p.8 #1 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Siddhu wrote:
I love my 1.4/35, but I would be really interested to see a flagship Zeiss lens that's between 35mm and 50mm and super ,super fast. Ideally it should be at least f1!
An f/1 lens is physically impossible for the Nikon F-mount, so I suppose Zeiss isn't likely to make a ZE-only lens of that speed. (Today's sensors are also unable to take full advantage of such speeds.)
This new lens is far more interesting to me than a super-speed or telephoto lens. Ultra-wide lenses are the area in most need of improvement today, so I'm happy to see Zeiss address this.
I just wish they wouldn't be so stingy with the focus throw! The feather-light, short-throw focus on my Distagon 21 mm is its greatest ergonomic weakness. Does anyone care to suggest why Zeiss makes their lenses focus so quick? Do you like that?
anandnvi wrote:
How does this lens differ from the Zeiss 15mm ZM?
It's more retrofocus, so it can be mounted on an SLR. Or do you mean optical performance?
p.8 #2 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
I meant optical performance. Mount aside, is there significant enough difference in design or materials that the experts here think one or the other is 'better' optically? FWIW, looking at Zeiss' site, the ZM seems to employ exotic barium-based material.
p.8 #3 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Wow $2900?!?!? This lens had better also be able to cook me dinner or something because the MTF charts do not even look as good as the Samyang 14mm f2.8 which costs $289 on Amazon.
I guess I am in shock at this price for a f2.8 prime. For this price you can get a Zeiss 21mm, a samyang 14mm and have plenty left over for a zeiss 50mm f1.4 and a nice dinner for the wife.
p.8 #4 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
S Dilworth wrote:
I just wish they wouldn't be so stingy with the focus throw! The feather-light, short-throw focus on my Distagon 21 mm is its greatest ergonomic weakness. Does anyone care to suggest why Zeiss makes their lenses focus so quick? Do you like that?
With my limited experience with my Zeiss 21 you get so much DOF at any setting that it is hard to take out of focus pictures. Heck the hyperfocal distance is only 8.5 feet at f5.6 and 17 feet wide open.
p.8 #5 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
john_edwards wrote:
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.
I think Fred is going to start a new shrink forum for people like us
p.8 #6 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Makten wrote:
I've never understood why that man is know at all. Has he ever done anything interesting except writing about stuff that he barely knows how to use?
p.8 #7 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
dadgummit wrote:
With my limited experience with my Zeiss 21 you get so much DOF at any setting that it is hard to take out of focus pictures. Heck the hyperfocal distance is only 8.5 feet at f5.6 and 17 feet wide open.
Steve, the focus throw and damping on the 21 does feel "loose" initially after using the 35/2, 50/2 or 100/2. I don't know why Zeiss did this (can only guess). Every time I change lenses and put the 21D on I feel this. After about 5-10 minutes of use, it feels buttery smooth though :-) however , I do prefer a slightly more damped, precise feel.
The 50 and 100mm lenses felt too damped initially, but it feels ok now. For macro lenses, I guess you do need that damped, precise feel.
p.8 #8 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
anandnvi wrote:
How does this lens differ from the Zeiss 15mm ZM?
Based on the MTF, the ZM has more tangental divergence than the ZE/ZF, double the amount of distortion, with a complex mustache shape, and higher vignetting. Extreme edge/corner performance would seem to favor the ZM. Keep in mind it's over $4000 and made by Zeiss in Germany...
My guess is for general use, there would be little perceptible difference in terms of sharpness/contrast, with perhaps a slight edge to the ZE/ZF for micro contrast.
p.8 #9 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
If it's 103mm wide with the push-on cap in place, as the specs indicate, then I might have a chance to use my grad filters after all. When I had the Contax N 17-35, I bought a custom holder from Lee to fit that lens' 102mm outside diameter (Lee didn't seem to have a 95mm solution at the time). For the 15/2.8, I would just need to macgyver something to block the light coming from the side and behind then somehow find $3000 and everything will be good!
Thanks for this link. I have wondered about this to some degree, or at least, why with some of my fast lenses when going from f/2 to f/1.4 it doesn't result in a full stop gain and the wide open images are a bit underexposed in comparison. I wrote it off as extreme vignetting, which likely still is a factor with certain lenses, though based on this, apparently not the only factor. I have seen this the most on the M9, which would make sense since it doesn't precisely know which aperture has been set due to the lack of suitable coupling with the lens.
p.8 #11 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Brad K wrote:
If it's 103mm wide with the push-on cap in place, as the specs indicate, then I might have a chance to use my grad filters after all. When I had the Contax N 17-35, I bought a custom holder from Lee to fit that lens' 102mm outside diameter (Lee didn't seem to have a 95mm solution at the time). For the 15/2.8, I would just need to macgyver something to block the light coming from the side and behind then somehow find $3000 and everything will be good!
How about some brave individual cuts off the hood? Doesn't look like it would be too difficult to do, unless you want a very neat finish.
p.8 #12 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
rscheffler wrote:
How about some brave individual cuts off the hood? Doesn't look like it would be too difficult to do, unless you want a very neat finish.
Yeah! As soon as I get my new Zeiss I will put my dremel to use.
p.8 #14 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
Brad K wrote:
Sure why not Now I'm off to buy a dremel and get some practice while I save up for the lens.
I'll start saving towards one third the price of the lens, so I'll be ready to jump on the FM Buy & Sell sales for "Distagon 15/2.8, one side of hood missing, small nicks to front element should not affect picture quality"
p.8 #15 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
rscheffler wrote:
My guess is for general use, there would be little perceptible difference in terms of sharpness/contrast, with perhaps a slight edge to the ZE/ZF for micro contrast.
From personal experience, for sheer clarity the 15 ZM lens is unbeatable, and rivals the best that Leica has on offer.
So if what you say is true, that bodes well for this new kid on the block.
p.8 #17 · Zeiss Distagon 2.8/15 ZE official, release in May 2012
I am glad Zeiss limited the distortion to 2% and the colors look great Zeiss usual colors.
But I wish such a ultra wide angle lens as this would come with Shift like my TS-17 as I don't like all the perspective distortion/viewpoint of always tilting the lens down a lot to remove excess sky or tilted up to remove to much foreground or the viewpoint of looking over the scene from a higher point. The nice thing about having shift like the 17 is that you can take a ultra wide angle shot shifted down without tilting the lens down and it looks like you are more down with the ferns in Lloyd's forest type shots or wildflowers of a landscape scene, or the Bad Water salt formations of Death Valley.
The other thing I see with this lens which is backed up by the weak tangential lines in the MTF even at f8, especially the highest freq one, which renders less 3-d look and rather more flat spatial rendering than other zeiss lenses. LC's tree across the river shot and the closeup blossoms shot do not look as 3-d ish as 21 and other zeiss lenses. I don't like his tilted down architecture shot at Stanford memorial court either. Too much distortion in the corners due to tilting down the lens. To do this type of shot you need the shift of the TS-17. Not having shift is a big minus for this lens for architecture shooting. For landscape you could probably stitch 21 shots together and get something better.
