This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2012The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
p.17 #1The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
I myself am amazed by the Canon corner sharpness and overall lack of micro contrast 
Feb 13, 2012 at 10:38 AM
p.17 #2The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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."
That ought to be the final word.
"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."
That ought to be the final word.
Feb 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM
p.17 #3The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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?
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?
Feb 13, 2012 at 11:32 AM
p.17 #4The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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...Show more →
Well, maybe because the individual testing here seems to correspond with his work using lens testing equipment?
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...Show more →
Well, maybe because the individual testing here seems to correspond with his work using lens testing equipment?
Feb 13, 2012 at 11:42 AM
p.17 #5The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
edwardkaraa wrote:
I myself am amazed by the Canon corner sharpness and overall lack of micro contrast
Different light.
I myself am amazed by the Canon corner sharpness and overall lack of micro contrast
Different light.
Feb 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM
p.17 #6The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
alundeb wrote:
Different light.
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.
edwardkaraa wrote
I myself am amazed by the Canon corner sharpness and overall lack of micro contrastYou'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.
Feb 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM
p.17 #7The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
simonw wrote:
Different light.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.
alundeb wrote
edwardkaraa wrote
I myself am amazed by the Canon corner sharpness and overall lack of micro contrastCheers, 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.
Feb 13, 2012 at 11:56 AM
p.17 #8The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
At which point you may as well say that any exterior test will be flawed?
Cheers, Simon W.
Cheers, Simon W.
Feb 13, 2012 at 12:09 PM
p.17 #9The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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.
Using that same test to say something about micro contrast is risky. All outdoors tests are so, yes.
Feb 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM
p.17 #10The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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.
Cheers, Simon W.
Feb 13, 2012 at 01:05 PM
p.17 #11The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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
Feb 13, 2012 at 01:14 PM
p.17 #12The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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.
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.
Feb 13, 2012 at 01:31 PM
p.17 #13The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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-
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1076595/0#10247372
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.
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-
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1076595/0#10247372
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.
Feb 13, 2012 at 01:34 PM
p.17 #14The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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".
Feb 13, 2012 at 01:45 PM
p.17 #15The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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.
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.
Feb 13, 2012 at 02:29 PM
p.17 #16The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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.
Wayne, you can find the images here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/868242/0
and here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834861/0
Boris
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, you can find the images here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/868242/0
and here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834861/0
Boris
Feb 13, 2012 at 03:11 PM
p.17 #17The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
Bobu wrote:
Wayne, you can find the images here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/868242/0
and here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834861/0
Boris
Thanks, I missed those. Was the same white balance used for the lighthouse shots in the first link? The Zeiss 21 looks _much_ warmer.
Wayne, you can find the images here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/868242/0
and here:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834861/0
Boris
Thanks, I missed those. Was the same white balance used for the lighthouse shots in the first link? The Zeiss 21 looks _much_ warmer.
Feb 13, 2012 at 03:24 PM
p.17 #18The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
edwardkaraa wrote:
Extreme corner blurriness.... Hmmmmmmm. You guys really must have very high standards.
They probably mean extreme-corner blurriness, not extreme corner blurriness.
Extreme corner blurriness.... Hmmmmmmm. You guys really must have very high standards.
They probably mean extreme-corner blurriness, not extreme corner blurriness.
Feb 13, 2012 at 05:13 PM
p.17 #19The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
alundeb wrote:
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-
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1076595/0#10247372
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.
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 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-
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1076595/0#10247372
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.
Feb 13, 2012 at 09:06 PM
p.17 #20The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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
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
Feb 13, 2012 at 09:08 PM