To quote our esteemed friend on this site, Roger Cicala, owner of Lensrentals:
"It’s an interesting lens...In terms of pure resolution it’s superb, generating numbers in our testing similar to the legendary 21mm f/2.8. Sharper than the Nikon or Canon 24mm f/1.4 lenses when shot at f/2.0. Sharper than any 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm lens we stock at f/2.0. And that’s both in the center and overall (weighted average) sharpness.
But there’s a bit of a catch: that’s for testing at middle distances (10 to 25 feet). But at infinity (where the MTF charts are made) it doesn’t seem quite as good (it’s still good, but not amazingly good), so there are probably better choices for landscape work."
Why should Cicala's be the final word? He runs a tight ship at LensRentals, but I'm immediately suspicious of anyone claiming better close-up sharpness than infinity sharpness for a wide-angle lens – and he seems to be talking about sharpness here (vignetting and distortion are another matter). In every case I know, those claims have not stood up to inspection. These lenses are almost always optimised for infinity, and I would need pretty strong evidence to believe otherwise for the new Distagon.
Which isn't to say the lens doesn't perform well for close subjects. All signs point to it delivering outright superb close-up sharpness.
Simon: I'll have another look at your photos while keeping in mind the new information about how you focused. I know comparison images are a lot of work for little reward, but do you anticipate wandering around again in the near future with both those lenses and your tripod?
S Dilworth wrote:
Why should Cicala's be the final word? He runs a tight ship at LensRentals, but I'm immediately suspicious of anyone claiming better close-up sharpness than infinity sharpness for a wide-angle lens – and he seems to be talking about sharpness here (vignetting and distortion are another matter). In every case I know, those claims have not stood up to inspection. These lenses are almost always optimised for infinity, and I would need pretty strong evidence to believe otherwise for the new Distagon.
Which isn't to say the lens doesn't perform well for close subjects. All signs point to it delivering outright superb close-up sharpness.
You'll have to explain that one. The sky was pretty much clear blue when I was shooting. There was some atmospheric haze but nothing changed in the minute or so that it took to shoot.
simonw wrote:
You'll have to explain that one. The sky was pretty much clear blue when I was shooting. There was some atmospheric haze but nothing changed in the minute or so that it took to shoot.
Cheers, Simon W.
By looking at the clouds in the full size image, I can see that they have moved and changed significantly between the shots. For a particular area the size of the sun disc, the difference in haze may be quite a bit. It is not easy for the eye to catch these differences, but it shows up un accurate comparison. I have experienced that a lot.
Simon, I like your test. It is carried out with the purpose of revealing corner performance stopped down at a distance representative of infinity. You have done that remarkably well, and I consider your results as definite. I will look no further for corner at infinity tests.
Using that same test to say something about micro contrast is risky. All outdoors tests are so, yes.
Thank you for clarifying - I didn't mean for that to sound as petulant as it came across. I wonder whether a fully cloudy sky might be better for maintaining even illumination? It just seems tricky to try and come up with an interior as rich in detail as a landscape or other exterior shot to test lens contrast.
Well, let's be frank here, I am not at all surprised by the excellent extreme corners of the Canon, simply because its image circle is much larger, and in reality, we are not looking at the extreme corners but somewhere much closer inside. On the other hand, what's so surprising about the flat look of the Canon and the more punchy look of the Zeiss, that we have to attribute it to different lighting when we all know these are deliberate characteristics of the lens makers? alundeb, you're just being a smartass, admit it
simonw wrote:
Thank you for clarifying - I didn't mean for that to sound as petulant as it came across. I wonder whether a fully cloudy sky might be better for maintaining even illumination? It just seems tricky to try and come up with an interior as rich in detail as a landscape or other exterior shot to test lens contrast.
Cheers, Simon W.
No problem Short replies often generate a little aftermath.
As a general rule, a test should be repeatable. Try 3 comparisons in a row (changing lenses), and see if you get the same results each time.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Well, let's be frank here, I am not at all surprised by the excellent extreme corners of the Canon, simply because its image circle is much larger, and in reality, we are not looking at the extreme corners but somewhere much closer inside. On the other hand, what's so surprising about the flat look of the Canon and the more punchy look of the Zeiss, that we have to attribute it to different lighting when we all know these are deliberate characteristics of the lens makers? alundeb, you're just being a smartass, admit it
I admit it
You have even reminded me of the problem with changing light yourself, a while ago, Edward
I just don't see that difference in these RAW files I kindly had access to-
I don't see a dull look in my own TSE-24 II either. It is also mentioned as one of the Canon lenses with most "Zeiss like microcontrast" by some Zeiss fans.
Edward -- I guess I missed something -- I didn't realize the conversation was about the 24 TS-E II vs. the Zeiss 25/2. I thought the comparison was against the 24/1.4L at similar apertures. I don't see how the 24 TS-E's larger image circle, smaller aperture, and special correction could be competed against by the 25/2. If that's the case, the 24 TS-E is the lens to buy unless you specifically need f/1.4 to f/2.8. IQ is just amazing, and as alundeb says, very "Zeissy".
I remember a long time back, Boris posted some comparison shots between ZE21 and TS-E24mk2, one scene was a landscape and the other was a church interior if I remember correctly. In those shots there was a microcontrast difference I thought. Have to look for that one. Maybe different light in those too, don't remember.
BTW, Simon sent me another scene of comparison shots which I can post later today. Not sure if those have consistent lighting or not.
Thanks again Simon, as this interesting comparing different lenses.
wayne seltzer wrote:
I remember a long time back, Boris posted some comparison shots between ZE21 and TS-E24mk2, one scene was a landscape and the other was a church interior if I remember correctly. In those shots there was a microcontrast difference I thought. Have to look for that one. Maybe different light in those too, don't remember.
BTW, Simon sent me another scene of comparison shots which I can post later today. Not sure if those have consistent lighting or not.
Thanks again Simon, as this interesting comparing different lenses.
I don't see a dull look in my own TSE-24 II either. It is also mentioned as one of the Canon lenses with most "Zeiss like microcontrast" by some Zeiss fans.
Thanks for linking to that discussion. I was not aware of it. However, I understand that everyone seems to agree that the canon is more clinical but flat. The difference isn't huge but still clear, to be fair. I would expect more difference with a lens like 24/1.4L.
Gunzorro wrote:
Edward -- I guess I missed something -- I didn't realize the conversation was about the 24 TS-E II vs. the Zeiss 25/2. I thought the comparison was against the 24/1.4L at similar apertures. I don't see how the 24 TS-E's larger image circle, smaller aperture, and special correction could be competed against by the 25/2. If that's the case, the 24 TS-E is the lens to buy unless you specifically need f/1.4 to f/2.8. IQ is just amazing, and as alundeb says, very "Zeissy".
Yep, I agree with you, but while it is very Zeissy, it is not quite at the same level of the Zeiss lens, but probably the most Zeissy among canon wides
Short replies often generate a little aftermath.