zhangyue wrote:
I don't know who you refer about Fanboi and keep use that word as many as you can. I see there is strong bias attitude going on this thread make me wonder what happen to this lens so that was my reply. I don't even think I offend anybody in my post.
You seems refer anybody disagree with you about this lens is a Zeiss Fanboi. Did I or anybody say anything corner is extreme sharp. All I am saying is you pick the lens suit you and be happy. To me, the biggest selling point of Zeiss always is color and micro_contrast and bokeh I love. Is that make me a Zeiss fanboi? If you look photozone lens review, almost all latest 50mm, 35mm nikon or canon is sharper than equivalent Zeiss after f4. Look at 85G, 50G 35G compare to P85, MP50/P50, D35f2.
There has nothing wrong to point out flaw of the lens. Or make constructive suggestion about a lens but If I use every single thread to point out CA of MP100, corner soft of MP50, or wide open softness of P50, SA of D35f1.4, focus shift of P85, does that sound weird?
This 25mm is not even in my purchase list. The lens make you disappoint does not necessary disappoint others who have no interesting what so ever about extreme corner sharpness.
It is common here in the non-image threads, especially the "here is a new lens" type of thread to talk about lens properties, good or bad.
I don't do it in the dedicated image threads we have here.
You are new here, but you might want to know that Lenstip and Photozone are not well thought of here because they do their testing at only one distance which is equivalent to very close up shooting and their results are very different from normal user experience because of this.
I use the word Fanboi only for those that can't except someone pointing out the cons of a lens if it is their favorite brand.
You have not understood that I mention good points about the lens and what the type of shooting I think the lens is good for and have never said this lens is bad. I point out good and bad points about any lens brand in the same way. I never tell anyone here not to buy this lens or tell them which lens to buy or not to buy. In these new threads we give our analysis of the performance of the lens in the few test shots we have to go on and discuss it. Then when people post a thread asking which lens they should buy, everyone gives a list of pros and cons of each lens and then which one they like better.
What I like about this forum is that some people have taken the time and effort to do lens comparisons which are well done and give you insight into the differences between competing lenses. Some people might not want to know and that is fine, don't read those threads.
This thread has become somewhat silly given Jorge's initial post was somewhat of a taunt "I have heard some people say that the new 25 f2 from Zeiss is only good for close up work. I respectfully disagree. I snapped this shot today just to see how well it does on far away subjects." He then posted a medium distant image with a few 100%, 12MP crops of closer subjects which showed some softness. A few folks point this out and all hell breaks loose. Is that sacrilegious or something? Some folks then go into religious "witness" mode, replete with bad corny poetry and all (sorry, I know it's subjective). Finally, Jorge ends up posting a series of nice, VERY CLOSE, shots from the lens. Perhaps we could see some images which show off the original taunt Jorge made instead, you know, "far away subjects"? I think most know it's great close up.
wayne seltzer wrote:
If you don't want to know all the bad points of your new Zeiss lens then don't read these threads. Just buy it and live happily.
This is a perfect summary to end these discussions.
The 25/2 has a bit soft corners at the distance, I don't think anybody disputes this.
This does not make it a bad lens, I don't think anybody claims this.
So what again have we been arguing about?
Thorsten wrote:
This is a perfect summary to end these discussions.
The 25/2 has a bit soft corners at the distance, I don't think anybody disputes this.
Jorge seemed to be aiming his initial post exactly at those who have claimed this so it seems perhaps he was disputing it by starting the thread. The corner issue at greater distance is the only criticism he could be referring to that I'm aware of.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This thread has become somewhat silly
Somewhat, perhaps. But itīs a magnificent example of the fact that you get a far wider and more inspired/heated responses, even poetry, by being slightly off than by a technically accurate assessment that says it all in the original post.
What turns me off, totally, and makes me so sad is when one or two of the lousy Lenstip-Photozone-type of review sites are sited as Truth. I get a distinct feeling that although the internet is a massive source of information, any good golden grain of truth is lost in the avalanche of half lies, beliefs and marketing hype. Of some reason ignorance grows exponentially with the total amount of "information". It takes more to really understand than to just google the "facts". Sorry for the rambling.
Also: I'm done discussing the 25/2 unless more interesting shots closer to true infinity (more representative of classical landscapes) are posted. This thread is turning into all-fluff. Edit: I'm not specifically expecting Jorge to prove anything, but I'll be watching the forum in general for more people to put this lens through its paces.
I have found photozone's review quite match my personal experience in terms of lens performance. So it is one of the source I use. I bet many people either refer it as some sort of reference or starting point or use Zeiss/leica/canikon... MTF chart as starting point to judge lens before own the lens or more samples showing up. There is nothing wrong with that. I treat that as a useful info, and thank/respect their effort. at least they don't charge us anything for those hard work
For review site, they supply fact, you do judgement. Nothing wrong with it. So, even Lenstip review actually is pretty accurate predict the flaw of lens, say Zeiss35 or echo the rave about samyang 35.
The argument was start with one after one negative comment say dullness, nothing Zeiss color, soft corner.. make me wonder what happen to this lens.
How many people really try themselves? what make some people have more credit saying is soft before any critical setup showing/supporting its claim. I don't know the setup of original photo took, with tripod or not, with mirror lock up, how is air condition... even I feel it is just fine foto with good sharpness 100%.
If I look at D25 MTF at f4, sure it is not that D21 great, and agree it drop quite deep after 20mm, which is only relevant to extreme corner. But it actually better than D35f2 and comparable to MP50 at F5.6 from MTF. And We all know MP50 is very good landscaping lens. Why suddenly this is not good for landscaping? Not to say D25 MTF is at f4, if it is at f5.6, who knows the corner may pick up more.
As far as I know, Zeiss MTF is based on infinity measurement. So, Why this lens can't do landscape shot suddenly? It does has very good performance at close range, that is awsome performance there, how come we draw conclusion from it that is optimized at close range? If this lens inherent MP family performance, it will be good for both close and infinity. It is highly possible at least from MTF and close up samples suggested. At this stage, I trust more from what I see in the MTF before I see more example support your infinity& extreme corner soft theory.
Consider wide lens is usually hard to design. so if the lens reach MP50/100 performance with f2 max aperture, that is quite a achievement.
It is perfect fine to discuss or have disagreement but throw 'Fanboi'.. make it a personal attack. I don't see any benefit or constructive as you claimed of doing that.
Wayne, I wrote a lengthy rant, and then canned it. Then another one and canned it as well.
All I want is for a lens' great stregths to make me smile. You are right, that probably makes me a blissful ignorant.
The photozone and lenstip lens tests are done at a distance equivalent to near MFD and not at normal or far distance. They don't take into account if a lens has field curvature.
There have been enough tests which have deveated from what people here have experienced.
I remember one of them had a bad review of the 24/1.4G saying something like the lens performed so poorly it was as if it was decentered and they never tried another copy.
Just ripped it and moved on. Not anywhere near the truth. There are other cases.
This has been discussed s lot before and there are many here who don't like lenstip and photozone.worse yet photozone conclusions don't match the rest of the review. They usually rip a Zeiss lend for vignetting.
Most people here look at posted shots with the lens and make observations.
Did you see Roger's thread where he posted side by side shots of the 25/2 and 21/2.8 at far distance?These document the edge/ corner fall off. He also tested all his copies of thelens to verify they were ok and not decentered.
The picture in the beginning of this thread has soft corners.
Even the reviewer in the other 25 thread right now said the lens didn't perform as well at distance.
The lens performs well at closer distances and has the slightly more saturated colors and very low CAlike the 35/1.4. Vignetting is quite a bit wide open and doesn't completely go away to f4.
It has good flare resistance.bokeh is much better than old 25/2.8.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Did you see Roger's thread where he posted side by side shots of the 25/2 and 21/2.8 at far distance?These document the edge/ corner fall off. He also tested all his copies of thelens to verify they were ok and not decentered.
Unless there was some accidental error on Rogers part, I doubt we will ever see something as conclusive with regard to the 25/2 performance at greater distances given the number of samples of the lens he has.
I have been informed by MM. Zeiss that they are shipping my lens early next week to the French distributor, who should ship it onwards to my dealer, who should...
So, the end of next week sounds like time when I might do some shooting with ZE 21, ZE35 f:1.4 and ZE 25. I might not be so ignorant after that, and I'm hoping I'm still as blissful...
Ant's poem was very much tongue in cheek, and although he's a fan of the lens, he's acknowledges it's flaws.