i have 21ZE, and 35 1.4 ZE. I want something in between, and i think i like 28mm FOV. then i bought 28ZE, and i like it so far. i dont mind the field curvature, and CA is no problem in my real world use. now that 25ZE is out and it seems thal lots of users praise that lens. my question is, put aside the field curvature and CA in 28ZE, and soft corner in 25ZE, how much better is 25ZE compared to 28ZE? the price difference is significant, and i prefer 28mm fov to 25mm.
but if the color, contrast is worth 'upgrading', i would sell my 28ZE for 25ZE.
what is your opinion?
I believe the biggest difference with the 25ZE vs. the 28ZE is the purity and separation of color from the 25ZE vs the 28ZE due to the distinct lack of CA.
2 different lenses with different personalities. The 28 I think is of lower contrast, and produces more open shadows. The 25 is sharper and of colder color balance, I think.
I like both, but use the 25 for some subjects, then go back and try the 28. Different results, different images.
The ZF25 f/2.8 is very much like the 28/2 and the 35/2. Different FOV, but contrast levels more like the 35/2.
If you like the 28mm FOV, keep the ZE 28. I had it in the ZF mount and loved it (only sold it when I ditched DSLRs). It's small, performs well, and fits nicely between your ZE 21 and ZE 35.
You've got to love Zeiss - the wider the lens the better it performs, they do it by design intent also. Too bad so few people like wide lenses.
Both these totally shade the 35/2 and 35/1.4 wide open and at f4, not even close. The big performance difference between them is the 25/2 is much better wide open, as in substantially, cannot miss it better.
Roger Cicala found it (the 25/2) to be the best performing DSLR lens he had tested. The MTF data backs that up. It's their latest and best, apart from the 21mm...and the even more recent, super-wide 15/2.8, which is better than even the 21mm in the image centre, and the centre covers an awful lot of field at 15mm.
I have no doubt all are worth having, CZ are on a roll lasting decades, lol.
For what you shoot, reza, the 25mm brings a lot to the table, put it on the wish list maybe.
thanks a lot for the comments!
it seems that the consensus is the 25ZE is sharper wide open, and has better contrast.
now my next question is, is the difference visible between 25 and 28 ZE?
@Carlitos, since you have both, do you have any photos showing side by side comparison regarding the color, contrast etc? it would be great if someone in this forum has such comparison. i tried looking through the internet but did not found one.
my 2nd question, is the difference of FOV between both lenses quite significant? i chose 28mm because i think 25mm fov is too close with 21ZE fov which i already have.
reza, you have a ZE 35 f:1.4. The 25 is very close in rendering to the 35. There are a few differences, for example the 25 doesn't quite have the creamy bokeh close up that the 35 has, and vignettes more wide open, but doesn't suffer as much from reduced contrast wide open. But, overall, if you want to know what the 25ZE feels like, it is a wider 35 f:1.4. I found that the 25 actually made even my 21 feel a bit dated, in terms of purity of colour, contrast, and spatial placement, icluding in the OOF areas.
That makes it a very different lens from the 28, as Carlitos said. Even leaving the FC and the CA aside, my 28 had the least saturated colours and the least contrast of all ZEs I owned, so I used it primarily to reduce the harshness of mid-day light, but that was too much of a speciality use to earn it a spot in my bag, and I sold it.
In terms of focal length, I found the 25 closer to the 28 than to the 21, but that is just me.
reza187 wrote:
thanks a lot for the comments!
it seems that the consensus is the 25ZE is sharper wide open, and has better contrast.
Yeah, but that is partly because of a better correction of CA, which was no problem in your real world.
my 2nd question, is the difference of FOV between both lenses quite significant? i chose 28mm because i think 25mm fov is too close with 21ZE fov which i already have.
Well, you can crop a 28-mm equivalent FOV out of the 25-mm capture and presumably end up with a better image than an uncropped 28-mm capture.
I think the Zeiss 25/2 is probably a sharper lens than the Leica R28 E55. I haven't done a direct comparison, but there is a thread here on FM that compares the ZF25/2.8 and the Leica R28. I couldn't tell the difference between those two in crops.
But I know the 25/2 is sharper than the 25/2.8. And, as has been said a more modern look as well.
Since I am shooting film I can't provide any useful picture comparisons, but the 25/2 and the 28/2 are very different lenses.
I love the 28/2 with Astia, seem to be made for each other. But the 25/2 and Velvia 50 is just intellectually challenging.
thank you all for the comment!
i'll try comparing more closely about the color and contrast of the photos taken with my 28ZE and 35 1.4ZE. so far, compared to 28 ZE, in my opinion 35 1.4 takes photos with more punchy colors. i guess that's what people refer to better contrast. based on the comment in this thread, i suppose i will also see better color from 25ZE compared to 28ZE.
i really love 21ZE, and actually i feel hesitant to get the 25ZE since they seems have very similar fov. but philber said fov wise 25ZE it's not that close with 21ZE, and i can crop 25ZE to get similar fov with 28ZE just like toothwalker idea.
now 25ZE seems very appealing now. this is your fault guys
if only the price difference of 25ZE and 28ZE is not that significant. i got the 28ZE 2nd hand with the half price of 25ZE new. i think it's very hard to find 2nd hand 25ZE with a good price, since it was just released.
carlitos wrote:
I think the Zeiss 25/2 is probably a sharper lens than the Leica R28 E55.
Wow
I'll sell the R28 E55 if this is true ... But I doubt it ..
I agree. E55 is uniformly sharp and extreme contrasts from 2.8, across the frame, 25 \ 2 is weak in the corners.
Besides, E55 is more compact and lighter.
For me, the advantage of 25 \ 2 is only 2.0
E55 is actually the best 28mm for D800
I'd rather keep that 28 mm, get something of a new flavor..Leica R 60, 50 E60 etc.
Z 28 is really special for me, at some point I did favor a 35 f/2 and try to sell Z 28 but in the end, I prefer selling the 35 f/2. Both of them still with me though but if I have to sell it will be the 35.
'E55 is uniformly sharp and extreme contrasts from 2.8, across the frame, 25 \ 2 is weak in the corners.'
Andrew, this comment likely gives readers a false impression. The Elmarit-R 28/2.8 is excellent at f5.6, and more so at f8; which suffers a profound dip in performance at wider apertures at the 12mm mark - the short edge area of the full frame.
The Zeiss is sharper at f2 and f4 in the image centre, and it is terrific out the wide edges - 18mm image height, so it would make an excellent 28mm crop image also, of the highest order. Or APS-C. Cross frame consistency also goes the the 25/2 within that bound. Distortion is around 2% for both.
Frankly I would not use the 28/2.8 E-R for detailed landscape work at less than f8 since fine detail is *half* at 3/4 frame what it is at 1/2 frame up to f5.6. That's quite a restriction in such a costly lens. It is a very nice lens with Leica rendering and colour, but it does not compare technically with the 25/2, with the corners caveat for that one.
Many wide Leica Rs are designed this way, with an unsharp gradient in mid frame, the 35mm Summicron-R also and the Summilux 35/1.4 is very much so. You can use it to advantage of course, like bokeh in close focus shots at wide apertures etc. Portraits, intimate scenes, street. Nature shots with strong centres where the rest is less important.
Was just going to say. Haven't had direct experience with the Leica, but the Zeiss 25/2 is extremely sharp at f4 and f5.6, and I haven't seen any photo examples that show the R28 as being much 'sharper', the extreme corners aside.
Large difference in rendering, maybe a tiny difference in sharpness? I sense perhaps a little bit of fanboyism .
philip_pj wrote:
Andrew, this comment likely gives readers a false impression. The Elmarit-R 28/2.8 is excellent at f5.6, and more so at f8; which suffers a profound dip in performance at wider apertures at the 12mm mark - the short edge area of the full frame.
I did not notice it.
I also do not see profound dip in performance here wide open
