This topic is in the 2015 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2015Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
p.15 #1Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
philber wrote:
OK, I am going to stick my neck out here. I played with the Batis 25, and it really reminded me of my Touit 12. The 25 is endowed with every possible virtue, sharpness, colours, 3D, but something is lacking, which I can't quite put my finger on, that prevents me from rating it among the very top tier. Pascal feels the same way. If I had to put words on it, I'd say it is a bit "synthetic" rather than "organic". Pascal says it is a bit like pre-cooked food. Tasty and easy to eat, but not quite the...Show more →
Thanks for your excellent review of the Loxia! So if I understand correctly, what you are trying to say is you think the Batis is an excellent lens, but because it doesn't really have the classic Zeiss feel (with regards to rendering images and even build quality) that previous lenses of similar focal lengths had you (personally) can't rate it as high? Also what do you mean by "It could be due to the constraints of an AF lens"?
Lastly, how was your the focusing experience with the Loxia? I currently use the Voigtlander 21mm 1.8 as my go to WA walkaround lens but lately ever since I got the A7RII, for some reason, I've been having a lot of problems getting focus correct even when stopped down and with focus peaking. In addition I've been starting to think that 21 might be slightly too wide of a FL for me as a walkaround so I've been seriously considering the Batis 25 as a replacement for both reasons.
OK, I am going to stick my neck out here. I played with the Batis 25, and it really reminded me of my Touit 12. The 25 is endowed with every possible virtue, sharpness, colours, 3D, but something is lacking, which I can't quite put my finger on, that prevents me from rating it among the very top tier. Pascal feels the same way. If I had to put words on it, I'd say it is a bit "synthetic" rather than "organic". Pascal says it is a bit like pre-cooked food. Tasty and easy to eat, but not quite the...Show more →
Thanks for your excellent review of the Loxia! So if I understand correctly, what you are trying to say is you think the Batis is an excellent lens, but because it doesn't really have the classic Zeiss feel (with regards to rendering images and even build quality) that previous lenses of similar focal lengths had you (personally) can't rate it as high? Also what do you mean by "It could be due to the constraints of an AF lens"?
Lastly, how was your the focusing experience with the Loxia? I currently use the Voigtlander 21mm 1.8 as my go to WA walkaround lens but lately ever since I got the A7RII, for some reason, I've been having a lot of problems getting focus correct even when stopped down and with focus peaking. In addition I've been starting to think that 21 might be slightly too wide of a FL for me as a walkaround so I've been seriously considering the Batis 25 as a replacement for both reasons.
Nov 07, 2015 at 07:22 PM
p.15 #2Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Steve, it is a very interesting theory! Would you extend it so far as to say that many love superb Leica lenses "because" of their Zone B dip? Or the ZM 35 f1.4 on the Sony A7x, which does have less-than-perfect corners under some conditions?
You might have counter-examples though, and none more so than the Otus 28. On the one hand, it is sharp all the way, as a proper Otus should be, but also eminently lovable, as my quick tryout showed. Very eminently lovable!
You might have counter-examples though, and none more so than the Otus 28. On the one hand, it is sharp all the way, as a proper Otus should be, but also eminently lovable, as my quick tryout showed. Very eminently lovable!
Nov 08, 2015 at 12:05 AM
p.15 #3Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Leetmode, it is also my experience, and that of some others, that A7R II is a bit trickier to get focus with than was A7R before, so you are not alone.
As regards focusing te Loxia, it is easy. Focusing throw feels right, as does the focusing ring. Obviously, it is harder to focus on small details with a 21 than with a longer focal length, but that is true with all wide angles. On th eother hand, you might try what I did with the Distagon 21 "classic": set aperture to f:5.6, focus to infinity, then pull back just a bit, and you will be sharp from around 1,5m to infinity...
As regards focusing te Loxia, it is easy. Focusing throw feels right, as does the focusing ring. Obviously, it is harder to focus on small details with a 21 than with a longer focal length, but that is true with all wide angles. On th eother hand, you might try what I did with the Distagon 21 "classic": set aperture to f:5.6, focus to infinity, then pull back just a bit, and you will be sharp from around 1,5m to infinity...
Nov 08, 2015 at 12:11 AM
p.15 #4Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
philber wrote:
Steve, it is a very interesting theory! Would you extend it so far as to say that many love superb Leica lenses "because" of their Zone B dip? Or the ZM 35 f1.4 on the Sony A7x, which does have less-than-perfect corners under some conditions?
You might have counter-examples though, and none more so than the Otus 28. On the one hand, it is sharp all the way, as a proper Otus should be, but also eminently lovable, as my quick tryout showed. Very eminently lovable!
I do think a slight zone B or zone C dip does add to the interest or character of the lens, and if the lens is ultra sharp in the centre, then it can still be sharp in the 'dip.' When a lens has almost no dip at all like the Batis lenses, then I think it can feel sterile or clinical or synthetic to use your word. I'm not so sure that the Otus lenses are a counter example. If you look at the MTF for the Otus 28 and the 20 cycles/mm line wide open at 1:20, you see that in the centre it is 80%, whereas in zone C it is 65%. Just the sort of 15% drop that I think leave the image sharp, but less sterile. You see the same sort of thing at infinity and stopped down to f/4, here the 40 cycles/mm line is above 80 percent in the centre (wow) but drops to 60 percent or so with some discrepancy between sag and tan in zone C. Again the theory anyway is that this makes the image seem less clinical even though it is very good in zone C it is so good in the centre there is still a difference.
Steve, it is a very interesting theory! Would you extend it so far as to say that many love superb Leica lenses "because" of their Zone B dip? Or the ZM 35 f1.4 on the Sony A7x, which does have less-than-perfect corners under some conditions?
You might have counter-examples though, and none more so than the Otus 28. On the one hand, it is sharp all the way, as a proper Otus should be, but also eminently lovable, as my quick tryout showed. Very eminently lovable!
I do think a slight zone B or zone C dip does add to the interest or character of the lens, and if the lens is ultra sharp in the centre, then it can still be sharp in the 'dip.' When a lens has almost no dip at all like the Batis lenses, then I think it can feel sterile or clinical or synthetic to use your word. I'm not so sure that the Otus lenses are a counter example. If you look at the MTF for the Otus 28 and the 20 cycles/mm line wide open at 1:20, you see that in the centre it is 80%, whereas in zone C it is 65%. Just the sort of 15% drop that I think leave the image sharp, but less sterile. You see the same sort of thing at infinity and stopped down to f/4, here the 40 cycles/mm line is above 80 percent in the centre (wow) but drops to 60 percent or so with some discrepancy between sag and tan in zone C. Again the theory anyway is that this makes the image seem less clinical even though it is very good in zone C it is so good in the centre there is still a difference.
Nov 08, 2015 at 06:03 AM
p.15 #5Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
As you know,Steve, MTF graphs are, for me, harder to read than tea leaves. But what you write makes sense... as usual...
Nov 08, 2015 at 09:20 AM
p.15 #7Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Steve Spencer wrote:
philber wrote
OK, I am going to stick my neck out here. I played with the Batis 25, and it really reminded me of my Touit 12. The 25 is endowed with every possible virtue, sharpness, colours, 3D, but something is lacking, which I can't quite put my finger on, that prevents me from rating it among the very top tier. Pascal feels the same way. If I had to put words on it, I'd say it is a bit "synthetic" rather than "organic". Pascal says it is a bit like pre-cooked food. Tasty and easy to eat, but not quite the same as fresh produce. It could be due to the constraints of an AF lens, or to a different builder than Cosina, like Tamron or Fuji.The Loxia 21 is much more "traditional Zeiss", as in the Z* range, in an even slightly more transparent form than the Z* Distagons. Having tried the Loxia alleviates any regret I had that my order for the Batis wasn't filled, but that is just me, and I have been in the minority over my preferences more than once.
But I would like to remind you that we could only try it for a short time, on show grounds, and without direct comparison. So there may be more to this lens than we know now.
Lenses with strong field curvature produce very interesting three dimensional effects because the focus plane being wavy will make some unexpected parts of the frame to be sharp, and others that our brain expect to be sharp are blurred. The trick of course is to get your subject in focus, which is not so easy if you place it in the curvature zone
I personally prefer the traditional bell shaped curvature of my ZM lenses. I'm not sure if it was done on purpose or just a happy accident, but the field curvature compensates for focus/recompose. I can focus with my 50 planar anywhere in the frame and recompose and the point of focus remains sharp. Try to do that with a 50 cron or lux. Unfortunately the ZM 35/1.4 having a very flat field will back focus if I do that.
Nov 08, 2015 at 10:46 PM
p.15 #8Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I am really fighting with myself not to pre-order this lens!
Here are 3 jpg with no editing (just fixed the WB) from the Loxia 21/2.8 on a Sony A7s.
Shot it on Saturday at the Photo Fair in Stockholm.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4127465/DSC04499.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4127465/DSC04500.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4127465/DSC04501.jpg
All wide open. The first one is at about 2 meters and the other two at infinity.
I can send the RAWs if someone needs them.
Here are 3 jpg with no editing (just fixed the WB) from the Loxia 21/2.8 on a Sony A7s.
Shot it on Saturday at the Photo Fair in Stockholm.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4127465/DSC04499.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4127465/DSC04500.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4127465/DSC04501.jpg
All wide open. The first one is at about 2 meters and the other two at infinity.
I can send the RAWs if someone needs them.
Nov 09, 2015 at 03:40 PM
p.15 #9Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
nampramos wrote:
I am really fighting with myself not to pre-order this lens!
I lost the fight already and put one on pre-order. Pascals and Phillipes review was a pleasure to read and very informative, although I am a bit worried about the slight green vignetting that is visible on some images (especially because I am going to use it on the A7R),
Who is considering to make the switch from the FE 16-35mm f/4 to the Loxia 21mm f/2.8 and why?
I am really fighting with myself not to pre-order this lens!
I lost the fight already and put one on pre-order. Pascals and Phillipes review was a pleasure to read and very informative, although I am a bit worried about the slight green vignetting that is visible on some images (especially because I am going to use it on the A7R),
Who is considering to make the switch from the FE 16-35mm f/4 to the Loxia 21mm f/2.8 and why?
Nov 09, 2015 at 04:17 PM
p.15 #10Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I cant part away from the 16-35/4 since it is my main work tool for real estate but with the Loxia 21 I wouldnt carry the zoom any more for leisure travel.
Nov 09, 2015 at 04:24 PM
p.15 #11Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Jannik Peters wrote:
I lost the fight already and put one on pre-order. Pascals and Phillipes review was a pleasure to read and very informative, although I am a bit worried about the slight green vignetting that is visible on some images (especially because I am going to use it on the A7R),
Who is considering to make the switch from the FE 16-35mm f/4 to the Loxia 21mm f/2.8 and why?
I am. Why?
1. Easier to focus accurately for landscape work due to manual focussing with infinity stop and DOF scale
2. Better corners
3. F2.8
4. Smaller
That said I will probably keep the FE16-35 for when I need AF
nampramos wrote
I am really fighting with myself not to pre-order this lens!Who is considering to make the switch from the FE 16-35mm f/4 to the Loxia 21mm f/2.8 and why?
I am. Why?
1. Easier to focus accurately for landscape work due to manual focussing with infinity stop and DOF scale
2. Better corners
3. F2.8
4. Smaller
That said I will probably keep the FE16-35 for when I need AF
Nov 09, 2015 at 04:56 PM
p.15 #12Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
The infinity stop on the Loxia lenses isn't accurate. They leave some flex in there. Not sure why. I recall reading somewhere it has to do with differences caused by ambient temperature.
Nov 09, 2015 at 05:59 PM
p.15 #13Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I'm hoping the differences will be apparent at larger apertures and extreme corners.
I have a good 16-35/4 copy and it's a great lens from 16-28mm. At f/5.6 it's superb in the center but only at f/8, I see a more even performance (best extreme edges)
At 28-35mm it's best at the extreme corners at f/11. (and the center suffers a bit)
I'm expecting the Loxia 21mm to be better at the edges and very corners at close to wide open apertures.
I would say both lenses complement each other. If I'm shooting at or close to 21mm, I will chose the Loxia. For everything else, the zoom will do a great job.
I have a good 16-35/4 copy and it's a great lens from 16-28mm. At f/5.6 it's superb in the center but only at f/8, I see a more even performance (best extreme edges)
At 28-35mm it's best at the extreme corners at f/11. (and the center suffers a bit)
I'm expecting the Loxia 21mm to be better at the edges and very corners at close to wide open apertures.
I would say both lenses complement each other. If I'm shooting at or close to 21mm, I will chose the Loxia. For everything else, the zoom will do a great job.
Nov 09, 2015 at 06:18 PM
p.15 #14Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
nampramos wrote:
Who is considering to make the switch from the FE 16-35mm f/4 to the Loxia 21mm f/2.8 and why?
I am definitely making the switch and not keeping the FE 4/16-35. Main reasons sharpness, f2.8, but especially not being focus-by-wire - I truly hate that thing!
---------------------------------------------
davewolfs wrote:
The infinity stop on the Loxia lenses isn't accurate. They leave some flex in there. Not sure why. I recall reading somewhere it has to do with differences caused by ambient temperature.
I wouldnt generalize this. My Loxia 50 is as accurate as it gets at infinity stop - at least it feels that way.
Nov 09, 2015 at 06:22 PM
p.15 #15Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
davewolfs wrote:
The infinity stop on the Loxia lenses isn't accurate. They leave some flex in there. Not sure why. I recall reading somewhere it has to do with differences caused by ambient temperature.
The stop point on the Loxias is slightly beyond infinity by design, so it should not be described as "inaccurate." However, it is important to be aware of this feature and not assume that by turning the focusing ring all the way, it will be focused at infinity.
Rob
The infinity stop on the Loxia lenses isn't accurate. They leave some flex in there. Not sure why. I recall reading somewhere it has to do with differences caused by ambient temperature.
The stop point on the Loxias is slightly beyond infinity by design, so it should not be described as "inaccurate." However, it is important to be aware of this feature and not assume that by turning the focusing ring all the way, it will be focused at infinity.
Rob
Nov 09, 2015 at 09:13 PM
p.15 #16Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Anyone picking this lens up over the 25mm Batis? If so, I'm curious as to why? (Other than availability when it launches)
Thanks everyone!
Thanks everyone!
Nov 09, 2015 at 10:48 PM
p.15 #17Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I would totally grab this over the Batis.
It's manual focus. It's got a better build and will last longer (hopefully). It's also a 21, and I so miss my C/Y D21.
It's manual focus. It's got a better build and will last longer (hopefully). It's also a 21, and I so miss my C/Y D21.
Nov 09, 2015 at 11:42 PM
p.15 #18Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I am picking this over the Batis for the reason I explain at the bottomof the previous page.
Nov 09, 2015 at 11:46 PM
p.15 #19Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Etherton wrote:
Anyone picking this lens up over the 25mm Batis? If so, I'm curious as to why? (Other than availability when it launches)
Thanks everyone!
i am for the real manual focus and smaller size. i'm suspect it won't work well with the sensor mod though, in which case i might go with the SEM or g21 instead.
Anyone picking this lens up over the 25mm Batis? If so, I'm curious as to why? (Other than availability when it launches)
Thanks everyone!
i am for the real manual focus and smaller size. i'm suspect it won't work well with the sensor mod though, in which case i might go with the SEM or g21 instead.
Nov 09, 2015 at 11:51 PM
p.15 #20Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Sorry, that's probably been discussed throughout the thread. I haven't read all the way through it yet.
Nov 10, 2015 at 12:24 AM