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.30 #1Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
MJKoski wrote:
Helloes,
New member here. Allthough I have been following the board for years. I am also the star trails -guy who reported the issue to Lloyd and RawDigger guys.
I have to report my recent experience here with 24mm ts-e mk2. Sony a7r2 with mb4-T fails miserably - even without any movements the frame corners are being smeared. But on 5Dsr this does not happen! The lens is usable fully shifted by stopping down to f/8 - f/11 region depending on the image. Also on a7r1 there are lot less issues. The 42MP sensor is not playing well with the canon design...Show more →
The issue could be the adapter(s).
The Metabones adapter offers great features but it's not really that good regarding QC and tolerance. You can test your adapter flange parallelism using a micrometer. If the flanges are not parallel to each other, the edges will suffer. Alternatively you could test it the same way you would test a lens for decentering.
My TS-E 17/4L is very sharp from center to the extreme corners on the A7RII. The issue is when we start using shift and tilt. The TS-E 17/4L locked without any movements is noticeably sharper on the corners when compared to the FE 16-35/4 @17mm throughout the entire aperture range at infinity focus.
Helloes,
New member here. Allthough I have been following the board for years. I am also the star trails -guy who reported the issue to Lloyd and RawDigger guys.
I have to report my recent experience here with 24mm ts-e mk2. Sony a7r2 with mb4-T fails miserably - even without any movements the frame corners are being smeared. But on 5Dsr this does not happen! The lens is usable fully shifted by stopping down to f/8 - f/11 region depending on the image. Also on a7r1 there are lot less issues. The 42MP sensor is not playing well with the canon design...Show more →
The issue could be the adapter(s).
The Metabones adapter offers great features but it's not really that good regarding QC and tolerance. You can test your adapter flange parallelism using a micrometer. If the flanges are not parallel to each other, the edges will suffer. Alternatively you could test it the same way you would test a lens for decentering.
My TS-E 17/4L is very sharp from center to the extreme corners on the A7RII. The issue is when we start using shift and tilt. The TS-E 17/4L locked without any movements is noticeably sharper on the corners when compared to the FE 16-35/4 @17mm throughout the entire aperture range at infinity focus.
Jan 20, 2016 at 12:46 PM
p.30 #2Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Jman13 wrote:
I understand, but given the situation it's a fairly unusual claim, which is why I was assuming it was hyperbole. I didn't mean to imply you were lying, but rather exaggerating for effect. I'll have to take your word on that.
I agree that zooming to frame can be lazy, but using it correctly (setting you position for the perspective you want before even really looking through the lens, then choosing the focal length you want for the AOV) they can be very time saving. Ultra wide zooms I haven't seen one that compares to the very best primes,...Show more →
Even a Minolta 200. 2.8 made in 1986 will blow any zooms doors off at 200mm. ANY brand
You want quality buy a Nikon 200mm F2. Leica 180 F2 APO even a Leica R 180 2.8 elmarit is extremely good. Old Canon 180 1.8 I think it was, I should know this i had 3 of them
Zooms are handy and thats about all. They are not the best image makers
I understand, but given the situation it's a fairly unusual claim, which is why I was assuming it was hyperbole. I didn't mean to imply you were lying, but rather exaggerating for effect. I'll have to take your word on that.
I agree that zooming to frame can be lazy, but using it correctly (setting you position for the perspective you want before even really looking through the lens, then choosing the focal length you want for the AOV) they can be very time saving. Ultra wide zooms I haven't seen one that compares to the very best primes,...Show more →
Even a Minolta 200. 2.8 made in 1986 will blow any zooms doors off at 200mm. ANY brand
You want quality buy a Nikon 200mm F2. Leica 180 F2 APO even a Leica R 180 2.8 elmarit is extremely good. Old Canon 180 1.8 I think it was, I should know this i had 3 of them
Zooms are handy and thats about all. They are not the best image makers
Jan 20, 2016 at 12:49 PM
p.30 #3Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Ok. I apologize. I honestly didn't mean to immune your integrity or honesty. It just struck me as a bold claim. I'm sorry.
Jan 20, 2016 at 01:02 PM
p.30 #4Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
GMPhotography wrote:
I agree that zooming to frame can be lazy, but using it correctly (setting you position for the perspective you want before even really looking through the lens, then choosing the focal length you want for the AOV) they can be very time saving. Ultra wide zooms I haven't seen one that compares to the very best primes, but I've owned many that will still provide excellent results. Telephoto zooms, on the other hand, are so good today that most of the high end ones easily rival primes in the same range at similar apertures.Even a Minolta 200. 2.8 made in 1986 will blow any zooms doors off at 200mm. ANY brand
You want quality buy a Nikon 200mm F2. Leica 180 F2 APO even a Leica R 180 2.8 elmarit is extremely good. Old Canon 180 1.8 I think it was, I should know this i had 3 of them
Zooms are handy and thats about all. They are not the best image makers
You could make a pretty good argument that zooms are necessary for certain jobs, or at least allow you to do things that a prime wouldn't, meaning a prime isn't always the best tool for the job.
I shot a music festival last fall, there were many sets that were very confined. I had nearly zero ability to move often. I got by with some wide primes, but it was sub optimal. Despite stitching and such. I actually had a Mino 200 2.8, and it largely stayed unused as the better IQ was worthless compared to the necessity of my MF long zoom. Sometimes a zoom is the better tool for the job. If you want to make an IQ argument, couldn't you say most primes are merely convenient as the IQ is worse than Otus or other better primes in class?
And for the record, I nearly always shoot primes.
I used to be a primes only for IQ guy, but I often found myself carrying 2 primes that a zoom would cover, but instead I was caught changing lenses or not getting the best photo (and getting crap on my sensor). Again, a zoom is better here I found.
Jman13 wrote
I understand, but given the situation it's a fairly unusual claim, which is why I was assuming it was hyperbole. I didn't mean to imply you were lying, but rather exaggerating for effect. I'll have to take your word on that.I agree that zooming to frame can be lazy, but using it correctly (setting you position for the perspective you want before even really looking through the lens, then choosing the focal length you want for the AOV) they can be very time saving. Ultra wide zooms I haven't seen one that compares to the very best primes, but I've owned many that will still provide excellent results. Telephoto zooms, on the other hand, are so good today that most of the high end ones easily rival primes in the same range at similar apertures.
You want quality buy a Nikon 200mm F2. Leica 180 F2 APO even a Leica R 180 2.8 elmarit is extremely good. Old Canon 180 1.8 I think it was, I should know this i had 3 of them
Zooms are handy and thats about all. They are not the best image makers
You could make a pretty good argument that zooms are necessary for certain jobs, or at least allow you to do things that a prime wouldn't, meaning a prime isn't always the best tool for the job.
I shot a music festival last fall, there were many sets that were very confined. I had nearly zero ability to move often. I got by with some wide primes, but it was sub optimal. Despite stitching and such. I actually had a Mino 200 2.8, and it largely stayed unused as the better IQ was worthless compared to the necessity of my MF long zoom. Sometimes a zoom is the better tool for the job. If you want to make an IQ argument, couldn't you say most primes are merely convenient as the IQ is worse than Otus or other better primes in class?
And for the record, I nearly always shoot primes.
I used to be a primes only for IQ guy, but I often found myself carrying 2 primes that a zoom would cover, but instead I was caught changing lenses or not getting the best photo (and getting crap on my sensor). Again, a zoom is better here I found.
Jan 20, 2016 at 01:02 PM
p.30 #5Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Of course I did say that a couple times sometimes you just can't move your feet to get to where you need to be. They certainly are handy. I think where OT here though talking about zooms.
Jan 20, 2016 at 02:33 PM
p.30 #6Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I don't know - I see a lot of top tier professional landscape shooters who regularly use zooms. In fact, I would say (at least in my experience) that zooms equal (or outnumber) primes with landscape shooters. I am only speaking about WA focal lengths ranges though. Anything above 35mm, I tend to see a balance of zooms and primes. Perhaps these individuals on the workshops are newbies and believe that primes are always better than zooms? JUST KIDDING! 
When I started photography a few years back, I was one of those who only used primes mainly because I felt the IQ was a bit better than the zoom offerings at the time. Some of the new design WA zooms - Sony 16-35/f4, Canon 11-24/f2.8, etc are superb though. The one thing which I find lacking in some of the zooms is build quality, manual focus feel and operation, use of filters, smaller size, and manual aperture control. As with everything in photography, it all comes down to personal needs/preferences. I prefer the feel of using primes but sometimes the practicality of a zoom trumps that. However, if we see a native Sony mount Zeiss 16mm/18mm lens, I may end up buying a few more primes.
When I started photography a few years back, I was one of those who only used primes mainly because I felt the IQ was a bit better than the zoom offerings at the time. Some of the new design WA zooms - Sony 16-35/f4, Canon 11-24/f2.8, etc are superb though. The one thing which I find lacking in some of the zooms is build quality, manual focus feel and operation, use of filters, smaller size, and manual aperture control. As with everything in photography, it all comes down to personal needs/preferences. I prefer the feel of using primes but sometimes the practicality of a zoom trumps that. However, if we see a native Sony mount Zeiss 16mm/18mm lens, I may end up buying a few more primes. Jan 20, 2016 at 02:54 PM
p.30 #7Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Gary Clennan wrote:
I don't know - I see a lot of top tier professional landscape shooters who regularly use zooms. In fact, I would say (at least in my experience) that zooms equal (or outnumber) primes with landscape shooters. I am only speaking about WA focal lengths ranges though. Anything above 35mm, I tend to see a balance of zooms and primes. Perhaps these individuals on the workshops are newbies and believe that primes are always better than zooms? JUST KIDDING! When I started photography a few years back, I was one of those who only used primes mainly because...Show more →
Gary, Well said. For me there is no 14mm prime work as good as 14-24 Nikon. and I get 15-24 free. SWA landscape is one of few case move foot won't work.(Super tele as another) Composition freedom is hard to beat for given condition. Keep in mind, 90% SWA use at f8~f13 zone. For 14-24 4/5 of frame is prime sharp, leave only extreme corner need attention because of FC and deep DOF need to cover in most case. I think canon 11-24 is as good, especially for 11-14 zone, what is your option
I tried 15mm Voigtlander II on both M and A7, the vignette(even at f8), color shade and very strong Astigmatism on extreme corner really kill the appealing of that SMALL lens. I hope new SWA Voigtlander work.
I don't know - I see a lot of top tier professional landscape shooters who regularly use zooms. In fact, I would say (at least in my experience) that zooms equal (or outnumber) primes with landscape shooters. I am only speaking about WA focal lengths ranges though. Anything above 35mm, I tend to see a balance of zooms and primes. Perhaps these individuals on the workshops are newbies and believe that primes are always better than zooms? JUST KIDDING!
When I started photography a few years back, I was one of those who only used primes mainly because...Show more →Gary, Well said. For me there is no 14mm prime work as good as 14-24 Nikon. and I get 15-24 free. SWA landscape is one of few case move foot won't work.(Super tele as another) Composition freedom is hard to beat for given condition. Keep in mind, 90% SWA use at f8~f13 zone. For 14-24 4/5 of frame is prime sharp, leave only extreme corner need attention because of FC and deep DOF need to cover in most case. I think canon 11-24 is as good, especially for 11-14 zone, what is your option
I tried 15mm Voigtlander II on both M and A7, the vignette(even at f8), color shade and very strong Astigmatism on extreme corner really kill the appealing of that SMALL lens. I hope new SWA Voigtlander work.
Jan 20, 2016 at 04:16 PM
p.30 #8Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Get the CV 15 version III it's very good. Better I find than the 16-35 at 16. Actually it's a bargain at its price. This the 21 and a really nice 28 and you get a very nice gap series in a pretty small package. This 21 just does not gap as well with my VC15 and Batis 25 . I'll wait for the 18 as that would fit me better. Btw we can have the argument for and against zooms all day long and many opposing thoughts and that's great and some very good points will come up on both sides of that. The question really becomes what are you really after . IQ , size, weight, convenience , filtering , corners , F stop and the list goes on. No one is going to convince me ever a zoom is better than a prime when it comes to IQ. These are trade off items, pick your poison and go with it. I have 2 zooms but I'll put both of them in the bag if the best image quality is on the line. That's me , do whatever floats your boat.
Jan 20, 2016 at 05:49 PM
p.30 #9Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
GMPhotography wrote:
Of course I did say that a couple times sometimes you just can't move your feet to get to where you need to be. They certainly are handy. I think where OT here though talking about zooms.
Indeed you did--that's what I get for reading on my phone.
Pick your poison is exactly right.
Of course I did say that a couple times sometimes you just can't move your feet to get to where you need to be. They certainly are handy. I think where OT here though talking about zooms.
Indeed you did--that's what I get for reading on my phone.
Pick your poison is exactly right.
Jan 20, 2016 at 05:58 PM
p.30 #10Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
It's tough because they do make life easy for sure. But like I say all the time if it gets your butt out the door and go enjoy your art than that is all that matters at the end of the day. For the hobbyist this is about having fun. Me it's a grind and a job but I do still enjoy it after 40 years of it. I find ways to get myself out the door but it's much harder. Why I buy so much glass it keeps me from burning out.
Jan 20, 2016 at 06:06 PM
p.30 #11Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Reading earlier posts and seeing a few images from the Loxia 21mm, I'm half tempted to let my Batis 25mm go in favor of picking up the Loxia. Don't get me wrong, the Batis is an amazing lens, but I have the Loxia 50mm and 35mm and love their handling and easy manual focus for landscape work. I do wish the Loxia was a 24 or 25 as 21 often seems a little wide, but with the A7RII, there's room for cropping if necessary.
Would anyone talk me out of that thought? Does the Loxia 21 stack up to the image quality of the Batis 25?
Would anyone talk me out of that thought? Does the Loxia 21 stack up to the image quality of the Batis 25?
Jan 20, 2016 at 09:05 PM
p.30 #12Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Well Doug I don't have that answer but I do see a big gap if you did sell the 25. It would be far easier if there was a Loxia 28 in place for gapping reasons. I know one thing the Batis 25 is about the best in the business at that focal length. Not much would tear it out of my hands. I would personally not sell the Batis 25 but get the 21 and see what fits you best. I know I have made this Cardinal sin of selling great lenses only to buy them back more times than I care to admit. 
Maybe rent one and see how it feels but I suspect these lenses are pretty close IQ wise to each other from what we are seeing and reading.
Maybe rent one and see how it feels but I suspect these lenses are pretty close IQ wise to each other from what we are seeing and reading.
Jan 20, 2016 at 11:18 PM
p.30 #13Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
It would be nice to know how either of these performs at infinity, such wideangles are notorious for being EITHER good at infinity or better at closer distances.
Fred's examples with the Loxia looked good, but does the 25mm Batis follow the previous fast Zeiss 25s in being more use for closer work? There is surely no need for f/2 or AF for landscape.
Gerry
Fred's examples with the Loxia looked good, but does the 25mm Batis follow the previous fast Zeiss 25s in being more use for closer work? There is surely no need for f/2 or AF for landscape.
Gerry
Jan 21, 2016 at 03:22 AM
p.30 #14Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
gyoung143 wrote:
There is surely no need for f/2 or AF for landscape.
Gerry
If a lot of your landscape photography has the night sky in the frame, then wide open (or one stop down) performance at infinity matters a great deal. As niche as it may be, wide field astrophotography seems about the main landscape application where you would actually need/want a very fast UWA lens.
There is surely no need for f/2 or AF for landscape.
Gerry
If a lot of your landscape photography has the night sky in the frame, then wide open (or one stop down) performance at infinity matters a great deal. As niche as it may be, wide field astrophotography seems about the main landscape application where you would actually need/want a very fast UWA lens.
Jan 21, 2016 at 06:02 AM
p.30 #15Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
No. Wide open Batis 25mm has a flatter view vs Loxia 21mm has more field curvature. They are similar stopped down...
gyoung143 wrote:
It would be nice to know how either of these performs at infinity, such wideangles are notorious for being EITHER good at infinity or better at closer distances.
Fred's examples with the Loxia looked good, but does the 25mm Batis follow the previous fast Zeiss 25s in being more use for closer work? There is surely no need for f/2 or AF for landscape.
Gerry
Here is another Loxia 21mm review:
http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/01/20/zeiss-loxia-21mm-review/
gyoung143 wrote:
It would be nice to know how either of these performs at infinity, such wideangles are notorious for being EITHER good at infinity or better at closer distances.
Fred's examples with the Loxia looked good, but does the 25mm Batis follow the previous fast Zeiss 25s in being more use for closer work? There is surely no need for f/2 or AF for landscape.
Gerry
Here is another Loxia 21mm review:
http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2016/01/20/zeiss-loxia-21mm-review/
Jan 21, 2016 at 06:13 AM
p.30 #16Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Thankyou both, I had considered astro as a separate thing from 'landscape' and take your point, and Mirrorlessons has a review of the Batis 25mm too
Gerry
Gerry
Jan 21, 2016 at 08:04 AM
p.30 #17Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I own the 21mm, and in general, I like it a lot more than the 50mm; it's far more comfortable to hold. The focus throw is a bit odd, and I'm still not 100% sure if the infinity stop is a true infinity (the 50mm infinity is inaccurate for example).
If you prefer the focal length, I'd probably keep the Batis. It's a wider aperture lens too, and that can be nice for specific shots.
If you prefer the focal length, I'd probably keep the Batis. It's a wider aperture lens too, and that can be nice for specific shots.
Jan 22, 2016 at 10:10 AM
p.30 #19Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Yeah, that looks pretty good. It might be a touch softer on the right edge, but if it is, it's so slight that it won't matter one iota in real world use. My FE 16-35mm is the same. My first copy was badly decentered and had a very soft left edge. The new one is slightly softer on the left than the right, but they're very close, and certainly close enough to not make any real difference in the images. Go shoot and make great images!
Jan 23, 2016 at 08:55 AM
p.30 #20Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Thank you, Jordan! I am really looking forward to use this gem for my photographic work. I am especially addicted to the terrific sunstars!
I try to catch up now and finish my review. Most of the aspects that I have tested for hold true for the decentered lens, too. The things that I am still curious about are especially sharpness and coma.
I try to catch up now and finish my review. Most of the aspects that I have tested for hold true for the decentered lens, too. The things that I am still curious about are especially sharpness and coma.
Jan 23, 2016 at 10:49 AM