Finally my ZE 25 f:2.0 that was promised again and again by Zeiss themselves has failed to materialise. One mail to my dealer said it was due to Zeiss closing down for inventory. One mail by a senior exec said that my lens had been dropped and needed checking and replacing. Be it what it may, no 25 f:2.0 as I leave for 2 weeks of travel.
One day, maybe...
wayne seltzer wrote:
But I know lenrentals where I am renting my copy of 25/2 only had ZF.2 version and they were waiting for Zeiss to send them the ZE version. Yes, it is weird since the ZE was released first, but they must have a short supply/manufacturing issue on the ZE version and not on the ZF.
We received one ZE today out of 14 ordered, so I guess they're just starting to trickle in.
As I'm reading in this and another post that someone have had a poorly performed with focus to infinity, we have requested again another unit for make a new samples focusing on infinity. If the weather allow it, this weekend we will carry out such evidence. In the same time will make a comparison with Distagon 21/2,8. If someone is interested in a particular test, now is the time to comment before the lens drive back to Germany.
G.Pierre: I think those samples from Lloyd Chambers which were soft at infinity where taken at rather close range of about 1-2m and closed down to extend the sharpness. But my subscription just ran out, so maybe someone can check again.
Maybe test both lenses focused to infinity and focused to closer than infinity on an object at 5m, 3m, 2m, 1m 0,5m and doing all appertures obviously. If you find some softness at a particular range for example at 2m do some more testing at 2,5 m and 1,5 m to figure out if this happens just at a certain distance.
Looking forward to your results and thanks for doing the tests!
wayne: looking very good wide open on all shots. Very nice rendering at all distances.
will you buy the lens?
could you post some 100% crops of your infinity shots (at least that beach shot)?
thanks for posting your tests!
G. Pierre, I would like to see some tests done at longer distances - landscape vistas, distant trees, mountains, whatever, which might reveal any softness in the cornes and image side borders. This is where the weakness has been shown previously with the 25/2 even stopped down.
cyra, Lloyds does have at least one test of the 25/2 at a much further distance than 1-2m that showed the weak corners stopped down if I recall (I no longer subscribe).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
G. Pierre, I would like to see some tests done at longer distances - landscape vistas, distant trees, mountains, whatever, which might reveal any softness in the cornes and image side borders.
Well, I had thought these three scenes, plus add mountains.
All the shootings we will make after... 2 minutes after, with the Distagon 21/2,8.
Regards
Thank you. Those should show image border performance near the middle but with all the blue sky, will not show upper borders or distant corner performance. The first scene, Temple on the Mountain, would be perfect for showing upper corner performance at distance if either the lens was slightly tilted down or the scene taken at a lower height (tilting the camera down so that the distant mountains are at the top corners would be perfect actually). I really appreciate the effort.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Thanks Cyra! I will post now the beach shot crops which show corner problem at f8 at infinity distance:
Probably I will get it some time in future. But will keep 21 and 24G/1.4!
First shot is whole scene sharpened for web.
Crops are 100%, unsharpened.
That's actually a little disappointing as those bottom corners are in the foreground and at a closer distance (yet still far away enough to be infinity focus). I would have expected that poor performance at a greater distance but not quite that close.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
That's actually a little disappointing as those bottom corners are in the foreground and at a closer distance (yet still far away enough to be infinity focus). I would have expected that poor performance at a greater distance but not quite that close.
Yes, it doesn't even go away by f8, which this shot was taken with.
I shot middle range comparison shots against the Stanford church with 25/2,21/2.8 and 24G/1.4 which I will try to post next.
This lens is much better at close to mid range shots, justnot the best for far scenic vista shots.
thanks wayne, how far away where you from that rock on the right?
oof: it is only a really small bit on the edge though, I guess, if it bothered me in a shot, I would just crop a bit, that'll make it what - a 26mm lens? I don't think it would keep me from using the lens at infinity, or keep me from buying it. ( I am a "used-lenses-buyer" though, so it is still out of reach for me as new, unless I sell a bunch of other lenses, like the 25/2.8 and the 28/2.0 and the 35/2.0 all together)
what do you like better about the 24G except the AF and 1.4?
I'm a little surprised by how far into the frame the corner softness extends. The article I read referred to "extreme corner performance" is low / soft, but those images show softness 10-15% up the edge of the frame (to the top of the reddish bush on the right). As you say, the lens is brilliant in other respects, but the corners are something to consider if they matter to the shot.
jffielde wrote:
I'm a little surprised by how far into the frame the corner softness extends. The article I read referred to "extreme corner performance" is low / soft, but those images show softness 10-15% up the edge of the frame (to the top of the reddish bush on the right). As you say, the lens is brilliant in other respects, but the corners are something to consider if they matter to the shot.
Yes, if one needs sharp corners for landscapes, it seems a bit silly to buy such an expensive 25mm lens only to have to crop the lens down to a 28mm or worse FOV to get them. That's not a compromise one usually expects with a $1700 lens.
OK, Wayne - that is not what you want to see...the bottom corners, the left one further away than the middle of the (quite well rendered) bottom edge, are worse than poor IMO.
Why? It is clearly visible on the full 358kb web image...and blends with the vignetting to put a dark sludgy zone in a prominent area of such images.
It is disruptive to the scene's effectiveness, and as a photographer you will always see it. And there is no fix for it. That this is f8 adds to the problem.
I agree with jffielde that is also extends an unwarranted distance into the frame. And both these corners are at the end of composition lines - the line of rocks and the cliff face, where the eye naturally travels.
There is something worse though - the MTF indicates that even at f4, 40 lpmm (fine details like the rocks and texture seen here) lines dive after around 18mm - the middle of the wide edges.
BUT, so too do the lower spatial frequencies of 10 lpmm and 20 lpmm, they all drop very suddenly and are almost at the same metrics by 20mm out. By comparison, the 21mm lenses (both CY and ZE) still have these lower spatial frequencies at very high levels right out the very corner at 21.5mm image height. It appears the extra stop down (f4 > f8) does not change this performance.
What this means is the corners suffer both from poor detail drawing (40 lpmm) AND from loss of large object contrast/drawing - which in this image is just as bad an effect IMO. It is partly disguised by the strongish vignetting.
If you revisit the RAW file, you should see this effect just beginning on the sedges/rocks at the far right edge, level with the top of the rock spires (18mm from image centre).
Other than that, a lovely image - clean, brilliant and sharp, very good colour/contrast handling. Thanks for posting.
Zeiss' habit in introducing new complementary focal length lenses is to do exactly that, introduce complementary lenses to what has already been done, in character or optimal performance. The 2,8/25 has no CRC though close focusing, and is at its best at far distances. So why the shock that the 2/25 is razor sharp close-up and not ideal as a landscape lens?
Look at the 2/35. Marketed as a 'reporter' lens, sharp from f/2 close-up and less so at distance compared to the 1,4. The latter lacks the wide-open sharpness, offering a completely different character altogether, far weaker close distance sharpness, far better color correction and is superior in performance at infinity.
j.liam wrote: Look at the 2/35. Marketed as a 'reporter' lens, sharp from f/2 close-up and less so at distance compared to the 1,4. The latter lacks the wide-open sharpness, offering a completely different character altogether, far weaker close distance sharpness, far better color correction and is superior performance at infinity.
The general idea of your post makes sense but I don't agree with this comparison. At the moment I have both 35mm lenses (got the f/1.4 and did not sell the f/2 yet). What you're writing is what one might conclude from various internet discussions, but it's not my experience from comparing these two lenses. Especially I don't agree with "completely different" and "far weaker" / "far better". These two lenses are quite close and hard to distinguish when used for the same scene, except for the much better bokeh of the f/1.4 and much stronger vignetting of the f/2.
I owned the 2/35 as well. Perhaps "weaker" is too strong a term. The 1,4 has haze reducing contrast wider than f/2.8 and to my eye, results is an image very different and with more vivid colors. My issue with the slower lens was that it was pretty unforgiving with skin tones and facial details. Not so with the 1,4. Never felt they are close at all.
Thank you. Those should show image border performance near the middle but with all the blue sky, will not show upper borders or distant corner performance. The first scene, Temple on the Mountain, would be perfect for showing upper corner performance at distance if either the lens was slightly tilted down or the scene taken at a lower height (tilting the camera down so that the distant mountains are at the top corners would be perfect actually). I really appreciate the effort.
Now I've seen the image of Wayne and I have clear what interests you and anothers.
If I have had the photo of wayne I had focused on the central stone and be sure that the corners will be some better and the central area and like infinity will be the same: in others words I had used hyperfocal.
Among the samples that I did in his day this reflect in part the possible issue, but the focus is made on the center of the image. Look the leaves in the angle left superior
