p.2 #1 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
"..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."
"Now that I have the 25/2, I can only smile about it"
We just got through rubbishing the online lens test sites, saying how we here at FM Alt generally provide *image evidence* for our assertions and claims, and now we see the myth-making is getting ahead of the evidence. I'm still reeling from Roger Cicala's 25/2 shots...
Thanks for the reality check, TW and Wayne ;~) Nice church and more than acceptable corners, at up to 80m anyway.
For a lot of people it's very simple - Herr Zeiss, give us 21mm performance at longer focal lengths, bitte. Good for close street portrait work, right out to huge distance landscapes, sometimes both at once. That's all, and get it to us by lunchtime. Piece of cake.
p.2 #2 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
wayne seltzer wrote:
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.
No doubt I'll also keep my ZF 21. I haven't done landscapes with the 25 yet, but I don't doubt what you say about the corners. For my taste, 21mm has often been too wide, and it didn't get much use. 35mm is too long, 25mm would just be perfect. I've been using the 24G, but something was missing, now it becomes apparent what it was when I compare it with the 25/2. I hadn't noticed CA that much before in the 24G, but now it shows up everywhere when I compare the same shots to the 25/2 which is really clean. Even when I remove the CA in post, which is simple enough, the 25/2 still looks much better. I haven't paid much attention to the corners yet, except that they are fine when stopped down for medium distances, and yes they are much worse than the 24G. But what good will the crisp corners do for me when the rest of the frame is a bit dull compared to the 25. I hope to get to some real shots on the weekend.
p.2 #3 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
Toothwalker wrote:
If the subject contrast is high enough, you will see similar light leakage with any photographic lens.
Yup. I have a very similar image taken at the same place (MNAC, The Catalonia National Museum of Art, Barcelona). The light was different (from the left but towards the camera), taken with a Nex-5 with a Summilux-M 35/1.4 at f/5.6 and the PF and flare isn't any better.
p.2 #4 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
The 25/2.8 is pretty darn good at distance shots and renders sharp images corner to corner, so if that's what you want from a 25mm lens than it's a good option (and a cheap option IMO). If however you want to shoot closer objects, wide portraits, low dof landscapes AND still have a lens that's capable of good stopped down infinity shots then the 25/2 may be it.
For the moment i'm hanging on to my Zf25/2.8 and R28 (e55) as those fit the bill for me, once we get more samples from the ZE25/2 I willing to be convinced to trade the up.
p.2 #5 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
Johnahill, you did a comparison of the two in this thread
meanwhile what are the differences for you after shooting with the R28 some more? What is it's strength compared to the ZF25? I am interested in the R28 and since I own the ZF25 as well as the ZF28 I'd like to know what it can do that the Zeiss lenses aren't so good at. Or just in what respect it is different. I am sure you have formed somewhat more of an opimion on it since you started the thread.
But as this is not the topic here, I'd apreciate it if you could elaborate a bit on your further findings in your comparison thread thanks
p.2 #6 · Zeiss 25 mm - Where is the $700 difference ??
Jonas B wrote:
Comparing CA, PF or flare between a couple of lenses by looking at a single image taken with lens X using camera Y can't really be possible?
That is right. Only a direct comparison makes sense.
thanks