wiseguy010 wrote:
One picture? I was looking at all the 100% full images shot by Roger at infinity with 21 and 25/2.
Did you look at them? The edge of the frame is not sharp.
This lens maybe fine for close to medium shooting but for far distance landscape it doesn't cut it IMHO.
For city photogs who take pic of statues, and fountains and building facades it will work fine.
For rural Vista landscape with far distance subject matter it would not be up to what I expect from a $1700 Zeiss lens after using the 21 for so long.
Wow, all these conclusions after just one simple picture. ...Show more →
Objective: ZEISS Distagon T * 25 / 2 ZE
Focal: 25 mm. Aperture: f 1:8 Time: 1 / 160
ISO: 100 Comp.: 0 EV Mode: Av
.
Medium and Support: Canon 5D MkII
Recorded file:. CR2 |. Jpg processed ACR - CS4
Original Size: 21 Mpx. - 6.17 MB
.
Comments:
Support: tripod, mirror lock and remote control.
Focus: single shot only.
Distance: 100 ms. approx.
Focus point: central.
Light: sun at seven.
This is not a far distance shot.
How about shooting this building more square on from a farther away distance and make sure the edge and corners of the frame are still covering the building?
Shoot it 5.6 and f8.
Makten wrote:
Sergi2, what sharpening settings are you applying in ACR? It looks terrible in my opinion, but not because of the lens, but because of the demosaicing artefacts. The images looks like they are built up of "flakes", so that the real resolution isn't seen.
I suggest you set the sharpening in ACR to 0 and sharpen with USM 0,2 – 200% in PS instead.
Thanks,Makten,
Do you have seen the pic with the magnnifying glass?
In my opinion there is not artefacts. Also, the sky is clean.
The pics aren't mine. The author is digitalcamaralens, but I can say that the sharpen parameters in ACR are (in all pics)
Amount: 65
Radius: 0.8
Detail: 25
Cheers
This is my first post in this forum and hope join in more iin the future.
The photos linked by "Sergi2" of www.digitalcamaralens.com I have done it and want clarify some point of the pict. and of this Distagon 25/2 ZE.
"Makten"
With the settings that you have mention obviously the image is softer, I understand that this is already a matter of taste. In any case with the conditions of display of several monitors, viewing the image at 100% is not visible in any picture artifacts or excessive focus.
I comment some points that I have gained from this lens after trying it for +/- 2 weeks, some days for climatological issues has not been operating.
- Sharpness central-angle zones is excellent, so that at the moment, with the two samples tested, this 25/2 exceeds in sharpmess of the extreme corners (angles) at 21/2.8 Distagon (tested at f 1:4, f 1.5,6 and f 1:8). At the end of January is possible that I receive another unit, in this case a unit of normal production and can repeat the comparison. This 25 mm. is more different to the preceding 25/2,8 ZE and C/Y.
- There is no problem of sharpness in focus to infinity, none. Who has some picture with a problem can show it.
- The contrast and color reproduction is superb, in the center at full open the RGB levels are excellent.
- The work with this lens is confortable and fast, the weight and volumen not are too large.
Cons:
I find the Bokeh too strong, can say crisp... not nervous. Possibly due to the high correction curvature of focal plane the bokeh is not as softly than I like, more hard or crisp than others angular lenses of Zeiss, remember some makro lenses.
Sorry if some word is not as accurate as it should
edwardkaraa wrote:
Mescalamba, you seem to be bitter with Sony, so no comments.
Fly, so lack of weather sealing on ZA is a problem, but lack of it on ZE is acceptable?
Philip, in my own experience with the copy of the ZA that I had, there was no problem at infinity from 5.6 onwards when focused about -5 micro adjustment. The field curvature of the ZA24 is in a U shape, which means that when center is in focus the corners are back focused. This is a problem at infinity in particular. But if you focus as you describe, I am pretty confident there should be no problem....Show more →
ZE is pretty much third-party lens, not made in house for own camera system. Different things to want and expect. From ZE ppl expect to be high quality and durable, which they are. Plus if you ask most ZE/ZF users about weather sealing and such, you will find that they probably never had issues with rain or sand. Those lens are pretty tightly put together. And anyway, in case of dumb mount original ZF, what damage could water do inside if there isnt anything electronic..
ZAs are (or should be) same range as Canon Ls or Nikkor G lens. They are priced very similar. And they are full of electronics which really doesnt like water or sand etc. Which IMHO makes weather sealing quite important.
If Sony itself wants to present ZAs like premium quality and something capable to match competition, they should at least match competition if not outperform it. Optically they definetly do but build quality, not so much..
Im not bitter with Sony, I have absolutely nothing against them (I would hardly choose Alpha Mount if I had..), but I try to see things objectively. For example Sony A900 is for me near perfect dSLR (which most likely does have weather sealing), its pretty durable, so why ZAs dont match body quality? Doesnt make much sense to me.
Of course I expect a lot from Sony and Zeiss brand, what else I should expect for that price?
sergi2, welcome if it has not been said before and thanks for the input and images so far. The first image looks over-sharpened, it is a matter of preference of course, but what happens is you start to see all content as sharp, whether it is not - probably due to Zeiss' ability to make focus fade very gradually in the Distagons.
You might try (in ACR) 35-45, 0.5-0.6, and 60-80 for this kind of image, where you want to restrain fine detail from 'flaring' yet show all of it. And ACR 6.x is a must, Adobe made a huge gain in sharpening (and NR) algorithms over CS4. Reason enough to get it, IMO.
Roger's images are just the opposite of course, a baptism of fire, and ironically you can learn a lot from them. The images you post are clear and brilliant and fine detailed, as expected of such a lens, and we need to see more to better make some judgments re things like drawing style, image 'depth', distant corner performance at middle apertures. Hopefully I have covered it.
wiseguy, this is the expected response from users of the 21mm. The reason is that it is very hard to take a truly poor photo with it, even right out of the file system. Zeiss truly made a rod for their back making it - nearly 20 years ago now, and don't forget it's a 16/13 prime lens, much more complex than the fast Canon and Nikon 24s, and the ZA 24/2 and ZE 25/2, and just about any other general release wide angle you care to name. They said then it works in all conditions and that is certainly true.
Tariq, the page link below is the one I was referring to, I do like the f5.6 image (80% down the page), this image comfortably bests the two very esteemed and expensive ZA zooms. I mention it as we may have different standards and expectations here.
Mescalamba, ZA lenses are better sealed than Canon and Nikon equivalents. The absence of rubber gaskets that are mostly a marketing gimmick than has no practical use doesn't mean anything. Since the ZA were introduced more than 6 years ago, I have not heard of even one case of any malfunction caused by rain or dust.
philip_pj wrote:
sergi2, welcome if it has not been said before and thanks for the input and images so far. The first image looks over-sharpened, it is a matter of preference of course, but what happens is you start to see all content as sharp, whether it is not - probably due to Zeiss' ability to make focus fade very gradually in the Distagons.
You might try (in ACR) 35-45, 0.5-0.6, and 60-80 for this kind of image, where you want to restrain fine detail from 'flaring' yet show all of it. And ACR 6.x is a must, Adobe made a huge gain in sharpening (and NR) algorithms over CS4. Reason enough to get it, IMO. ...Show more →
Hello "philip_pj"
I answer you this quote because I was who made and processed the pictures, "Sergi2" is a friend and fellow photography.
All samples are processed in ACR CS4 with:65-0,8-25 for reasons of comparison.
Sure that for each specific case there are a best configuration but as in this gallery and all the item that we are testing are "the lens", if each pict made more variables in the end the goal is not comparable.
Two years ago I test a 85 / 1.4 ZE in a D3x and the same with adapter on a Canon 1Ds III, CAS lateral and central levels were significantly differents in one system and another, the design of a sensor and other added more or less ACs to that had the lens.
We konw that we test the lens on DSLRs, and that the machines are more closer than a PC, for that reason the less things that we change between tests is better. Another cuestion will be that a processed a photo for me
edwardkaraa wrote:
Mescalamba, ZA lenses are better sealed than Canon and Nikon equivalents. The absence of rubber gaskets that are mostly a marketing gimmick than has no practical use doesn't mean anything. Since the ZA were introduced more than 6 years ago, I have not heard of even one case of any malfunction caused by rain or dust.
I'm sure the sealing is ok on ZA lenses. But to say that rubber gaskets is a marketing gimmick!! and because of that ZA lenses are better sealed than Nikon & Canon is just wrong
Lasse: I am sure Edward did not mean that ZA lenses are "the best sealed" of all lenses. I think he meant that the rubber gaskets will not make much difference IRL and thus is a "gimmick".
In my experience with monsoon rains, ski slopes, harsh mountain weather and humid conditions I would agree, that rubber gaskets are a marketing gimmick and has no real life value for weather sealing on dSLR's. It is just one more thing that will dry out over time and in all foul weather conditions I have been fine with ordinary non rubber gasket lenses on the brands mentioned, Nikon, Canon and Sony alike. I think the ZA lenses are just as good as the others.
ZA is better? Better than the Nikkors I had, but the Canon L lenses held up fine. And I have had many Nikkors. I have not had many Canon lenses though as I have been shooting mostly Alt lenses even since the dawn of digital dSLR's.
If you haven't shot ZA I think you are far off criticizing them. Edward has had many Canon cameras and lenses (pro range) and I was a professional Nikon user. After quitting as a working pro, turning to Canon and then to Sony. (The manual cameras were always a separate part of my outfit, Contax and Leica alike.)
At the point of exposure where the gasket would make a difference it is already wet enough for water to seep in elsewhere on the lenses and/or in the camera.
At extremely low temperatures I would doubt the longevity of such gaskets as well.
If you want real splash proof dSLR the Olympus E3 and E5 are fantastic and I would trust them more than any of the above. I had the E3 myself. But I don't shoot FourThirds.
philip_pj wrote:
wiseguy, this is the expected response from users of the 21mm. The reason is that it is very hard to take a truly poor photo with it, even right out of the file system. Zeiss truly made a rod for their back making it - nearly 20 years ago now, and don't forget it's a 16/13 prime lens, much more complex than the fast Canon and Nikon 24s, and the ZA 24/2 and ZE 25/2, and just about any other general release wide angle you care to name. They said then it works in all conditions and that is certainly true....Show more →
Except in Antelope Canyon, when shooting the lights coming from above.
philber wrote:
Welcome to FM, G. Pierre! And thank you for the hope you give me that this lens will work for me!
Thanks "philber"
If you want some .raw of this gallery I can punt it on the blog and you can download ad process with yours parameters, this steep is like at "eau cologne".
kosmoskatten wrote:
Lasse: I am sure Edward did not mean that ZA lenses are "the best sealed" of all lenses. I think he meant that the rubber gaskets will not make much difference IRL and thus is a "gimmick".
In my experience with monsoon rains, ski slopes, harsh mountain weather and humid conditions I would agree, that rubber gaskets are a marketing gimmick and has no real life value for weather sealing on dSLR's. It is just one more thing that will dry out over time and in all foul weather conditions I have been fine with ordinary non rubber gasket lenses on the brands mentioned, Nikon, Canon and Sony alike. I think the ZA lenses are just as good as the others.
ZA is better? Better than the Nikkors I had, but the Canon L lenses held up fine. And I have had many Nikkors. I have not had many Canon lenses though as I have been shooting mostly Alt lenses even since the dawn of digital dSLR's.
If you haven't shot ZA I think you are far off criticizing them. Edward has had many Canon cameras and lenses (pro range) and I was a professional Nikon user. After quitting as a working pro, turning to Canon and then to Sony. (The manual cameras were always a separate part of my outfit, Contax and Leica alike.)
At the point of exposure where the gasket would make a difference it is already wet enough for water to seep in elsewhere on the lenses and/or in the camera.
At extremely low temperatures I would doubt the longevity of such gaskets as well.
If you want real splash proof dSLR the Olympus E3 and E5 are fantastic and I would trust them more than any of the above. I had the E3 myself. But I don't shoot FourThirds. ...Show more →
So why does it bother you that the rubber gaskets will dry out over time ? It's just a gimmick
And read my post. I didn't criticize ZA. I wrote they where ok. But Edward did criticize Nikon/ Canon
To be honest, I do believe the weather sealing on the ZA to be better than at least Canon L, though admittedly I don't have experience with the Nikon. My 200/2.8 L got slightly wet under very light rain, and it turned out to be not as water resistant as claimed, and soon even developed a serious case of fungus. The fact that Sony doesn't claim water resistance for the ZA doesn't mean they are not. The ZA in fact are superbly water resistant in my own experience.
The rubber gaskets are just a marketing gimmick because they give a false sense of security. Their locations are not essential to protect a lens, in fact, water is more likely to come in from other weaker points. As mentioned by Henrik, they tend to dry out and chip, thus introducing more internal dust. They have to be replaced every 3 years imho.
Lasse, I am not criticizing Canon and Nikon, I just said that I believe equivalent ZA lenses are better weather sealed. I consider rubber gaskets as a marketing gimmick, but they are not exclusive to Canon and Nikon, many other brands use them, but this doesn't change the fact that they do little to nothing in practical use.
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
So why does it bother you that the rubber gaskets will dry out over time ? It's just a gimmick
And read my post. I didn't criticize ZA. I wrote they where ok. But Edward did criticize Nikon/ Canon
philip_pj wrote:
Tariq, the page link below is the one I was referring to, I do like the f5.6 image (80% down the page), this image comfortably bests the two very esteemed and expensive ZA zooms. I mention it as we may have different standards and expectations here.
Thanks Philip. He was one of the first to show images from the ZA 24/2, even before the lens was shipping, and played a role in my buying decision when I purchased mine. Unfortunately, I just did not see that performance with the two I tried. After buying the ZF.2 35/2, I will likely go with the ZF.2 25/2.8 next time around. The size, build quality and feel are addictive with the Cosina made Zeiss lenses, a step up from the ZA (though I stil find the ZA's to be among the best AF lenses).
Probably off topic but i wonder how the za 24f1.8 compares to the za 24f2 and zf 25f2. I realize that 24f1.8 is crop format so it probably has a bit more vignetting....
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thanks Philip. He was one of the first to show images from the ZA 24/2, even before the lens was shipping, and played a role in my buying decision when I purchased mine. Unfortunately, I just did not see that performance with the two I tried. After buying the ZF.2 35/2, I will likely go with the ZF.2 25/2.8 next time around. The size, build quality and feel are addictive with the Cosina made Zeiss lenses, a step up from the ZA (though I stil find the ZA's to be among the best AF lenses).
