'i guess i'm just disturbed that people are already making up their minds (and dismissing) this lens after such a small sampling of what this lens can do has appeared. it is not as if pure sharpness is the only quality that can be used to judge a lens (and if it is then surely the canon tse 24mm would be the way to go).'
Simon, we here are keen to get past the hoo-haa that accompanies shiny new products, such as glowing press releases, exuberant 'reviews' that have an uncanny knack of testing each lens only at the things it does well, and undiscriminating owners who may leave their better judgment at the sales counter.
It's a process of building knowledge in the face of these (often commercially inspired) boosters. We also want to establish just what each lens is good for and is not so well-suited for. As such, the process is largely value-free. So please, it is not intended to disturb anyone, and you really should not be overly swayed by anything other than you own results and experiences. It looks like a truly great street/medium distance lens, for which use it appears to have been designed.
Wayne's seaside shot would raise a photo magazine editor's eyebrow...because the corners seriously degrade the overall quality of the image, and may even make the user look amateurish.
Finally, many of us here are not Canon users, and most Zeiss users (on any body) want a Zeiss drawing style, as they are more than well aware that lens character is much more than sharpness.
philip_pj wrote:
Wayne's seaside shot would raise a photo magazine editor's eyebrow...because the corners seriously degrade the overall quality of the image, and may even make the user look amateurish.
But really, who would shoot a scene like this at f/2.8 or f/4. Maybe for testing but not for sending to a magazine.
Just to make sure everyone is aware, Wayne has stated that the seascape/ beach shot was not taken at F8 as originally thought, per this statement:
"CORRECTION!: This shot was not taken at f8 like I thought, I am guessing it was f4 or worst case f2.8."
SKumar25 wrote:
Wayne, could the adptor be exaggerating the issue?
I don't think so since the other 95% part of the frame is sharp and excellent. But you never know.
But the adapter, my copy of the lens, or operator error could be the problem but I doubt it. If it is great, let's find that out.
I don't mind if I am proven wrong.
I was hoping that someone else with the lens could try a similar wall test at infinity distance at all aperture values like I did to either prove or disprove what I found with my copy. This is what I did with my 50MP after Boris found a similar problem with the extreme corners of the 50MP. I had been shooting my 50MP for a long while before Boris found that and never noticed it due to mostly shooting landscape shots at f5.6 or f8 where the problem went away or was shooting closeup macro shots where I didn't see this problem either. Even Lloyd Chambers site really doesn't document this problem in his usual wall tests because he doesn't show the extreme corners. He mentions the lens has some curvature of field and his only pictures were some comparison shots with the 50P of mining equipment in death valley which were medium distance and IMO didn't show the problem clearly.
I agree Thorsten nobody would take that scenic shot at f2.8 or f4, but I was able to recreate the same problem last night with a shot of the Capitola pier from the bluff north of town at f8. I took a comparison shot with the 21 just to show the difference.
If you could take a scenic vista shot at infinity from a bluff where the corner of the frame is covering an object far enough away down below which would be in the DOF, and see if even at f8 the extreme corner is blurry that would be great.
I will post the shot tonight.
simonw wrote:
i guess i'm just disturbed that people are already making up their minds (and dismissing) this lens after such a small sampling of what this lens can do has appeared. it is not as if pure sharpness is the only quality that can be used to judge a lens (and if it is then surely the canon tse 24mm would be the way to go).
Its not about adapter, more like lens character due to aperture. With EF 24mm f/1.4 L II you cant get corners as well. Yet it counted stellar performer (and 25/2 is better optically.) Seems that the line in wa designs goes somewhere from 2.8, TS-E`s use 3.5 and 4, more open seems to be only difficult compromises.
I have ZE version, made test shots (few scenes available for landscape type scenarios, extreme fine detail) to compare 5 different lenses 21-25mm (actually few shots plus Distagon 35mm/f2).
I agree, "there is something there" and you cant get away with focusing by extreme corners. Not easy lens to use. And then again not concentrating on focusing result can be quite acceptable even @3.2-5.0 Some other scenes again, closing aperture will not help much in extreme corners. Need to figure out, had no time to make lot of focusing bracketing, thought it is not relevant using LCD, guess I should... By the way, my copy of TS-E 24mm can sometimes be as bad in (far away)corners @5.6 but is better in all scenes corners at closer distance. Not speaking when movements are unlocked...
And this thing is sharp, sharp-sharp sharp with finest and delicate detail rendering. 21 Distagon gives more constant results with better corners but feels dull compared to 25/2.
Focusing by LCD is easiest, you get very precise idea where the plane of sharpness goes. You just have to pick motive, isolate from background (and corners) and let the details and colors shine Did I say I like how it acts against the light and in closer range
Night time shots, coma only in far corners, will reduces till @4,5 @5.0 is gone. Very good in light contrast situations. Focusing is critical, then amazingly good beginning from wide open.
So yes, I think this lens seems to be exactly for what it was intended. Can and must be used for landscape as well with reservations
I do like to see how 25/2 act on more dense sensor crop frame body
I love faults. I love the faults that are inherent in the Zeiss and how they influence the character of a lens. In the Nikkor 35/1.4G it impresses by the nature of its clarity. "Its as though the lens isnt there", someone said, but Geez I'd be peeved to spend all that money and get pictures of thin air.
While we see some terrific images coming from the 21, this 25 is going to do the same regardless of what we see in the corners.
I'd be surprised if the design parameters were weighed against the corners as badly as this. Its doesn't seem possible/acceptable and I'm sure its a dream and I'll wake up tomorrow and it will all be ok.
Wayne -- Thanks for the photos. That is a pretty disturbing corner for f/8. It's like the lens should have been a 28mm, but was stretched into the poor peripheral image circle to make it a 25-26mm (isn't it actually closer to 26?). If this were a bargain lens ($600-800) with terrific central sharpness, I could tolerate such edges and corners. But. . . I guess I've shot too much 4x5.
(Ha-ha! MTF: Soft of the subject, and sharp everywhere else?)
Why is everyone so besides themselves? Roger Cicala's take on the lens' application is more realistic and has to be seen in the complementary nature Zeiss endowed these faster prime siblings.
Why on earth would they design a lens to make the older ones obsolete?
Yesterday, I could do 8 new samples (24 files) follow the same system of focus (three focus). The motives on the frame have a range from 2 m. (2,2 yd) to infinity. As soon as possible will make all 100% crops and mount the pages.
Doing shots with a given method the results are excellent, if not do are not so good. Me explain:
- Each batch of lenses may have infinite adjustment differences of thens of a millimeter.
- Each camera body also has the bayonet fit / sensor with little differences.
- The optimal position of the fous ring for infinite not usually are in the end of the course of the focus ring.
In each frame I had done three differents focus:
1 .- live view.
2 .- For the confirmation of focus of the camera module.
3 .- Turn the focus ring until the end.
In cases 1 and 2 all the photos have shown good performance in corners and angles, in mode 3 and in all photos the sharpness has been much lower.
For mode 2 is neccessary adjust previously the fine tuning focus (microajustments) to distance which going to work, not very short distances (very important). Failure to set the focus can go out and leave poor results.
If the adjustment of our unity (lens) is significantly far (previous) from the end of the rotation of the ring and also the difference of the camera adds more distance, all photos that do turning the focus ring until the end will not come out well on the next corner and it does not add more sharpness to distant objects. Is possible that the tolerances of both components (+/-) are compensated, in this case the performance will be better but you should never assume anything, always check, Murphy does not forget us :-))
Surely the next Saturday I will have everything ready.
Thanks G Pierre, for your efforts!
Hopefully, everyone will make their own decision about getting the lens or not what meets their special needs. My purpose is not to discourage anyone from getting the lens. Just understand better what the len's strengths and weaknesses and document them for others to decide on.
The extreme corners may not matter for some and others it may do well enough there.
I am not worried and am sure that many will get and enjoy this lens. It has great sharpness from f2, good color and very low CA and should be very popular for street shooting and reportage style shooting.
The other great thing is that we have plenty of options now in this segment with the new 25/2 and Samy 24/1.4 which join the existing Canikon 24's.
Gunzorro wrote:
Wayne -- Thanks for the photos. That is a pretty disturbing corner for f/8. It's like the lens should have been a 28mm, but was stretched into the poor peripheral image circle to make it a 25-26mm (isn't it actually closer to 26?). If this were a bargain lens ($600-800) with terrific central sharpness, I could tolerate such edges and corners. But. . . I guess I've shot too much 4x5.
(Ha-ha! MTF: Soft of the subject, and sharp everywhere else?)
wayne seltzer wrote:
Just understand better what the len's strengths and weaknesses and document them for others to decide on.
I agree and I appreciate your and German's efforts to figure out how this lens works.
it might take somewhat longer and more real life shooting under diverse conditions to actually establish what the lenses strengths are, and what it's character is compared to the other Zeiss lenses or other lenses at 25 mm.
There is so many other things, like different boket at different subject-background distances, different behaviour in different light - at dull light, against bright sun or at low light etc.
I wouldn't dismiss a lens from its sharpness characteristics at infinty only.
cyra wrote:
I agree and I appreciate your and German's efforts to figure out how this lens works.
it might take somewhat longer and more real life shooting under diverse conditions to actually establish what the lenses strengths are, and what it's character is compared to the other Zeiss lenses or other lenses at 25 mm.
There is so many other things, like different boket at different subject-background distances, different behaviour in different light - at dull light, against bright sun or at low light etc.
I wouldn't dismiss a lens from its sharpness characteristics at infinty only.
+1
I hope to discuss other things like differences of color and amount of CA compared to other zeiss lenses and my 24G and also the differences in low light and differences in bokeh, which I have a few comparisons to show between 25/2 and 24G. It seemed to me that the 25/2, probably due to higher global contrast than my 24G worsened the DR in a low light scene with both areas of bright lights and unlit shadows so that the shadows would be darker if I tried to not blow out too much the bright highlights. The 24G at 1.4 is still sharp enough for me and allows more light and detail in the shadows while not blowing out the highlights. The extra stop is big for me, as it allows me shooting my 1ds3 at iso1600 to shoot handheld in pretty low light. Those with higher iso cameras have an extra stop in noise performance so I would guess you could shoot at 3200 at f2 but not me.
Did I say I like how it acts against the light and in closer range 