I have 5DII and looking for a couple of Zeiss lenses, most probably the 100MP and either the 35F2, 21F2.8 or the new 25F2.
I am an amateur, shooting mainly family portraits, landscape, as well as city architectures.
Are Zeiss lens samples vary ? Everyone praise their build and thus can I expect to receive a good one without having to worry about bad copies etc ?
Between the 35F2, 21F2.8, and the new 25F2, which one should I pick ? I am leaning toward 35F2 because of the preferred FL, but I heard some negative view on the 35F2 at infinitive focusing.
Of course there is some sample variation and a possibility of getting a bad copy -- always test the lenses you buy to verify that they perform within reasonable expectations. Having said that, there aren't many people opening threads here about bad copies of Zeiss lenses. I only remember one person with a decentered 21/2.8.
Might I also suggest widening the scope of your search to include the ZF.2 35/1.4 as well? Great for people photos, landscape, and architecture as well. It's my most used lens on a Nikon D700, only negatives being the size and occasionally outlandish purple fringing wide open.
Might I suggest that you also look at the Contax Zeiss series. Older lenses with about the same properties as the new ones, but cheaper. (if not that much for some types)
Thanks all for your replies. I have read a number of posters not happy with their zeiss lenses, even with the latest 25F2.
I was planning to buy the zeiss lens out-of-my-town, but I may have to reconsider it. I am new and not knowing how to test the lens properly to deal with Zeiss support. Thanks again
There is of course sample variation for lenses of all brands, but the width of the distribution may vary between brands.
It would be interesting to see what the variation of the test method itself is. That is, the variation that results when the same lens is tested multiple times. Starting from scratch.
I think sample variations are just a fact of life. One can go berserk just thinking if one's copy is as good as it should be or not. IMHO, as long as there are no obvious flaws like decentering or unusual wide open softness that are easy to check, the lens is good.
I rented a Zeiss 35/2 from LensRentals once. It was a "bad copy". I didn't realize it at the time, since it was my first experience with Zeiss glass, but on the wide-open shots I kept wondering what all the fuss about these legendary Zeiss primes was all about. I certainly wasn't seeing anything special. I checked and checked to make sure it was not a focus problem (this was also my first experience with manual focus lenses) but I kept seeing shots that were not super sharp *anywhere*.
Finally I went ahead and contacted LR, and sent along some sample photos. They pulled the lens from the shelf, looked at it again, and agreed that it was indeed a little off. How it got through initial inspection, I'm not sure, Roger told me that the lens had only had one previous renter, and he did not complain. Nevertheless, my point is that even among Zeiss lenses, there can be sample variation.
As an aside they immediately refunded my money, even though this was a good week or so after I had sent the lens back to them, despite the fact that I did not ask for a refund. +1 to their customer service
My first ZE was a 21mm from B&H. Very soft on the left hand side. B&H replaced the lens and the new copy was perfect.
I have purchased the 35/2, 50/2 and 100/2 - no problems.
Yesterday I received the 35/1.4. This looks good to. The right hand extreme side appears slightly sharper than the left at the same distance. e.g. the curvature of field appears to be slightly closer to the camera on the left hand side. This disappears when focused towards infinity or when stopped down. This is not an issue for me.
Sample variation is a fact of life even with leica lenses.
The main point here is test them and send them back if you are not happy.
I know a few people that had problem when buying ZE lenses. They had to change their lenses because they got message on the LCD that the body didn't recognize any lens. Then it worked a while and the same message again. And every day the same problem
Toothwalker wrote:
There is of course sample variation for lenses of all brands, but the width of the distribution may vary between brands.
It would be interesting to see what the variation of the test method itself is. That is, the variation that results when the same lens is tested multiple times. Starting from scratch.
I don't have a large data sets for that - we test the lenses in rotation so in general a lens tested for the second and third time has been rented several times between tests, which adds the variable of wear-and-tear, either from use or shipping. Our primary goal is not really to look at the small copy-to-copy variability that exists between most lenses, it's to find the much larger difference in those few lenses that are bad, either out-of-the-box or from damage in use and get them out of stock. (The difference in these is dramatic and far removed from the pattern of minor copy-to-copy variation).
For what it's worth we have found (about 1,500 lenses with repeated tests, although I emphasize weeks or months and several rentals passed between tests) that as long as the same test camera is used a variation of more than + / - 2.5% (best shot of a 5 shot focusing bracket) is fairly normal. With very few exceptions change greater than that is MUCH greater than that and always negative, indicating some damage has happened to the lens.
If we change test cameras, though, the variation is at least double that - even if we change test cameras without making any other changes to the setup, simply changing the camera and immediately running the same lenses again. Similarly, if we lock one lens in place and simply test a whole series of cameras, the variation is about 5% (with the exception of a few outliers - bad cameras happen at least as frequently as bad lenses).
This is one of the shortcomings, as you've very accurately pointed out in your excellent posts, of the Imatest system compared to a bench testing system. On the other hand, it is also good information, knowing that Lens xxx, whatever the manufacturer, will vary about 5% changing from camera to camera.
All that being said, we're investing in a bench testing setup, more for speed of testing than anything else. (As Ruahrc's post demonstrated, not being able to test lenses after every rental can allow some bad copies to get out - our techs look at them optically after every rental on test charts but that's just not as accurate as MTF measurement. Imatest is too time consuming to test every lens every week.) Once it's here, the bench will allow us to present the data from large numbers of lenses tested at infinity (which Imatest can't do) and without the variable of camera attached. So hopefully we'll be able to present some new numbers in a couple of months.
edwardkaraa wrote:
That is great, Roger! Are you getting the Zeiss test bench?
I wish but it's out of my price range, unfortunately, and the wait time is very long. We're working with Wells Research who is modifying their OS-400 system to allow us to test on and off axis fully automated like the Zeiss K8 would. It will be another couple of months until we have it but it will give us some capabilities (very short focal lengths, even with our huge charts, probably aren't very accurate on Imatest or DxO, and of course, they can't test at infinity) that we just don't have now. More importantly we should be able to test 200 lenses per day, rather than the 75 or so we can do now.
That was kind of a lot of text just to say the only thing it actually did say:
"Truly bad lenses aren’t a little softer, they are way softer."
It also concludes indirectly that the slight variations we see or think we see is just BS. Test it again the next day or on a different body and one you thought was poor-ish might be at the top of the heap.
This is also what pretty much all the old timers here have said over the years. There is SV but it's rare indeed and people testing on their own picking out slight variations are actually doing little more than navel gazing.
Of all the lens tests and comments I've read here (close to 250,000 of them) I've seen exactly two people who had "a bad copy".
This is of course anecdotal but I say this is about the norm.
tomb57, Buy your lens from out of town if that saves you a little cash and just don't worry about it!
Being new, I am not sure I can test the lens since I have no reference point, as well as I would have the tendency to think it's my mistake, not the lens.
The only safe way I can do is to try two or more lens and get the best one. It would be harder for me to do this way by buying from out-of-town shop.
uscmatt99 wrote:
Might I also suggest widening the scope of your search to include the ZF.2 35/1.4 as well? Great for people photos, landscape, and architecture as well. It's my most used lens on a Nikon D700, only negatives being the size and occasionally outlandish purple fringing wide open.
