Thought this might be of interest.
These were all taken on a tripod @ f8 on a 5d2.
There was a slight breeze.
I've done a little sharpening (same amount to all three).
Nothing else.
What d'ya reckon?
At this size, I'd expect images from any half-decent lenses to look nearly identical (after appropriate equalization by small white balance/contrast adjustments), and both the OMs and the Zeiss are better than half-decent. All that I can really see at this scale is that OM21 falls apart more at the very far corners, where the Zeiss is still solid. You also have moving cloud cover overhead, changing the color balance in the foreground water puddles; I think the ZE also has a hair warmer white balance of its own.
Based on experience, I could venture a guess at what differences might be visible in 100% crops: the OM21 will show moderate lateral CA color fringing increasing towards the corners (strongly visible on the power line pylon upper left), that will be nearly reduced to negligibility by the ZE21; the OM24 will show less CA (still more than the ZE21), and admirably uniform resolution from center to edges, though starting from a less bitingly sharp center than the ZE21.
Apart from vignetting and corner sharpness, I don't see much difference at this size. Some crops would help. As already mentioned, shooting at f/8 equalizes a lot of lenses.
Not much of a colour palette in the composition and no high contrast edges.
The OM21 has magenta yellows and the left field, dull; the 24 looks quite spewy on the far hillside, the 21D holds colour much better in the far trees against the weak (UK?) sky, low light is kind to lenses so minimising key dfferences, even so the sidelight is much more authentic for the 21D, O greens are too strong, poorly graduated and astroturf looking - see the highlights on the blade tops? Also, no major feature in mid-scene.
What was the focus point, was it the same for all, and did you check it with LV and bracket? The backgrounds look awfully fuzzy. D21 looks close focused.
Repeat the same at f4 and f2.8 and differences will readily accumulate.
This 24 is not a strong landscape lens, if you are looking for max sharpness. The Oly 21 is okay, but the Zeiss is another step above. I thought I saw something like that in the small photos, but I wasn't sure and wanted to see the crops first. The Olympus lenses were excellent for their day, but they are a bit smeary on high-resolution digital sensors.
1DsII. I do see the irony in using manual focus glass on a body praised for its fantastic autofocus system. 99 times out of 100 a Zeiss or OM or PC-Nikkor is mounted to it.
Your responses have let me see the lenses through your eyes and made me look harder, so thanks for that.
To answer some of the questions:
The OMs are the 24mm 2.8 and the 21mm 3.5.
The OM 24 does get a bit sharper at f11. Not a huge amount but it is noticeable. I didn't try f16.
I did use LV, but did not bracket. I can't remember the focus point, but it was the same for all, but I must admit I wasn't as meticulous as I ought to have been. (I accidentally moved the tripod a couple of times between shots etc.). I think the thread was a bit ambitious for my first post on FM! I hope my ability gets closer to my ambition with this hobby..
In a subsequent test - again not ideal, but informative for me, the ZE really showed great resolution and richer colours compared to the OMs and hardly any CA at all with more vignetting wide open. IMHO the OMs are brilliant, but they did have much more CA - the 21 along the edges as well as the corners - and were 'smeary' and 'spewy' there too in comparison to the ZE. I've got crops of that, but there's 27 of 'em and it might be overkill?
At first I was impressed by the quality you get out of the OMs and I reckoned my emotional response to a picture taken with them would be similar to a ZE photo. But then when I put them side by side and really looked I could see that the ZE can do things the OMs can't and the chances are..if I'm in the right place at the right time and can spot the composition and use the light and feel the scene and..and..and..I would prefer to take the shot with the ZE. I suppose that just backs up all of your guesses and summations, not forgetting market value too. Right I'm off out snappin with the Z...
The small sized and low weight of the OM's are nothing short of amazing, when compared to the ZE 21. I sold my Zeiss 21's because of weight/size and how often I was using them. I'd just as happily use my MC Oly 21/3.5 or my Tamron 20-40 (yes, an excellent zoom). Both are great copies, and very close in IQ to the Zeiss 21's I've had (ZF and ZE mounts) - on a 5DII.
Oh I had hoped these were the f/2 versions of the OM.s The 28 f/2 is a gem of a little lens and have considered the 21 f/2, but hard to come by images and comparisons.
RPYX, thanks for the test and no, not too ambitious at all. The thing many don't realise re the D21 is that it excels in all light, the tougher the better. I have no idea why, but this bracket shooter now has the confidence to just move from one shot to another after checking the histo, knowing the lens will deliver - a huge productivity bonus.
Yes, I wish it was smaller and lighter and the focus ring did not move so easily to the infinity stop...but end of any day, it gets the shot.
BTW, Toothwalker's site has a great image showing how little CA is has. I see a tiny amount, under provocation. It's also less clinical than many characterise it as being, and capable of showing delicate transitions, especially in low light, due to the near perfect balance of contrast and saturation - but you know this already. My most used lens these days, by a fair margin.
I can see the logic in your move pdmphoto.
Thanks Phillip I looked at Toothwalkers site, great pics, but my head started to hurt trying to fathom the articles! I'll go back when I've taken a few more pics myself...
Righto. I thought it might be helpful to post some relevant crops from the second test.
The first trio 100% from the centre all at f8. all shots got the same treatment: Sharpened, cropped and exported to jpeg. Nothing else. Focus was on the wind chime, but there was a slight breeze again so again this test was not performed under lab conditions!
The second trio are from the top right corner from each lens wide open and also f8 side by side.
Bear in mind the adaptor on the OM21 has become a bit loose as it was swapped between the two OMs before I got the Leitax (which is very good). I don't know if this has affected the outcome here or not, but I think that even given all the variables in this test the results are still clear.
