p.1 #4 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
It is more than that, totally different design. One is better closer up, the other is better further away. I forget which is which, but the Zeiss 25/2 threads here have lots of information. Additionally, the 25/2.8 is only a very good lens, the 25/2 has some of the special Zeiss magic that a few of their other lenses have, like the 21/2.8, 35/1.4 and 100MP.
p.1 #5 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
the 25/2 is said to be clear of CA whereas the 25/2.8 tends to show some, the 25/2 has smoother rendering of OOF areas, it's performance at far distances isn't yet that clear since only the first coppies have hit this forum. So far it is hard to tell how good it really is, or where it has it's weaknesses. But I also have the feeling it is on par with the best of Zeiss lenses.
the 25/2.8 when used at medium or close distance has very bad corners, they clear up at higher distance and with stopping down. When used at infinity stopped down, this lens is close to the performance of the 21/2.8.
The 25/2.8 has the closest focus of all the Zeiss lenses, and can be used almost as a macro lens as well, although it is not well corrected at that distance - but still good for some fun shots, emergency macro use und sometimes some stunning effects.
it depends on what you want the lens for. There is also the 28/2.0 which is also cheaper than the new 25/2.0.
All 3 lenses have some field curvature, which also seems to create more 3D pop, the new 25 seems to have the least field curvature of the 3 lenses.
p.1 #6 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
Thus far, all reviews and examples shown taken at long distances/ infinity with the newer 25/2 show very poor corner performance. It's not an isolated case of just one or two.
p.1 #8 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
Tariq Gibran wrote:
... all reviews and examples shown taken at long distances/ infinity with the newer 25/2 show very poor corner performance. It's not an isolated case of just one or two.
This seems to be a fact.
Toothwalker wrote:
For $700 you get
...
- better performance at infinity and close focus (o)
This should be an opinion (o).
By combining these two posts, I have not understood if the 25/2 is a suitable tool for landscape or if the 25/2.8 is preferable Quot homines, tot sententiae
p.1 #11 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
My friend is a big Zeiss guy and picked up the new 25 F/2 to go with his 21, 35, 50 and 100 Nikon Mount.
I shot with it against my Canon 24 1.4L II and found the Zeiss noticeably softer in the middle, wide open, compared to the Canon.
p.1 #13 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
Ripolini wrote:
This seems to be a fact.
This should be an opinion (o).
By combining these two posts, I have not understood if the 25/2 is a suitable tool for landscape or if the 25/2.8 is preferable Quot homines, tot sententiae
Yes, the corners are soft at large apertures. This is in agreement with the lens specs. "Very poor corner performance" however is no fact but opinion. At f/8 the corners have improved to a level that I find very much acceptable.
Both designs are optimized for infinity focus, but different people have different opinions on what makes a suitable tool for landscapes. You need to choose between 80% performance over 100% of the frame or 90% performance over 95% of the frame. (This is an oversimplification, but just might make my point of view clear.)
p.1 #15 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
Toothwalker wrote:
Yes, the corners are soft at large apertures. This is in agreement with the lens specs...
Thank you Paul.
Personally, I'd prefer 90 % performance over 95 % of the frame
From what I've read, it seems that both 25/2 and 35/1.4 allow this kind of performance (with respect to 25/2.8 and 35/2).
p.1 #16 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
Thorsten wrote:
Yes this corner/infinity issue had me worried, due to all the internet noise about it. Now that I have the 25/2, I can only smile about it.
In comparison pictures with my ze21 at f5.6 and f8, the new 25/2 has worse corners and edges than the 21 and I have posted one landscape shot which I need to show the corner crops which show the extreme blurring in the corners, similar to 50MP but the 50MP goes away by f5.6 and the 25/2 never goes away. The center part looks as sharp as my 21 on far distance stuff so that is good and it is extremely sharp in the middle up close which I showed in a Rodin sculpture shot I posted.
The other con is that it is f2 instead of f1.4, so you have to get a lot closer to the subject to get the separation and bokeh which you can get with the f1.4 lens farther away. Also f1.4 is handy in low light shooting without flash.
The colors and low CA are very nice and this lens is nice for street shooting and closer up shooting, but I think I will keep with my 21 for most landscape.
Thorsten, looking forward to seeing your comparison shots between the 24/1.4G and the 25/2 which you say is much better, but I am not seeing any big sharpness difference between the two, and the 24/1.4 doesn't have the corner problem while stopped down, the 25/2 does. Despite the nice color and low CA of the 25/2, the benefits of 1.4 make me want to keep my 24/1.4G which I can use for shallower DOF shots, low light and landscape if I needed to. Where as the 25/2 would be more for walkabout, street shooting.
I am still shooting with the 25/2 that I have rented and my opinions may still change.
p.1 #17 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
joeisayo wrote:
My friend is a big Zeiss guy and picked up the new 25 F/2 to go with his 21, 35, 50 and 100 Nikon Mount.
I shot with it against my Canon 24 1.4L II and found the Zeiss noticeably softer in the middle, wide open, compared to the Canon.
My copy of Canon 24 1.4L II is softer in the centre and middle part @f2 than Zeiss 25/2 wide open and has much more CA, at least MFD.
p.1 #18 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
Toothwalker wrote:
Yes, the corners are soft at large apertures. This is in agreement with the lens specs. "Very poor corner performance" however is no fact but opinion. At f/8 the corners have improved to a level that I find very much acceptable.
This picture shows quite a large amount of CA in the top of the roof. More than I have ever seen with any of my Zeiss lenses.
p.1 #19 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
this looks like an outstanding lens! I dont see no soft corners and that tiny bit of CA is nothing to bother about. I am not sure the TS-E would do noticably better here, in fact the lens might offer a good opportunity for those who dont need the 1.4 aperture of the 24L and dont want to handle the TS-E.
I'd love to get one of these, the price point is a bit steep though
