p.5 #2 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Brad, I see no negativity; and it would not be difficult for Marumi to turn out 95mm in their top line of pol filters, 2filter.com already sells the lesser grade Marumi for $99.
As a 21mm shooter I see there are many shooting conditions for which pol filters work extremely well in outdoor photography with care, and of course out of 'blue sky' days also. It can be a powerful artistic device even with uneven skies. CZ have this longstanding design intent for filter rings, perhaps over the external frame kind (Lee etc). KR says that two can fit on the 21mm..
I like the idea of a built-in hood also, and enjoy the lenses I have that have one - one less thing to worry about juggling in the field.
Perhaps wrongly, I am hoping this one is a modern hallmark lens for CZ, as was the CY21 two decades ago now. One that will permit them to explore new directions in wide angle lenses, and have flow on effects in longer focal length wides. It's so easy to be critical, but their latest WA releases are top flight even if not everyone's cup of tea.
Z250SA, thanks for the perceptive words. It's a complex one at 15/12, two extra elements over the CY 15mm. If very well-corrected and excellent across most of the frame, especially for CA, there will be a steady but small market I am sure. I also felt 21mm was very wide photographically until I got quality time on mine, now it's so easy to use, almost indispensable for creative use.
p.5 #3 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Bifurcator wrote:
Hehehhe!
My thoughts on usefulness the focal length tho... this would be the same as the wide end of the Lumix 7-14 and that's awesome for all kinds of photography! I see good street shots (when the photographer knows how to use the histogram) with it, great party and event shots with it, even sports where the photog can get close - like local ping-pong championships/play-offs, pool and park skaters, snow boarding, ballooning, etc. The creative and interesting shots I see at the wide end of the 7-14 even in spite of the low DR on µ4/3, make me think 7.5mm (15mm equiv) is not too wide to be useful! I used the Lumix for awhile and it sure took some getting used to but after the marriage ceremony the honeymoon was pretty sweet! ...Show more →
i think the issue is just me being a grumpy old man. i just don't like 95% of really good ultrawide angle photos. talking about work from great photographers, not my own attempts (i've never gone past 24mm). i don't like the angle of view, if i can recognize that it is an ultrawide angle of view i don't like the photo. just like some people don't like photos of bokeh and see it as a crutch for poor composition, i don't like ultrawide angle shots and often feel it's used to try and make a boring photo more interesting. street photography is where it bugs me most. anyway, everybody has their quirks.
p.5 #4 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
dimsonation wrote:
i really have a hard time understanding the thought behind designing such a lens...
ok its 15mm but there are other high quality 14mm glass on the market
the built in hood and the 95mm thread make it impossible to mount standard square filters and filter holders (i'm talking mostly about LEE grads), the bread and butter option for most landscape shooters (again, same basic drawback of all the 14mm primes)
i think a much more logical thing to do was, either redesign their current 18mm which had relatively bad rep for a zeiss glass, or go with something less extreme, like a 16-17mm f/2.8 prime with 82mm thread and better sharpness across the frame than the current lenses available on the market. now, THAT would sell!...Show more →
15mm is an existing design for xeiss and has been for 30 years. I imagine its easier to improve or rebadge existing design than come up with a new one like 17mm. Plus 17mm is too close to 18/3.5, which might not be optimal but still sells. 16mm is a fisheye and I am sure that lens will see the daylight soon.
More importantly thou is distortion in 15. If Zeiss can control it, the lens will sell, even at 3k. Maybe not in huge volume but enough to make profit imo
p.5 #5 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
philip_pj wrote:
Brad, I see no negativity;
Thanks Philip
philip_pj wrote:
and it would not be difficult for Marumi to turn out 95mm in their top line of pol filters, 2filter.com already sells the lesser grade Marumi for $99.
As a 21mm shooter I see there are many shooting conditions for which pol filters work extremely well in outdoor photography with care, and of course out of 'blue sky' days also. It can be a powerful artistic device even with uneven skies. CZ have this longstanding design intent for filter rings, perhaps over the external frame kind (Lee etc). KR says that two can fit on the 21mm..
I might give Marumi a look. I don't worry too much about uneven polarization in skies unless the dark band becomes too narrow. I find the effect adds interest in a clear sky. Where I really appreciate a polarizer is the ability to control reflections on water and reflected light from snow, vegetation. I really like the 21mm focal length for pure landscape scenics - something about an FOV around 90 deg that seems to pull in just the right mix of sky, foreground and middleground. When I had a 17-40, about 3/4 of my shots were around 20-22mm.
philip_pj wrote:
one less thing to worry about juggling in the field.
I hear ya on the juggling part. I have a set of GND's 1-2-3 stops both the hard and soft transitions and sometimes I feel like I'm playing cards out there.
p.5 #6 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
sebboh wrote:
i think the issue is just me being a grumpy old man. i just don't like 95% of really good ultrawide angle photos. talking about work from great photographers, not my own attempts (i've never gone past 24mm). i don't like the angle of view, if i can recognize that it is an ultrawide angle of view i don't like the photo. just like some people don't like photos of bokeh and see it as a crutch for poor composition, i don't like ultrawide angle shots and often feel it's used to try and make a boring photo more interesting. street photography is where it bugs me most. anyway, everybody has their quirks....Show more →
I agree with you here, though I'm sure this view will ruffle some people's feathers. Most wide compositions seem to rely on some interestingly shaped/colored/textured object in the foreground at the expense of the overall scene. I also feel that 24mm is at the limit of what I would accept, though 28mm is my wide of choice for FF.
p.5 #7 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Looking at some super wide photos, I really like when the photog uses the super wide look to capture abstraction in very large structures (mainly at the street level in major cities). But generally most people seem to use it as a catch all capture everything in front of you lens. I can see why this doesn't really sit well with some.
p.5 #8 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
j.liam wrote:
Lloyd also mentions that it's an "all-new lens design" so the theories that it somehow relates to the the RF optical formula or will demonstrate a mustache-type distortion like the 21 are probably now unfounded. Canonistas will really be the ones for whom this will be a native-mount revelation, like the 14-24 was/is for Nikon users.
Except for the Canonistas that use the 14-24G via the G adapter.
Obviously, 14-24G is more handy than a fixed 15 and the TS-E 17 is special with its T/S abilities, great for architecture and landscape. A fixed 15mm lens will be a very special purpose lens that probably doesn't get used enough for most people to be worth the price of admission which will be steep. I also bet it will have higher distortion values than CaNikon equivalents since that has been Zeiss's ultra wide angle MO. I also find I have to shoot ultra wide lenses like my 17 on a tripod or at least with a level on the flash mount since the slightest off kilter from center level causes lines in the shot to get out of whack in a hurry, especially architecture shooting.
p.5 #9 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Nah, we all have preferences in focal lengths, no feathers out of place for most, I am sure. Let me put a few ideas out there, however.
IF well corrected and 'dynamic' (let's call it that), wide angle lenses enable a juxtaposition of compositional elements that can introduce fresh relationships that cannot be otherwise obtained. For viewers and photographers who appreciate complex compositions, they are near to irresistable for this reason.
Crucially, they enable near-far compositions with everything sharp - something the human eye cannot achieve...so you can get a much better context in your images. This is a huge benefit for those of us who want viewers to actualy see the image content, as opposed to looking at a lot of blurred foreground and/or background...a lot of non-photographers find blur rather blurry...For documentary work, being able to see in fine detail actual content that people may one day visit themselves has obvious benefits ;~)
Emphasis on the compositional elements is down to the photographer's shooting position, how s/he arranges the various shapes and objects, the point being it is up to him/her to make the image how they want it.
The better wide angles produce gentle focus fade with increasing distance from the focal plane, retaining context while imparting to the viewer what is important to the viewer and what is less important. Zeiss anybody? This is a huge issue with their lenses, that 'still well defined' content in OOF content...Hollywood likes it too, of course.
To habitual users of wide angle lenses, a lot of telephoto images look like the view a poor, backyard bound dog gets through the gap in the fence - a narrow, impoverished view of a single object - that leaves the heart unsatisfied and the mind unrewarded for the effort expended. The world is narrowed down, not expanded outwards. A lot of detail about not very much.
Preferences, no right or wrong involved, and many photographers find they need a wide range of focal length lenses.
p.5 #10 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Well said Phillip_pj, I was going to say that ultra wide angles are used also to exaggerate the distances between objects in the scene and can put more emphasis on things in the foreground vs. the background.
You need to be good at both composing with ultra wide angle and with telephoto. Each as you say, have their purpose depending on the scene and composition.
p.5 #11 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Philip: I agree entirely. Don't get me wrong, I use sub-50mm focal lengths more than any others. However, I feel that shortly (pun intended) after 24mm the FOV becomes so extreme, so far removed from normal human perception that the eye can't help but get sucked in by foreground elements that are rendered with such gigantism. The medium becomes too much the message; an obnoxious sort of visual rhetoric is created.
p.5 #12 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
dimsonation wrote:
i really have a hard time understanding the thought behind designing such a lens...
ok its 15mm but there are other high quality 14mm glass on the market
the built in hood and the 95mm thread make it impossible to mount standard square filters and filter holders (i'm talking mostly about LEE grads), the bread and butter option for most landscape shooters (again, same basic drawback of all the 14mm primes)
i think a much more logical thing to do was, either redesign their current 18mm which had relatively bad rep for a zeiss glass, or go with something less extreme, like a 16-17mm f/2.8 prime with 82mm thread and better sharpness across the frame than the current lenses available on the market. now, THAT would sell!...Show more →
Cause its Zeiss and cause they can.
Otherwise, there are no 15mm Zeiss lens on market.. so why they wouldnt make them and sell them? And I guess cause they made some in the past. Theres pretty good Contax 15mm f3.5 lens.
Btw. for those poor users with APS-C (or APS-H .. which is now dying breed) it wont be bad lens. And why they wouldnt want Zeiss lens?
p.5 #13 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Distortion is inherent to these highly asymmetrical lenses. Copious use of aspherical surfaces is the only way it's avoided, and even then, that comes at a cost. I'd expect this new lens to have distortion levels similar to the other wide Distagons.
The latest teaser photos (there's another one this morning) show a curious front element: it's comparable in size to the front element of the 21 mm Distagon, but more curved. It doesn't look like the huge-diameter bulbous elements of most 14 mm f/2.8 lenses. Is the new Zeiss an f/3.5 or f/4 model rather than f/2.8?
The 14 mm f/2.8 lenses use huge negative meniscus elements to better correct aberrations and simplify the rest of the design. If the front element size is reduced, the lens must be made shorter, which in turn requires elements with more curvature or higher refractive index to achieve the required power; these things militate against high image quality.
There are two Z-series lenses with aspherical surfaces: the 35 mm f/1.4 (last element) and the 25 mm f/2 (second-last element). These have one aspherical element, so the 15 mm will be the first Z-series lens with more than one aspherical element. Is one of those near the front? Aspherical surfaces have most effect when placed at the front or rear of the lens (Nikon's big innovation with the 14-24 mm was making a big enough aspherical surface to place it as the second element).
The latest photos make the lens look more manageable than I first imagined. The filter thread is 95 mm, but the lens might be a little shorter and lighter than I thought, and the front will be easier to protect.
p.5 #16 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
S Dilworth wrote:
Distortion is inherent to these highly asymmetrical lenses. Copious use of aspherical surfaces is the only way it's avoided, and even then, that comes at a cost. I'd expect this new lens to have distortion levels similar to the other wide Distagons.
The latest teaser photos (there's another one this morning) show a curious front element: it's comparable in size to the front element of the 21 mm Distagon, but more curved. It doesn't look like the huge-diameter bulbous elements of most 14 mm f/2.8 lenses. Is the new Zeiss an f/3.5 or f/4 model rather than f/2.8?
The 14 mm f/2.8 lenses use huge negative meniscus elements to better correct aberrations and simplify the rest of the design. If the front element size is reduced, the lens must be made shorter, which in turn requires elements with more curvature or higher refractive index to achieve the required power; these things militate against high image quality.
There are two Z-series lenses with aspherical surfaces: the 35 mm f/1.4 (last element) and the 25 mm f/2 (second-last element). These have one aspherical element, so the 15 mm will be the first Z-series lens with more than one aspherical element. Is one of those near the front? Aspherical surfaces have most effect when placed at the front or rear of the lens (Nikon's big innovation with the 14-24 mm was making a big enough aspherical surface to place it as the second element).
The latest photos make the lens look more manageable than I first imagined. The filter thread is 95 mm, but the lens might be a little shorter and lighter than I thought, and the front will be easier to protect....Show more →
Interesting. Sounds like it may have higher distortion than my TS17 which is very good (~1% distortion according to PZ) and my 14-24G which PZ rates at 4% at 14mm but goes down to 1.6% at 18mm and near zero at 24mm.
I would think from the size of the front element that it will be a f/3.5 or f4 too. I would be really surprised if it is 2.8.
p.5 #17 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
This lens is going to be fun, and it's going to be good. I just see a lot of pre-emptive justification for not wanting/able to spend $3k on a toy we don't really need. I've seen people ask for Nikon to replace the old 14mm prime, but now Zeiss essentially that, and for some reason now it's not cool.
p.5 #19 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Any final guesses on the specs?
Although I wondered earlier if it might be f/3.5, I think I'll go with f/2.8 and the trademark Zeiss vignetting instead. Two aspherical elements, one at or near the front, and liberal use of anomalous partial dispersion glass. Lateral colour at 21 mm Distagon levels, i.e. unprecedented at this focal length. 900 grams, maybe? Surely not a literal kilogram! Horrific 95 mm lens cap included for $2900.
p.5 #20 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
After going through Canon's 14ver2, 17TS, and 24 TS, for me the ZE21mm was just right on FF. On my poor NEX 5N the 15 will be 21 again. Unless Sony announces a FF NEX the 15 will fit the bill.
This is everyone's fault who posts on this board. If I'd never wandered over here I'd still be a happy Cannon guy.
