This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2012Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
p.2 #1Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
Given that it is a TS-E ... technical/clinical is probably well suited for it (you can always give it more "character" in post if you desire, i.e. build an action/preset). I imagine the larger image circle has a bit to do with that as well (certainly helps with the vignetting).
After seeing this comp ... I have little doubt @ going for the TS-E II was a good call for me. Will just need to develop my PP recipe accordingly to provide some "character".
Thanks for the comp.
After seeing this comp ... I have little doubt @ going for the TS-E II was a good call for me. Will just need to develop my PP recipe accordingly to provide some "character".
Thanks for the comp.
Jan 14, 2012 at 03:06 PM
p.2 #2Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
Sure. At full shift I'd expect to see some degradation of sharpness and increase of fringing.
By the way, good luck finding a PP recipe to take the glare off those tree leaves. The color shown by the Zeiss is radically different IMO. Perhaps a gust of wind changing the orientation of the leaves had something to do with it though.
By the way, good luck finding a PP recipe to take the glare off those tree leaves. The color shown by the Zeiss is radically different IMO. Perhaps a gust of wind changing the orientation of the leaves had something to do with it though.
Jan 14, 2012 at 03:17 PM
p.2 #3Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
Might be wrong, but based on the house, Canon is noticeably sharper.
Jan 14, 2012 at 03:29 PM
p.2 #4Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
carstenw wrote:
Huh? How do you review raws, by putting them on a CF card and putting the card in your camera? 
You can also just import them into Aperture etc. 
Doh!!
SKumar25 wrote
Full raws are great, only thing is the Nikon guys can't review them... too bad... You can also just import them into Aperture etc. Doh!!
Jan 14, 2012 at 04:55 PM
p.2 #5Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
Didnt really get a chance to experiment to much with the ZF 25mm today. Interesting is that to focus on something 2 meters (6ft) away is hardly any movement from infinity, very very small adjustment. Its got a huge amount of focusing throw from there all the way to VERY close. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31942281/_MG_9407%202.CR2 Shot wide open so no depth and it was blowing a gale again but pretty wicked bokeh for a wide angle.
Edited on Jan 15, 2012 at 03:39 AM · View previous versions
Edited on Jan 15, 2012 at 03:39 AM · View previous versions
Jan 15, 2012 at 02:58 AM
p.2 #6Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
photomadnz wrote:
...pretty wicked bokeh for a wide angle.
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1034/24mm.jpg
Whatever pixie dust Canon sprinkled on the 24mm TS-E II, they should keep it up.
It is peerless.
...pretty wicked bokeh for a wide angle.
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1034/24mm.jpg
Whatever pixie dust Canon sprinkled on the 24mm TS-E II, they should keep it up.
It is peerless.
Jan 15, 2012 at 03:27 AM
p.2 #7Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
sirimiri wrote:
Whatever pixie dust Canon sprinkled on the 24mm TS-E II, they should keep it up.
It is peerless.
I agree, Canon hit a home run with that lens. It is a legend in it's own right, up there with the 21D.
The new Zeiss is a different category of lens though. I believe it needs to prove it's mettle against the 1.4 24s from Canon, Nikon (and Samyang).
Whatever pixie dust Canon sprinkled on the 24mm TS-E II, they should keep it up.
It is peerless.
I agree, Canon hit a home run with that lens. It is a legend in it's own right, up there with the 21D.
The new Zeiss is a different category of lens though. I believe it needs to prove it's mettle against the 1.4 24s from Canon, Nikon (and Samyang).
Jan 15, 2012 at 07:24 AM
p.2 #8Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
SKumar25 wrote:
It is peerless.I agree, Canon hit a home run with that lens. It is a legend in it's own right, up there with the 21D.
The new Zeiss is a different category of lens though. I believe it needs to prove it's mettle against the 1.4 24s from Canon, Nikon (and Samyang).
+1
The TS-E 17 is great too. I have that.
You have to get pretty close to get a lot of bokeh and subject isolation from background at 25mm and f2.
That is why I really like shooting at f1.4 with 24G.
It is a very unique look wide and narrow DOF.
sirimiri wrote
Whatever pixie dust Canon sprinkled on the 24mm TS-E II, they should keep it up.It is peerless.
The new Zeiss is a different category of lens though. I believe it needs to prove it's mettle against the 1.4 24s from Canon, Nikon (and Samyang).
+1
The TS-E 17 is great too. I have that.
You have to get pretty close to get a lot of bokeh and subject isolation from background at 25mm and f2.
That is why I really like shooting at f1.4 with 24G.
It is a very unique look wide and narrow DOF.
Jan 15, 2012 at 11:30 AM
p.2 #9Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
AhamB wrote:
At 100% you can see that the Zeiss is focused slightly more to the front than the Canon (best seen with all sharpening turned off). I'm kind of bit perplexed by the performance of the Zeiss -- it almost seems like everything but the clothes dryer is out of focus because of field curvature towards the camera.
Since you correctly observe that the Zeiss is focused more to the front, there is no need for perplexity. Most parts of the scene are simply out of focus.
At 100% you can see that the Zeiss is focused slightly more to the front than the Canon (best seen with all sharpening turned off). I'm kind of bit perplexed by the performance of the Zeiss -- it almost seems like everything but the clothes dryer is out of focus because of field curvature towards the camera.
Since you correctly observe that the Zeiss is focused more to the front, there is no need for perplexity. Most parts of the scene are simply out of focus.
Jan 15, 2012 at 11:57 AM
p.2 #10Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
Shot a good detailed sample today on both the 24 T/S and the new ZF 25. Tripod, best aperture, RAW, optimal sharpening for output etc etc... Printed them up 20x30 inches to show them off. Nothing really changed. They looked almost identical. On VERY close inspection you could see the 24 was indeed more detailed and consistent across the frame. The color on this shot was exactly the same and they both achieved a 3d'ish feel to them. They both looked great though!
Ill try the ZE when it arrives just because I can but looks like Ill be definitely keeping my 24mm. Hope some of this helps.
Ill try the ZE when it arrives just because I can but looks like Ill be definitely keeping my 24mm. Hope some of this helps.
Jan 15, 2012 at 11:49 PM
p.2 #11Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
Toothwalker wrote:
Since you correctly observe that the Zeiss is focused more to the front, there is no need for perplexity. Most parts of the scene are simply out of focus.
I'm not really convinced about that. The 25/2 also would need to have a much more shallow DOF in that case, at f/8. In the Canon shot the even extreme foreground is sharper than in the Zeiss shot.
AhamB wrote
At 100% you can see that the Zeiss is focused slightly more to the front than the Canon (best seen with all sharpening turned off). I'm kind of bit perplexed by the performance of the Zeiss -- it almost seems like everything but the clothes dryer is out of focus because of field curvature towards the camera.I'm not really convinced about that. The 25/2 also would need to have a much more shallow DOF in that case, at f/8. In the Canon shot the even extreme foreground is sharper than in the Zeiss shot.
Jan 16, 2012 at 02:00 AM
p.2 #12Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
AhamB wrote:
Since you correctly observe that the Zeiss is focused more to the front, there is no need for perplexity. Most parts of the scene are simply out of focus.I'm not really convinced about that. The 25/2 also would need to have a much more shallow DOF in that case, at f/8. In the Canon shot the even extreme foreground is sharper than in the Zeiss shot.
If in the Canon shot even the extreme foreground is sharper than in the Zeiss shot, then how did you conclude that the Distagon is focused more to the front?
Statements like
"As the Zeiss's are renowned for having a different plane of focus"
"it is best left on infinity as the depth comes towards you"
The Zeiss is at infinity in this test. The Canon is on the close bushes.
"ZF 25mm with pro adaptor"
set all alarm bells ringing.
Zeiss's are known for having a different plane of focus with mostly front DOF?
I have three ZE lenses, and all three of them focus beyond infinity on two different Canon bodies. Use of the mechanical infinity stop is a bad idea. The OP uses a ZF lens with adapter, which adds considerable uncertainty.
There is enough reason for suspicion. The employed camera has live view - why not use it?
Toothwalker wrote
AhamB wrote
At 100% you can see that the Zeiss is focused slightly more to the front than the Canon (best seen with all sharpening turned off). I'm kind of bit perplexed by the performance of the Zeiss -- it almost seems like everything but the clothes dryer is out of focus because of field curvature towards the camera.If in the Canon shot even the extreme foreground is sharper than in the Zeiss shot, then how did you conclude that the Distagon is focused more to the front?
Statements like
"As the Zeiss's are renowned for having a different plane of focus"
"it is best left on infinity as the depth comes towards you"
The Zeiss is at infinity in this test. The Canon is on the close bushes.
"ZF 25mm with pro adaptor"
set all alarm bells ringing.
Zeiss's are known for having a different plane of focus with mostly front DOF?
I have three ZE lenses, and all three of them focus beyond infinity on two different Canon bodies. Use of the mechanical infinity stop is a bad idea. The OP uses a ZF lens with adapter, which adds considerable uncertainty.
There is enough reason for suspicion. The employed camera has live view - why not use it?
Jan 16, 2012 at 10:35 AM
p.2 #13Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
Toothwalker wrote:
If in the Canon shot even the extreme foreground is sharper than in the Zeiss shot, then how did you conclude that the Distagon is focused more to the front?
By looking at the "arm" of the clothes dryer extending towards the camera. In the Canon shot it's more OOF than in the Zeiss shot. The grass in the foreground at the lower border is still sharper in the Canon shot. Why don't you download the RAWs and see for yourself instead of theorize about possible misfocus?
If in the Canon shot even the extreme foreground is sharper than in the Zeiss shot, then how did you conclude that the Distagon is focused more to the front?
By looking at the "arm" of the clothes dryer extending towards the camera. In the Canon shot it's more OOF than in the Zeiss shot. The grass in the foreground at the lower border is still sharper in the Canon shot. Why don't you download the RAWs and see for yourself instead of theorize about possible misfocus?
Jan 16, 2012 at 11:14 AM
p.2 #14Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
Toothwalker -- I believe AhamB is referring to the well-known aberration on some Zeiss models showing extreme curvature of field (mostly retro-focus wide angle designs), where the plane of focus is more of a sphere having the center focused on the greatest distance, while the edge focus wraps around forward toward the camera (throwing the distant edge focus into softness). The reverse is true I believe with the 50 Macro, where the edge focus extends toward infinity when center focus is on something closer than infinity. (Nikon AI/AIS 35/28/24mm f/2.0 retro-focus WA lenses I have used exhibit the same curvature; and a Leica R 28/2.8 version one was truly extreme, even at f/8!)
I'm not disputing that this softness caused by aberrations in the lens design can't be used for artistic effect. But for those looking for a flat plane of focus, these lenses are not so corrected.
Personally, I have trouble calling any lens a "macro lens" if it can't focus on a flat surface across its entire image frame with wide open aperture, such as documents, paintings, product packaging, or walls. Naturally, even such lenses will benefit in IQ by closing down the aperture slightly, but should still have approximately the same sharpness across the frame. This what put me off on buying the ZE 50/2 MP and kept me with the Canon EF 50/2.5 macro and the Leica R 60/2.8 macro -- better flatness of field and sharp detail across the image plane. (The Zeiss lens could work well for added subject isolation/OOF areas, but that isn't my priority.)
I'm not disputing that this softness caused by aberrations in the lens design can't be used for artistic effect. But for those looking for a flat plane of focus, these lenses are not so corrected.
Personally, I have trouble calling any lens a "macro lens" if it can't focus on a flat surface across its entire image frame with wide open aperture, such as documents, paintings, product packaging, or walls. Naturally, even such lenses will benefit in IQ by closing down the aperture slightly, but should still have approximately the same sharpness across the frame. This what put me off on buying the ZE 50/2 MP and kept me with the Canon EF 50/2.5 macro and the Leica R 60/2.8 macro -- better flatness of field and sharp detail across the image plane. (The Zeiss lens could work well for added subject isolation/OOF areas, but that isn't my priority.)
Jan 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM
p.2 #15Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
AhamB wrote:
By looking at the "arm" of the clothes dryer extending towards the camera. In the Canon shot it's more OOF than in the Zeiss shot. The grass in the foreground at the lower border is still sharper in the Canon shot. Why don't you download the RAWs and see for yourself instead of theorize about possible misfocus?
But I did, and noticed the same as you. Isn't it odd that several people find that the Zeiss is focused more to the front than the Canon, whereas the OP writes: "The Zeiss is at infinity in this test. The Canon is on the close bushes."? Something must be wrong with the execution, or different people use a different definition/interpretation of focus.
Gunzorro, an aberration on some Zeiss models where the plane of focus is more of a sphere is not well known. An aberration where the plane of focus is quite flat except for the corners is known to occur---but maybe that is what you mean.
Toothwalker wrote
If in the Canon shot even the extreme foreground is sharper than in the Zeiss shot, then how did you conclude that the Distagon is focused more to the front?But I did, and noticed the same as you. Isn't it odd that several people find that the Zeiss is focused more to the front than the Canon, whereas the OP writes: "The Zeiss is at infinity in this test. The Canon is on the close bushes."? Something must be wrong with the execution, or different people use a different definition/interpretation of focus.
Gunzorro, an aberration on some Zeiss models where the plane of focus is more of a sphere is not well known. An aberration where the plane of focus is quite flat except for the corners is known to occur---but maybe that is what you mean.
Jan 16, 2012 at 04:19 PM
p.2 #16Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
Nothing wrong with the execution. You simple dont understand how different lenses work. If you try and focus the Zeiss at the same point you will have worse corners and a less sharp infinity. Try it for yourself.
Toothwalker wrote:
By looking at the "arm" of the clothes dryer extending towards the camera. In the Canon shot it's more OOF than in the Zeiss shot. The grass in the foreground at the lower border is still sharper in the Canon shot. Why don't you download the RAWs and see for yourself instead of theorize about possible misfocus?But I did, and noticed the same as you. Isn't it odd that several people find that the Zeiss is focused more to the front than the Canon, whereas the OP writes: "The Zeiss is at infinity in this test. The Canon is on the close bushes."? Something must be wrong with the execution, or different people use a different definition/interpretation of focus.
Gunzorro, an aberration on some Zeiss models where the plane of focus is more of a sphere is not well known. An aberration where the plane of focus is quite flat except for the corners is known...Show more →
Toothwalker wrote:
AhamB wrote
Toothwalker wrote
If in the Canon shot even the extreme foreground is sharper than in the Zeiss shot, then how did you conclude that the Distagon is focused more to the front?Gunzorro, an aberration on some Zeiss models where the plane of focus is more of a sphere is not well known. An aberration where the plane of focus is quite flat except for the corners is known...Show more →
Jan 16, 2012 at 05:09 PM
p.2 #17Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
We all understand that lenses can differ in their field curvature characteristics, photomadnz. But since the focus is short near the centre of the Zeiss image, and most of the scene is distant, we must assume the photo would be sharper if you'd focused deeper into the scene. Probably a lot sharper!
In any case, it's hard to discern anything from a photo taken in a gale, with the tripod probably vibrating like a tuning fork and the shutter down at 1/180th.
AhamB wrote:
The grass in the foreground at the lower border is still sharper in the Canon shot.
I observe the opposite. The Zeiss looks sharper overall in the near foreground, supporting the idea that it's focused closer. But since everything has moved with the wind, and probably moved during the exposure too, it's impossible to know for sure. It certainly depends where you look.
In any case, it's hard to discern anything from a photo taken in a gale, with the tripod probably vibrating like a tuning fork and the shutter down at 1/180th.
AhamB wrote:
The grass in the foreground at the lower border is still sharper in the Canon shot.
I observe the opposite. The Zeiss looks sharper overall in the near foreground, supporting the idea that it's focused closer. But since everything has moved with the wind, and probably moved during the exposure too, it's impossible to know for sure. It certainly depends where you look.
Jan 16, 2012 at 05:52 PM
p.2 #18Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
The tripod was completely out of the wind and so was the foreground. The distant trees werent but I think 1/180th is sufficient to tame this. The Zeiss definitely isnt sharper in the foreground. YMMV. Cheers
Jan 16, 2012 at 06:33 PM
p.2 #19Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
Check the tip of the pole closest (pointing over our right shoulder). The Z is more in focus than the C. That is incredible, the Z is a infinity according to photomadnz, yet it is focussed closer than the C which is focussed up close.
Z:
http://www.lotuscreativeworks.com/photos/i-47HTcht/0/O/i-47HTcht.jpg
C:
http://www.lotuscreativeworks.com/photos/i-MngSMJK/0/O/i-MngSMJK.jpg
Edited on Jan 16, 2012 at 08:22 PM · View previous versions
Z:
http://www.lotuscreativeworks.com/photos/i-47HTcht/0/O/i-47HTcht.jpg
C:
http://www.lotuscreativeworks.com/photos/i-MngSMJK/0/O/i-MngSMJK.jpg
Edited on Jan 16, 2012 at 08:22 PM · View previous versions
Jan 16, 2012 at 07:45 PM
p.2 #20Canon 24mm T/SII vs ZE/ZF 25mm f2.0
The C has a significantly larger image circle ... should account for a shallower DOF, a smoother bokeh and less vignetting.
Conversely, the Z would have more DOF, more vignetting and a bit more nervous bokeh by comparison.
Also makes a difference regarding rate of transitions ... much like using M645 glass with its larger image circle.
Of course, that's in addition to any COF design differences.
Edited on Jan 16, 2012 at 08:55 PM · View previous versions
Conversely, the Z would have more DOF, more vignetting and a bit more nervous bokeh by comparison.
Also makes a difference regarding rate of transitions ... much like using M645 glass with its larger image circle.
Of course, that's in addition to any COF design differences.
Edited on Jan 16, 2012 at 08:55 PM · View previous versions
Jan 16, 2012 at 08:21 PM