p.8 #1 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Grenache wrote:
Leica 100 APO... I have not used the Voigt or 100MP but would see them all as equal by different strengths. All are good at close up, with slightly different looks to the bokeh. The Leica is wonderful for portraits and very good but not stellar for landscapes. The Zeiss is outstanding at landscapes and intermediate distances, but I don't think that I would like it for portraiture.
The Zeiss is excellent for portraiture. I think the Leica's strength over the Zeiss is more in the area of CA and aberration control. The Zeiss has a wonderful look, but also a couple of optical flaws.
p.8 #2 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Almass wrote:
I assume you have tested these three lenses on the same subject in a controlled environment and came to this conclusion.
I did test the Macro ability of the Leica R 100/2.8 with the Voigt125 and the ZF2 100 and the result is obvious that the Leica is head and shoulders above the two other lenses.
AhamB wrote:
It's not obvious to me how the Leica is "head and shoulders" above the Voigtländer and Zeiss in your test. I like the color rendering of the Leica best, but the bokeh of the Zeiss looks better to me (Leica has more hard fringes).
I agree completely. I don't know how anyone from that test can come to the conclusion that anyone of those 3 lenses is overall "head and shoulders" above the others. It's not even "obvious". All 3 lenses are VERY close. I do further agree that the Zeiss bokeh is a bit nicer. All 3 lenses are capable of producing splendid, state-of -the-art images that are in no way clearly deficient to the others.
p.8 #3 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
The CV Ultron 40 f/2 SLII disappointed me with it's modest micro contrast wide open and heavy focus shift. I did not expect a medium fast, normal - slight WA lens, with an aspherical element, to exhibit this much spherical aberrations. I tried a second copy, and it was even worse than the first one. The Canon EF 35 f/2 has higher micro contrast in the center wide open. Overall the Ultron 40 is a better performer though, and I kept it.
p.8 #4 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Now that we're on CV's, I would count the Voigtlander SL II 3,5/20 as a disappointing lens on par with the Nikkor 180 ED AIS (I previously posted). Billed as having an aspherical element in a nicely compact design and joining the growing family of well-received CV SLI & II's, I (unrealistically) hoped for a compact Z*21 of sorts. It never even delivered on center resolution stopped all the way down to f/11. Corners still remained annoyingly soft to about f/9 or so, as did persistance of color fringing in the very same corners regardless of f-stop. An expensive lens too and probably suited, if at all, for crop sensors.
p.8 #5 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
I quite agree j.liam, I'd forgotten about my experience with the Voigtlander SL II 20/3.5!
Even though it sharpens quite a bit from 3.5 to 8-11, because it is so soft at 3.5 it makes focussing it unpleasant.
p.8 #6 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
j.liam wrote:
Now that we're on CV's, I would count the Voigtlander SL II 3,5/20 as a disappointing lens on par with the Nikkor 180 ED AIS (I previously posted). Billed as having an aspherical element in a nicely compact design and joining the growing family of well-received CV SLI & II's, I (unrealistically) hoped for a compact Z*21 of sorts. It never even delivered on center resolution stopped all the way down to f/11. Corners still remained annoyingly soft to about f/9 or so, as did persistance of color fringing in the very same corners regardless of f-stop. An expensive lens too and probably suited, if at all, for crop sensors. ...Show more →
+1
I had high expectations for the CV 20/3.5 SL II. Shortly after it arrived, I tested it against my Nikkor AFS 16-85 VR extensively at F 5.6 and 8 and found the zoom lens to be noticeably sharper. Needless to say, I returned the CV 20.
p.8 #7 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Given what Cosina has turned out thus far the 20 is a real, true dud by a wide margin compared to every other excellent SL-series optic they've made. A shame they could not conjur up something along the lines of the ZM 21/4.5. That would have been a killer lens!
p.8 #8 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
snowboarder wrote:
ZF.2 50/2 MP.
It took me 5 minutes.
It was the biggest Zeiss disappointment for me, sent it back to B&H the very next day.
BUT Snowboarder, I could have sworn that you had this fantastic iceberg shot with the 50MP and also had some other great shots of snowy mountain hikes. Was it a different lens or am I confusing perhaps you and the lens with some one else's shots?!?!?!?! Samuli, perhaps?
p.8 #9 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
j.liam wrote:
Given what Cosina has turned out thus far the 20 is a real, true dud by a wide margin compared to every other excellent SL-series optic they've made. A shame they could not conjur up something along the lines of the ZM 21/4.5. That would have been a killer lens!
Part of the performance of the ZM 21/4.5 is the fact that it is a symetrical design and given it's 21mm focal length, a Leica M lens register is just barely possible. Look at the corner performance on NEX and M9. The 44mm lens register of the Canon precludes this design possibility and with the retrofocus design of the SL20 comes the compromises.
p.8 #10 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
JimBuchanan wrote:
[Part of the performance of the ZM 21/4.5 is the fact that it is a symetrical design and given it's 21mm focal length, a Leica M lens register is just barely possible. Look at the corner performance on NEX and M9. The 44mm lens register of the Canon precludes this design possibility and with the retrofocus design of the SL20 comes the compromises.
"Along the lines" I meant performance-wise. As you noted, there are physical limitations that cannot be overcome with ease.
p.8 #11 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
Grenache wrote:
BUT Snowboarder, I could have sworn that you had this fantastic iceberg shot with the 50MP and also had some other great shots of snowy mountain hikes. Was it a different lens or am I confusing perhaps you and the lens with some one else's shots?!?!?!?! Samuli, perhaps?
Jim
Luka/denoir and Boris had fantastic shots of snowy mountains from Lofoten with the MP50.
p.8 #13 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
FlyPenFly wrote:
... Canon 85mm 1.8.
I think that's when I started realizing a lot of people on forums talk about gear more than they use gear.
Really? Love that lens. Wonder why some people feel the need to give such derogatory statements about others.
I think that lens is a gem, not only for the money. Here combined with the inferior AF in Canon 5D2 captures a flying woman. ISO 1600 gives some grain seen in the 100% crop. Love it even more on closer shots where the thin DOF gives great effect. Street photography included.
Oh... and a dissapointment. For me it was the Sigma 30/1.4 which (went through two copies) never found focus. Second copy was supersharp with MF, but that was not how I used cameras at that time.
p.8 #14 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
The Leica APO-Summicron-M 75/2 ASPH is the only lens I've really been disappointed with (i.e it did not meet my expectations). That doesn't mean it's a bad lens - it's not. It's just that I was hoping for something with a bit more character while its rendering is very neutral and bland.
p.8 #17 · What's your biggest dissapointment (lens)?
wfrank wrote:
Really? Love that lens. Wonder why some people feel the need to give such derogatory statements about others.
I think that lens is a gem, not only for the money. Here combined with the inferior AF in Canon 5D2 captures a flying woman. ISO 1600 gives some grain seen in the 100% crop. Love it even more on closer shots where the thin DOF gives great effect. Street photography included.
Oh... and a dissapointment. For me it was the Sigma 30/1.4 which (went through two copies) never found focus. Second copy was supersharp with MF, but that was not how I used cameras at that time.
I used to have the 85/1.8 and loved it for quite some time. But I can understand why it can be a disappointment.
The pictures from the 85/1.8 are a bit dull. The pictures are sharp, focus is fast enough and with the 1.8 you can isolate your subject quite easily. But it just lacks character.
It was one of the lenses that needed a lot of post processing while others (like 200/2.8 or 135/2) just needed simple tweaks. Its good, but not as good as many say.
On topic, my dad bought me my first long telephoto lens (canon 70-300 III USM) when I bought the 300D and it was quite a disappointment. Never used a long lens before I expected something to perform like my standard pentax 50mm lenses.
Felt quite guilty selling it soon after.
