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.5 #1The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
zhangyue wrote:
1) First and foremost, I have never said the ZE 25/2 or ZE 35/1.4 which I have discussed critically in many threads in this forum were ever a bad or terrible lens. I have mentioned their good points as well as their bad points and let people decide which factors are more important to them and which lens is best for them.
2) This is a technical gear forum where we discuss the bad points and good points of all lenses. What we hope to do here is cut out all the fanboi BS and keep it real. I shoot all brands of alt lenses and try to keep a fair analysis of all lenses. No lens is perfect (although my Leica 100/2.8 APO and 180/2.8 are pretty close) and so we discuss a laundry list of attributes of a lens objectively and then individually make our decision based on our own weightings. I don't see how mentioning that a lens is not sharp in the corner when it isn't, is trashing the lens. 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. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
3) Some people find that knowing a lenses strengths and weaknesses is helpful in getting the most of a lens and knowing when to use that lens for a certain type of shooting vs. another lens.
For that you need to know the good and the bad.
4) I was one of the first few people in this forum with the ZE 50/2MP and found it to be an amazing lens.
Then Boris posted a good comparison with the CZ 35-70 at 35 and showed that the extreme (last 2-3%) corners were blurred till around f5.6. To me that is not a serious problem and I still love the lens and didn't take it like he was trashing the lens. It was interesting fact to know. Much later Carsten found the lens to have some field curvature at mid distances which he documented. I never really saw this with my copy but then I wasn't shooting a lot of mid distance with narrower DOF to get separation from background. I was using my 50P for that which I like for that type of shooting. I still love the 50MP and don't worry if other people don't like it. I think Snowboarder returned his copy right away and doesn't like the lens. That is ok with me. IMO that the performance across the frame for far distance scene vista landscape shots is much better with the 50MP than the new 25/2 ZE. By f5.6 the last 2% of corner rendered by the 50MP is sharp and it is solid all the way across. It is why I and others like to use it for stitching landscape shots.
5) I have said in other threads that the new 25/2 will be great for those who do a lot of street/city shooting, shooting of fountains etc. I even reassured Philber that this lens will be great for him and his type of shooting. If I was trashing the lens I would not be doing that right?
6) I started awhile back my alt lens journey to this forum, because I was unhappy with my wide angle lens, 16-35, performance across the frame. I then discovered here how Zeiss and Leica rendered color better, micro-contrast, etc. I have a lot of Zeiss glass and all of them have great across the frame performance when stopped down except maybe my contax N 85/1.4 which is an excellent portrait lens, designed for bokeh and is ok to not have sharp corners. This new 25/2 is the first new lens from Zeiss which doesn't excel at far distance. Which is ok, if you don't do much far distance shooting.
Seems like a lot people here equate Zeiss to only the Zeiss color,microcontrast, and traditional Zeiss look, but not with being excellent in sharpness across the frame. Fine, maybe Zeiss knows all it needs to do is produce lens with excellent color,very-low CA, microcontrast, and not have to worry about sharpness to keep the typical Zeiss fanboi happy.
7) Finally, without striving for designing the closest to perfect lens as possible, and people like Herr Schuster there would be no great lens designs like CZ 21. I have said this before, but I expect zeiss to make industry leading designs. Canon and Nikon have their new 24/1.4's which are top notch and soon we will have an entry from the upstart Samyang which will be 1.4 also.
BTW, I just saw that B&H has some in stock on their website right now. Surprised they haven't sold out like they usually do for newly introduced Zeiss lenses.
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...Show more →
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.
wayne seltzer wrote
Ok, I hope the people who just piped up about perceived trashing/flaming of lenses have gotten it out of their system. I would like to reply to all this:1) First and foremost, I have never said the ZE 25/2 or ZE 35/1.4 which I have discussed critically in many threads in this forum were ever a bad or terrible lens. I have mentioned their good points as well as their bad points and let people decide which factors are more important to them and which lens is best for them.
2) This is a technical gear forum where we discuss the bad points and good points of all lenses. What we hope to do here is cut out all the fanboi BS and keep it real. I shoot all brands of alt lenses and try to keep a fair analysis of all lenses. No lens is perfect (although my Leica 100/2.8 APO and 180/2.8 are pretty close) and so we discuss a laundry list of attributes of a lens objectively and then individually make our decision based on our own weightings. I don't see how mentioning that a lens is not sharp in the corner when it isn't, is trashing the lens. 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. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
3) Some people find that knowing a lenses strengths and weaknesses is helpful in getting the most of a lens and knowing when to use that lens for a certain type of shooting vs. another lens.
For that you need to know the good and the bad.
4) I was one of the first few people in this forum with the ZE 50/2MP and found it to be an amazing lens.
Then Boris posted a good comparison with the CZ 35-70 at 35 and showed that the extreme (last 2-3%) corners were blurred till around f5.6. To me that is not a serious problem and I still love the lens and didn't take it like he was trashing the lens. It was interesting fact to know. Much later Carsten found the lens to have some field curvature at mid distances which he documented. I never really saw this with my copy but then I wasn't shooting a lot of mid distance with narrower DOF to get separation from background. I was using my 50P for that which I like for that type of shooting. I still love the 50MP and don't worry if other people don't like it. I think Snowboarder returned his copy right away and doesn't like the lens. That is ok with me. IMO that the performance across the frame for far distance scene vista landscape shots is much better with the 50MP than the new 25/2 ZE. By f5.6 the last 2% of corner rendered by the 50MP is sharp and it is solid all the way across. It is why I and others like to use it for stitching landscape shots.
5) I have said in other threads that the new 25/2 will be great for those who do a lot of street/city shooting, shooting of fountains etc. I even reassured Philber that this lens will be great for him and his type of shooting. If I was trashing the lens I would not be doing that right?
6) I started awhile back my alt lens journey to this forum, because I was unhappy with my wide angle lens, 16-35, performance across the frame. I then discovered here how Zeiss and Leica rendered color better, micro-contrast, etc. I have a lot of Zeiss glass and all of them have great across the frame performance when stopped down except maybe my contax N 85/1.4 which is an excellent portrait lens, designed for bokeh and is ok to not have sharp corners. This new 25/2 is the first new lens from Zeiss which doesn't excel at far distance. Which is ok, if you don't do much far distance shooting.
Seems like a lot people here equate Zeiss to only the Zeiss color,microcontrast, and traditional Zeiss look, but not with being excellent in sharpness across the frame. Fine, maybe Zeiss knows all it needs to do is produce lens with excellent color,very-low CA, microcontrast, and not have to worry about sharpness to keep the typical Zeiss fanboi happy.
7) Finally, without striving for designing the closest to perfect lens as possible, and people like Herr Schuster there would be no great lens designs like CZ 21. I have said this before, but I expect zeiss to make industry leading designs. Canon and Nikon have their new 24/1.4's which are top notch and soon we will have an entry from the upstart Samyang which will be 1.4 also.
BTW, I just saw that B&H has some in stock on their website right now. Surprised they haven't sold out like they usually do for newly introduced Zeiss lenses.
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...Show more →
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.
Jan 12, 2012 at 09:39 PM
p.5 #2The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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.
Jan 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM
p.5 #3The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Finally, Jorge ends up posting a series of nice, VERY CLOSE, shots from the lens.
They are indeed very nice images, from the 35/1.4.
Finally, Jorge ends up posting a series of nice, VERY CLOSE, shots from the lens.
They are indeed very nice images, from the 35/1.4.
Jan 12, 2012 at 10:46 PM
p.5 #4The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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?
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?
Jan 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM
p.5 #5The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
Thorsten wrote:
They are indeed very nice images, from the 35/1.4.
I missed that. Thanks.
Tariq Gibran wrote
Finally, Jorge ends up posting a series of nice, VERY CLOSE, shots from the lens.I missed that. Thanks.
Jan 12, 2012 at 10:58 PM
p.5 #6The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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.
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.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.
Jan 12, 2012 at 11:04 PM
p.5 #7The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
Tariq Gibran wrote:
This thread has become somewhat silly
Somewhat, perhaps. But it´s 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.
This thread has become somewhat silly
Somewhat, perhaps. But it´s 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.
Jan 12, 2012 at 11:15 PM
p.5 #8The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
Gunzorro wrote:
I believe spherical aberration and light fall-off are related. No?
I don't believe so. SA is related to light fall-off within blur discs, but not specifically to fall-off across the frame.
Vignetting: http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html
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.
Edited on Jan 13, 2012 at 01:25 AM · View previous versions
I believe spherical aberration and light fall-off are related. No?
I don't believe so. SA is related to light fall-off within blur discs, but not specifically to fall-off across the frame.
Vignetting: http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html
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.
Edited on Jan 13, 2012 at 01:25 AM · View previous versions
Jan 13, 2012 at 12:30 AM
p.5 #9The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Some folks then go into religious "witness" mode, replete with bad corny poetry and all (sorry, I know it's subjective).
Ant's poem was very much tongue in cheek, and although he's a fan of the lens, he's acknowledges it's flaws.
Some folks then go into religious "witness" mode, replete with bad corny poetry and all (sorry, I know it's subjective).
Ant's poem was very much tongue in cheek, and although he's a fan of the lens, he's acknowledges it's flaws.Jan 13, 2012 at 12:48 AM
p.5 #10The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
Jorge, please can you share more distance samples.
Jan 13, 2012 at 12:49 AM
p.5 #11The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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.
FYI: Zeiss MTF datasheet
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/service/download_center/current_data_sheets/current_data_sheets_slr.html
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.
FYI: Zeiss MTF datasheet
http://lenses.zeiss.com/photo/en_DE/service/download_center/current_data_sheets/current_data_sheets_slr.html
Jan 13, 2012 at 01:20 AM
p.5 #12The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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.
All I want is for a lens' great stregths to make me smile. You are right, that probably makes me a blissful ignorant.
Jan 13, 2012 at 02:05 AM
p.5 #13The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
philber wrote:
All I want is for a lens' great stregths to make me smile. .
+1
All I want is for a lens' great stregths to make me smile. .
+1
Jan 13, 2012 at 02:20 AM
p.5 #14The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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.
,
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.
,
Jan 13, 2012 at 02:32 AM
p.5 #15The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
This is @ f/5.6 from the review. Check the top right corner. Very 50MPesque.
http://www.thephoblographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Zeiss-25mm-f2-Review-photos-15-of-23.jpg
http://www.thephoblographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Chris-Gampat-The-Phoblographer-Zeiss-25mm-f2-Review-photos-15-of-23.jpg
Jan 13, 2012 at 02:42 AM
p.5 #16The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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.
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.
Jan 13, 2012 at 11:04 AM
p.5 #17The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
AhamB wrote:
I don't believe so. SA is related to light fall-off within blur discs, but not specifically to fall-off across the frame.
Correct.
Vignetting: http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html
I have seen that page before.
Gunzorro wrote
I believe spherical aberration and light fall-off are related. No?Correct.
Vignetting: http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html
I have seen that page before.
Jan 13, 2012 at 11:14 AM
p.5 #18The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
SKumar25 wrote:
This is @ f/5.6 from the review. Check the top right corner. Very 50MPesque.
skip the pic here
but that is a F2 shot, is it?
This is @ f/5.6 from the review. Check the top right corner. Very 50MPesque.
skip the pic here
but that is a F2 shot, is it?
Jan 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM
p.5 #19The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
zhangyue wrote:
skip the pic herebut that is a F2 shot, is it?
Yes, that is an F/2 shot. It is a compliment to compare the D2/25 at F/2 to the MP2/50 at F/5.6.
SKumar25 wrote
This is @ f/5.6 from the review. Check the top right corner. Very 50MPesque.skip the pic here
Yes, that is an F/2 shot. It is a compliment to compare the D2/25 at F/2 to the MP2/50 at F/5.6.
Jan 13, 2012 at 12:10 PM
p.5 #20The new 25mm f2 Distagon ZF
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...
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...
Jan 13, 2012 at 01:12 PM