edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
I also agree with that, but prefer to say "less distortion, less vignetting, slightly less lateral CA, slightly different color balance, very slightly less micro contrast" instead of "clinical but flat". And of those, the difference in micro contrast is the least visible to me. The 2/25 may yield a higher resolution in the center, but this will be revealed only with higher pixel densities.
The difference to the 24 /1.4 L II isn't that much either. Mainly lateral CA, I saw that in LC's comparison.
The main difference to modern Canon lenses IMO is the transition focus-defocus and the out of focus rendering. There I like the Zeiss wide angles better.
Wayne, the last set of crops seems to show more CA with the Canon than with the Zeiss. Yet I seem to recall a comment that the Canon had none at all, and the Zeiss only very little. How does this stack up?
That's partly my fault. As I walked along shooting I wanted to minimise the amount of lens swapping I did so the sequence would go ZE, TSE. TSE, ZE. ZE, TSE, etc.
I for one is very distraught over how professional lens testers can publish such tests without a feeling for when they've got a dysfunctional lens. Are they in a hurry to get clicks?
philber wrote:
Nah, he didn't slip. He was just testing us to see who is asleep at the wheel...
Ha!Ha! No fooling you guys. No sorry, I did this fast and was assuming they were in the same order but makes sense they were taken in reverse order this 2nd time to save an extra lens change. Sorry guys, hopefully fixed the labels now.
The ZE 25/2 does well in normal landscape shot like this where there is nothing in the corners at infinity, although the extreme corners in the foreground still get smeared some compared to center bottom border.
Rodluvan wrote:
Wow, the 1.4/24 sure has lamer colors.
Not sure if exposures are exactly matching but yes the harsh lighting hurts the less contrasty 24G and washes out some of the color. The Zeiss lenses excel in this type of harsh lighting.
For landscape like this I always will use my 21 over the 24G. But for low light and narrow DOF type shots I will use my 24G over the 21.
We have been offered a new Distagon lens to test and for the time being we have removed the latest test images from our web site. Please observer that we found two problems when we took the test images: Disapointing sharpness at larger aperatures and a very heavy fall-off at aperature 2.0 (the whole image looks underexposed). When we get a new copy of the lens we will add new test images on the site.
Wayne -- The Zeiss 25/2 sure looks a lot better than the sample Nikon 24/1.4G! Wow, I'm surprised how poor the Nikon did with CA and overall softness. You'd think f/5.6 would be about the ideal aperture for a f/1.4 lens like that.
The shots from Simon seem to confirm what I've previously read that the focal length might be closer to 26mm than 25mm -- any confirmation on that for the Zeiss. It looked highly cropped compared to the Canon.
ebarile -- I'm glad you're taking another look at this lens. My only concern is whether Zeiss is cherry-picking, or one is being sent from regular production run. It will be good to see the edges and corners for lens coverage/vignetting.
ebarile wrote:
We have been offered a new Distagon lens to test and for the time being we have removed the latest test images from our web site. Please observer that we found two problems when we took the test images: Disapointing sharpness at larger aperatures and a very heavy fall-off at aperature 2.0 (the whole image looks underexposed). When we get a new copy of the lens we will add new test images on the site.
I did not notice these problems when I saw your review yesterday. It just looks like you misfocused it.
Gunzorro wrote:
The shots from Simon seem to confirm what I've previously read that the focal length might be closer to 26mm than 25mm -- any confirmation on that for the Zeiss. It looked highly cropped compared to the Canon.
From Wayne's comparison one can obtain a fairly accurate estimate of the relative focal lengths.
If the D2.8/21 is 21.0 mm, the D2/25 is 24.9 +/- 0.2 mm
If the 24/1.4G is 24.0 mm, the D2/25 is 25.0 +/- 0.2 mm
