suppose I shouldn`t say " that`s a relief" because I`m using a Contax version and you never really want " there is something a lot better" to crop up when you have quite an investment in a lens that you are 100% satisfied with. That lens goes with me everywhere and to be quite honest with 21 million good quality pixels on tap it often doubles at least up to 28mm and still leaves me with an up rezzed 8 bit 60Mb file for stock work. That`s a thing that a lot of people forget, with the right lens and 5d2/1dsmk3 you do have a decent cropability factor.

You will laugh at this one, I had a dream the other night that I was held up with a knife point at my throat telling me to hand over my camera that had the 21 fitted, I was in the process of debating with the mugger if he would allow me to keep the lens when one of our cats jumped on the bed and woke me up so I never did find out if I had the b***s to fight back

Dave

brainiac wrote:
I agree Dave - it is only a very tiny fly in the ointment, and the other advantages of the lens make it worth every penny in my opinion, if you need the best 21 money can buy. But equally I can understand anyone who shoots interiors or architecture making another choice, because it might not make sense to buy a lens that does this every time:

Dave,

You are spot on: in my opinion there's little or nothing in it, at least as far as I can see from using both lenses with the 5D.

Having said that, even the 5D has more than enough pixels to show up any misfocussing or wobbly shooting technique by me with the ZF and the Contax, not to mention the comparative weaknesses of every other WA lens I've used.

I've found that the ZF works a bit better *for me* than the Contax when shooting into the sun, that's all. In other circumstances the Contax could even be said to be preferable, because it doesn't show any noticeable colour shift across the frame.

Leaving aside the distortion (if your subject matter says you can), they're both great bits of kit and you can't really go wrong with either.

Will the ZE version's IQ be any different than the ZF?

I guess not, but we'll have to wait and see.

On a more serious note, it seems your cat earned his/her kit-e-kat today

Cheers
Tim

Andrew Gough wrote:
How does this look? Easily corrected

Thanks Andy - as you say, easily corrected. Correcting large numbers of images is a pain though. Luckily I don't shoot large numbers of pictures with the Distagon. It does make one hellova standard lens on an XSi.