philip_pj Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
p.3 #20 · ZE35/2.0 - Lack of magic at infinity | |
Thanks for the comparison shots. I agree with Cyra, the 25mm image is much better for this usage. By better I refer to the greater image depth perception and better colour tone separation, which are the two hallmarks I look for in this type of photography.
It's actually a tough test, this image - note the flatness of the foreground plateau colours. From the 25mm, the colour balance is more convincing. The 35/2 looks almost Leica-like, a more painterly look. Either would be much improved by some midtone contrast work in post.
Zeiss publish MTF at the stopped down aperture that is best overall (to my knowledge), and this results in faster lenses being graphed at f4-f5.6. Slow zooms are always better at f8 (CY 100-300, 35-135 and of course the 35-70).
It's almost always two stops down from open for all lenses.
The 35/2 is most unlikely to better the 35-70 at f8, as its performance is demonstrated to be markedly inferior at f8 compared to what it does at f4, here:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/503-zeiss35f2eosff?start=1
and here:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1145/cat/98
(use the blur graphic).
The centre takes a big hit, and corners are no better with stop down, and CA rises with aperture numbers...
Since deep landscapes for the 35mm focal length frequently require f8-f11 for decent DOF in many compositions, this is a primary reason for using the 35-70 zoom for this kind of work. It is very likely therefore that the zoom would deliver better landscape results overall, as DOF is generally desirable. Its palette is a bonus, even if ACR/LR struggles to keep up.
Looking again at the MTF charts on page 2, and using photozone's 'shorthand' but useful technique of averaging sagittal and tangential data, the 35/2 starts its 40 lpmm average line at .65, drops below .6 at about 8mm then declines steadily to register around .50 at 20mm. The zoom starts at around the same .65, stays at that level until 15mm then drops steadily to be .45 at 20mm. More of the frame is above .60 (a benchmark figure), and you get the big advantage of *much greater DOF at the best performance, ideal shooting aperture*.
Also the zoom is *weakest* at 35mm - and improves markedly after 40mm, and by 50mm its lines are flat and distortion is a low 0.6. I mention this because one very often needs these extra focal lengths in such work to fine-tune the image composition, or try out alternative compositions.
I have nothing against prime lenses, and use several. If the 35/2 was substantially better for what I do, I would buy it in a flash, it's great value and has many other uses the zoom cannot do well, if at all. It isn't, so I haven't. It is a typical modern fast Zeiss.
Many of the ZE/F redesigns are a stop faster compared with the Contax lenses: 35/2 vs 35/2.8, 100/2 MP vs 100/2.8 MP, 60/2.8 MP vs 50/2 MP, and now 25/2 vs 25/2.8. Nothing slow (once past the rather poor 18mm), and no zooms.
Different design intent/optimisation, for different uses, in a different age - so it seems.
|