SKumar25 wrote:
Looks pretty good. Sorry Tariq, probably a dumb question, how do you get corners with detail at infinity for landscape vistas? what would you shoot?
The Zeiss 35/2 seems to do a damn good job. It has the major advantage of higher magnification of course compared to a 25 but distant shots like the one below taken with the Zeiss 25/2 seem to show distinctly blurry corners whereas the 25/2.8 does not, at least from every test/ example I have seen thus far.
This is with the Zeiss 35/2 on my A900. The subject in the extreme rt top corner is pretty far away.
The tree trunk in the lower left corner looks rather soft to me, compared to the other tree trunk. Especially considered this was on the low pixel density 12 MP D3s.
I can barely see the legs of the pigeon, the contrast is rather low there.
Not bashing the lens, I like it. But it is funny how we can judge the quality of the extreme corners so differently even when looking at the same sample.
Oh, I did not realize this example of the 25/2 was just on a 12MP camera. That tree trunk does looks rather blurry and lacking in any real detail. Anyway, I would really love to see the 25/2 perform exceptionally in the corners at distance on a 20+MP FF camera, I just have not seen even one example showing that yet.
zhangyue wrote:
Sorry, why people hate this lens? There are not enough pictures make it deserve BAD reputation yet. Why so negative here?
This focal length is not my priority but does it make it a bad lens? The op's pic is in cloudy day without any extra effort in editing to bring out the contrast and color, he want to show the sharpness of the lens, which I think it did showing it is good. Which corner we are talking about?
F5.6 with 25mm may not enough to keep everything sharp, especially with 12M picture, I think the photo will be benefit more with f8 or so before diffraction kick in.
Plus, I never think modern day Zeiss has any obvious advantage in sharpness compare new Nikon and Canon offer. Say a 35mmf1.4, comparing Canikon offerm it is not sharper. But people still love it. Why this lens get treated totally different?? ...Show more →
Hate? I don't see any hate in the thread up to yours and AhamB's remarks about haters.
Why? Well for starters, the lens has the 21/2.8 to live up to -- one of the legendary modern Zeiss wide angle lens designs.
Second, the 25 is being heavily hyped and hoped for, probably too much based on the edge performance we are seeing in test shots. That sets up a conflict between people's wants and reality -- hard for the lens to match up to some of those expectations and desires.
Third, it's an expensive lens, having to prove itself superior optically to other models like the 24/1.4L II that have more features. Potential buyers are naturally going to scrutinize its pluses and minused very carefully.
Personally, I think the color looks "Zeissy" and I'm not surprised by the vignetting, field curvature or SA. So far, I haven't seen any samples that show amazing contrast.
Will the value ultimately match the price? That remains to be seen.
Jorge -- The complaint about the corners (relates to edges too) has to do with the lower res associated with vignetting and SA -- quite evident as dark corners in your first example. Your enlarged samples of the corners have been lightened quite a bit from the original, so it's not quite a fair assessment except for sharpness, which has accurately been remarked on as less than sharp on the tree and pigeon.
Still, the lens is putting out a good effort at quality. Will it be enough to convince buyers to add to their 21/2.8 and 35/2 (or 1.4), or will it even live up to those standards, or to buy instead of either of those lenses? That's simply the challenge the 25/2 faces.
+1 Gunzorro and Tariq.
I think Ahamb is just joking when he mentions haters because some of us have judged this lens's far distance performance critically in some other threads based not only the pictures posted but you can see it in the Zeiss MTF's. Go compare the 21 and new 25's mtf and you will see the difference in across frame performance.
This lens is obviously optimized for closer distances and excells there with its lack of CA and reported color sensitivity.
I shoot with ZE 21 and nikon 24G/1.4 a lot so I know how they perform at far distance and up close. I am sure those who shoot predominantly closer distance stuff like fountains and park benches will like this lens.
I am sure some lenses are more suitable than others for FF digital shooting even though they have been designed specifically for digital. For instance, both the ZA 24 and 24-70, infamous for their soft corners at infinity, had none of that when I shot them on film. The corners suddenly became excellent. So my theory is that the soft corners at least on some specific designs are caused by the AA filter and other sensor toppings.
Gunzorro wrote:
Hate? I don't see any hate in the thread up to yours and AhamB's remarks about haters.
Why? Well for starters, the lens has the 21/2.8 to live up to -- one of the legendary modern Zeiss wide angle lens designs.
Second, the 25 is being heavily hyped and hoped for, probably too much based on the edge performance we are seeing in test shots. That sets up a conflict between people's wants and reality -- hard for the lens to match up to some of those expectations and desires.
Third, it's an expensive lens, having to prove itself superior optically to other models like the 24/1.4L II that have more features. Potential buyers are naturally going to scrutinize its pluses and minused very carefully....Show more →
I wouldn't call comments such as "Thanks for confirming the dullness" and "I don't see the Zeiss look" scrutiny.
The softness in the corners is in line with the performance what the MTF chart of the 25/2 suggests.
@Tariq: Those samples of the 35/2 are pretty heavily contaminated by CA.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The Zeiss 35/2 seems to do a damn good job. It has the major advantage of higher magnification of course compared to a 25 but distant shots like the one below taken with the Zeiss 25/2 seem to show distinctly blurry corners whereas the 25/2.8 does not, at least from every test/ example I have seen thus far.
I am surprised by the consternation in this thread. The 2.0/25 is not the first Z* lens whose design tradeoff comes with softness in the extreme corners. It is however very well corrected for lateral chromatic aberration, much better so than the 2.8/25 and 2.0/35. This implies that the stopped down performance of the 2.0/25 is better than that of those lenses, except in the extreme corners where astigmatism/field curvature comes into play. According to the criteria that matter to me, the integral of performance over the field is entirely in favor of the new lens, which I would pick anytime, anywhere.
You can fix mild lateral CA easily in post but you can not fix blurry edges and corners of the frame unless you crop it or use it on a cropped sensor camera.
In my experience it's not always possible to remove CA without adding it in places where there was no visible CA before. I think I'd rather have some blur in those extreme corner pixels and near perfect CA correction than so much CA blurring anything outside of the center of the frame. So I agree with what Toothwalker is saying above.
edwardkaraa wrote:
So my theory is that the soft corners at least on some specific designs are caused by the AA filter and other sensor toppings.
Very good point, and always forgotten. Any image is a result of the optical sampling system as a whole. So the pixelpeepers question should be "why on Earth didnīt Zeiss design a lens that will produce sharp corners on present cameras?"
FWIW Iīm with the OP, must be my perfect vision and my monitor, and a few others with a distinctly positive attitude towards this new magnificent lens. Perhaps because I can use the 21 or the 25/2.8 when I donīt need ugly corners to be part of the composition. Or because I prefer not to peep in ugly corners if the lens is expensive enough.
edwardkaraa wrote:
For instance, both the ZA 24 and 24-70, infamous for their soft corners at infinity, had none of that when I shot them on film. The corners suddenly became excellent. So my theory is that the soft corners at least on some specific designs are caused by the AA filter and other sensor toppings.
That's very interesting. So, you shot them on film, scanned at a resolution similar to that of a digital file from at least a 20MP or so camera and the corners were sharp with these lenses?
AhamB wrote:
@Tariq: Those samples of the 35/2 are pretty heavily contaminated by CA.
I don't really see it as being heavy in that shot but the 35/2 is known to suffer some CA - that's probably it's main fault. I have mostly seen it wide open to say F4.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That's very interesting. So, you shot them on film, scanned at a resolution similar to that of a digital file from at least a 20MP or so camera and the corners were sharp with these lenses?
I scanned them with my Reflecta Pro Scan at 3600 DPI which gives me around 17mp files, and the corners had no problems whatsoever. I am currently overseas on holidays but I can post samples next week.
Perhaps because I can use the 21 or the 25/2.8 when I donīt need ugly corners to be part of the composition. Or because I prefer not to peep in ugly corners if the lens is expensive enough. 