edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
I've always thought this is caused by non flat film plane.
edwardkaraa wrote:
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.
No need, I believe you...just surprised since the ZA24 was designed fairly recently long after the A900 was out. Seems like they would have figured out a way to solve it on digital FF. Now I'm curious how these lenses might perform on future FF sensors which perhaps will not have AA filters and other toppings.
Toothwalker wrote:
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.
Well "consternation" would suggest anxiety over an unexpected result and I would not call the responses critiquing the 25/2 performance in the corners/ borders at greater distances unexpected or anxiety riddled. It's completely as expected given the MTF and all posted sampels thus far and is a valid response to the OP.
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
I've always thought this is caused by non flat film plane.
Non-flat as in curved? Don't all small format cameras have a perfectly flat pressure plate (and the Contax RTS even a vacuum system to ensure that the film is pressed against it)? I think a curved film plane will probably be bad for corner performance in most cases.
"The diffusion effects of film combined with the Lorentian diffusion (normal types of reversal or negative film types that is, not archival density microfilm) can keep an MTF-50 up to 30lp/mm in red and maybe 70lp/mm in blue.
Normal MTF50 for the green layer in reversal film is 45-50lp/mm. This gives a 3600x2400 resolution frame on a 36x24mm negative - about the same resolution capability as a 9MP digital camera. Kodak and Fuji have film datasheets at their sites, even today.
But the important part is that film both diffuses resolution and compresses DR a lot, and that it diffuses differently in red and blue. Film behaves like if you took the red channel in a digital capture and ran a few pixel radiuses of Gaussian blur on it (without touching the others).
Add this to the fact that the three (sometimes more) layers of emulsion add up to a thickness of 60-90µm (less in some T-grain films, more in quite a few other types), and that the output DR is seriously constricted, and you have contained/minimized the problem."
Tariq Gibran wrote:
No need, I believe you...just surprised since the ZA24 was designed fairly recently long after the A900 was out. Seems like they would have figured out a way to solve it on digital FF. Now I'm curious how these lenses might perform on future FF sensors which perhaps will not have AA filters and other toppings.
Imo, the A900 sensor causes some additional problems with wide angles than other FF models from other brands. I believe the AA filter is placed further away from the sensor to minimize the dust problem, and this effectively increases any image degradation in the corners. I don't think Zeiss designs a lens with a specific Sony sensor in mind, but rather following certain general guidelines.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Imo, the A900 sensor causes some additional problems with wide angles than other FF models from other brands. I believe the AA filter is placed further away from the sensor to minimize the dust problem, and this effectively increases any image degradation in the corners. I don't think Zeiss designs a lens with a specific Sony sensor in mind, but rather following certain general guidelines.
Oh, so you think Zeiss actually designs the ZA lenses? Just kidding. It would be interesting to really know what goes on with the design of the Sony Zeiss lenses.
I am really really not trying to hate but if Zeiss is going to price this lens so close to their legendary lenses (21mm f2.8, 100mm f2 and 35mm f1.4) then it had better perform up to that level. It seems that this is a good lens priced like a GREAT lens. I think people would cut it more slack if it were priced like the 35mm f2.
dadgummit wrote:
I am really really not trying to hate but if Zeiss is going to price this lens so close to their legendary lenses (21mm f2.8, 100mm f2 and 35mm f1.4) then it had better perform up to that level. It seems that this is a good lens priced like a GREAT lens. I think people would cut it more slack if it were priced like the 35mm f2.
Light_pilgrim wrote:
Zeiss 35 1.4 - since when it is a legend? :-)
Original Contax 35mm f1.4 is very famous fast 35. and qualify the lengend status I guess. The New ZE/ZF face more competition with new 35mm from other manufacture keep come in. It is still one of the best if not the best in terms of color, rendering, micro-contrast and even sharpness if we put difficult to use aside.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Oh, so you think Zeiss actually designs the ZA lenses? Just kidding. It would be interesting to really know what goes on with the design of the Sony Zeiss lenses.
According to Zeiss, they absolutely do in the same arrangement they have with Cosina. They have this somewhere on their sites.
Sad to say, I have never seen any thorough analysis of the differences in these lens series, leading to a suspicion the ZAs are very different from the ZEs. I guess the perception is that the Contax lineage Zeiss drawing style is more invested in the ZEs but that Minolta preferees enjoy the legacy Minolta blend in their Zeiss lenses.
And the brand loyalty if the 'SM' crowd is something to behold, so they would not even contemplate any outside lens comparisons - or so it seems.
Sony do seem to have too strong a hand in it, is my unsubstantiated take out, right or wrong.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Hmmm according to Lenstip, the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 isn't that great!
If I read correctly, it is overall best 35mm reviewed by them.
The only flaw to me is flare control but that is not surprising giving the huge front element. vignette is better, bokeh is better as well. Shaprness wide open only worse than 35L, better than 35G. Sharpness slow down is the best. What make it not great?
I have 35f2 as well, the flare seems not better, the front element is like bulb on that one.
Hmm not sure what you mean, the look of the 85 F1.4 and 135 F1.8 is very far from Minolta. There were some comparisons with the Minolta G lens 85 1.4 and the ZA lenses looked far different.
The 24-70 shares a lot more in common with the Contax zooms than the old Minolta's.
I feel Zeiss traded off corner/edge performance for making a smaller travel type lens.
With all the latest buzz on NEX and other smaller systems, I wonder if Zeiss is prioritizing a smaller size and weight for their designs now. ZE 35/1.4 maybe the last big heavy zeiss lens.
Considering how long the 25 has been in development with early prototype, I don't think it was a priority. Especially since they have an even better ZM line for RF cameras.
zhangyue wrote:
If I read correctly, it is overall best 35mm reviewed by them.
The only flaw to me is flare control but that is not surprising giving the huge front element. vignette is better, bokeh is better as well. Shaprness wide open only worse than 35L, better than 35G. Sharpness slow down is the best. What make it not great?
I have 35f2 as well, the flare seems not better, the front element is like bulb on that one.
Are you looking at the same review? The summery is fairly negative here:
"Taking into account the reputation of the producer we expected the lens to set new standards in this class of equipment. Was it really the case? Not entirely so; in fact in every test category the Zeiss had a strong rival. The tested lens is outstandingly sharp in the frame centre and provides useful photos up from the maximum relative aperture but exactly the same was written about the Canon 1.4/35L. When we pass to the frame edge, the cheap Samyang provides better images than the Zeiss. The lateral chromatic aberration is corrected well, but the problem is that the longitudinal CA is a lot higher and it doesn’t present the Zeiss in a favourable light, especially when compared to its rivals. The distortion of the Zeiss is, to tell you the truth, the lowest but the differences between the tested lens and other competitors aren’t huge. Despite being the heaviest and the biggest instrument the Zeiss didn’t fare well in the category of vignetting, losing again to the cheap Samyang or the small Sony. The coma is corrected in a splendid way only on the APS-C/DX sensor, becoming already distinct in the corners of full frame. The work against bright light can’t be praised either as the majority of competitors fared better there."
Lenstip...this is the kind of checklist thinking that leads to Hyundais with feature bloat being regarded as highly as a Benz. Fine, until you have a crash in one.
Sharpness - same as Canon, edge - worse than Samyang, loCA - worse tham others, distortion - ~same, weight/bulk - bad, vignetting/backlight - worse than others.
I have no vested interest, but I am starting to see why photographers' (LC, Sean, MR) Zeiss reviews are sought after, and also why most test images are so poor.
People want to know what well-crafted images look like shot with the lens, strange as that may seem to review sites like these...if they want a perfect lens according to the PZ/LT 'reductionism to basic specs' tickbox approach, Zeiss would never sell a lens. 21mm Distagon - too much strange distortion, too much vignetting, fail!
Just kidding. It would be interesting to really know what goes on with the design of the Sony Zeiss lenses.