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.9 #1Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
The now 43 year old Olympus OM-1 has a viewfinder magnification of 0.9x and no modern full frame DSLR is even close, not even the most expensive, biggest and bulkiest ones...
Oct 15, 2015 at 11:13 AM
p.9 #2Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
bjornthun wrote:
The now 43 year old Olympus OM-1 has a viewfinder magnification of 0.9x and no modern full frame DSLR is even close, not even the most expensive, biggest and bulkiest ones...
I was optimistic in mentioning 'same viewfinder quality'; indeed seems you have to go back to analog times for that, as if viewfinder technology has shifted in reverse somehow after things went digital (focusing screen and some other camera technology same story ...).
The now 43 year old Olympus OM-1 has a viewfinder magnification of 0.9x and no modern full frame DSLR is even close, not even the most expensive, biggest and bulkiest ones...
I was optimistic in mentioning 'same viewfinder quality'; indeed seems you have to go back to analog times for that, as if viewfinder technology has shifted in reverse somehow after things went digital (focusing screen and some other camera technology same story ...).
Oct 15, 2015 at 11:18 AM
p.9 #3Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
melcat wrote:
Another is increasing the distortion, which if it's 2% Zeiss are doing for this lens. They may legitimately argue that on a sensor like the A7RII's they have resolution and dynamic range to burn, and that this is the correct design tradeoff.
The Zeiss ZF/ZE 21mm f/2.8 has distortion worse than this new lens with a much more noticeable mustache character to it.
Another is increasing the distortion, which if it's 2% Zeiss are doing for this lens. They may legitimately argue that on a sensor like the A7RII's they have resolution and dynamic range to burn, and that this is the correct design tradeoff.
The Zeiss ZF/ZE 21mm f/2.8 has distortion worse than this new lens with a much more noticeable mustache character to it.
Oct 15, 2015 at 11:19 AM
p.9 #4Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
bjornthun wrote:
The now 43 year old Olympus OM-1 has a viewfinder magnification of 0.9x and no modern full frame DSLR is even close, not even the most expensive, biggest and bulkiest ones...
It was 0.92x, actually... and the view through that finder with a fast lens attached to the camera was brighter than looking at the scene with the naked eye... kind of like an EVF, only a lot sharper.
The now 43 year old Olympus OM-1 has a viewfinder magnification of 0.9x and no modern full frame DSLR is even close, not even the most expensive, biggest and bulkiest ones...
It was 0.92x, actually... and the view through that finder with a fast lens attached to the camera was brighter than looking at the scene with the naked eye... kind of like an EVF, only a lot sharper.
Oct 15, 2015 at 12:05 PM
p.9 #5Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
bjornthun wrote:
The now 43 year old Olympus OM-1 has a viewfinder magnification of 0.9x and no modern full frame DSLR is even close, not even the most expensive, biggest and bulkiest ones...
Well one of the most expensive and fairly bulky modern MF DSLRs is at least in the ball park. The Leica S's has a .87X mag factor, and is a truly lovely OVF.
The now 43 year old Olympus OM-1 has a viewfinder magnification of 0.9x and no modern full frame DSLR is even close, not even the most expensive, biggest and bulkiest ones...
Well one of the most expensive and fairly bulky modern MF DSLRs is at least in the ball park. The Leica S's has a .87X mag factor, and is a truly lovely OVF.
Oct 15, 2015 at 12:40 PM
p.9 #6Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Steve Spencer wrote:
Well one of the most expensive and fairly bulky modern MF DSLRs is at least in the ball park. The Leica S's has a .87X mag factor, and is a truly lovely OVF.
One more reason to question what CaNikon are thinking. Surely CaNikon would have the resources to do the same, if they even cared.
bjornthun wrote
The now 43 year old Olympus OM-1 has a viewfinder magnification of 0.9x and no modern full frame DSLR is even close, not even the most expensive, biggest and bulkiest ones...One more reason to question what CaNikon are thinking. Surely CaNikon would have the resources to do the same, if they even cared.
Oct 15, 2015 at 12:52 PM
p.9 #7Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Don't forget you need X1.25 for equivalent FF OVF. Make it about 1. I can shoot it with both eyes open.
Steve Spencer wrote:
bjornthun wrote
The now 43 year old Olympus OM-1 has a viewfinder magnification of 0.9x and no modern full frame DSLR is even close, not even the most expensive, biggest and bulkiest ones...Oct 15, 2015 at 01:05 PM
p.9 #8Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
molson wrote:
It was 0.92x, actually... and the view through that finder with a fast lens attached to the camera was brighter than looking at the scene with the naked eye... kind of like an EVF, only a lot sharper.
It also had a terribly short Eyepoint (similar to the Pentax MX and it's 0.97x finder), causing significant issues for glasses wearers and also many non-glasses wearers. It's very difficult to get more than mid-0.7ish magnification with the eyepoint demanded by modern users. For me the MX was actually painful to use and the OM-1 was problematic due to the short eyepoint.
And it wasn't that great, having owned an OM-1, it had a terrible focus screen, getting its bright view via low tooth, so much more difficult to focus with than a F2 or F3 finder, which were comparably bright but 0.8x magnification and with much better eyepoint, the F3HP had even better (21mm) eyepoint, but at a magnification cost. Essentially the OM-1 had a AF-style focus screen.
Probably the best 35mm OVF was the Pentax LX2000, which had a much brighter modern focusing screen with the already excellent LX finder. The focusing screen technology didn't peak until 2000 or so, so the LX2000, FM3a and R8/R9 had serious advantages over older designs due to improved focusing screens.
bjornthun wrote
The now 43 year old Olympus OM-1 has a viewfinder magnification of 0.9x and no modern full frame DSLR is even close, not even the most expensive, biggest and bulkiest ones...It also had a terribly short Eyepoint (similar to the Pentax MX and it's 0.97x finder), causing significant issues for glasses wearers and also many non-glasses wearers. It's very difficult to get more than mid-0.7ish magnification with the eyepoint demanded by modern users. For me the MX was actually painful to use and the OM-1 was problematic due to the short eyepoint.
And it wasn't that great, having owned an OM-1, it had a terrible focus screen, getting its bright view via low tooth, so much more difficult to focus with than a F2 or F3 finder, which were comparably bright but 0.8x magnification and with much better eyepoint, the F3HP had even better (21mm) eyepoint, but at a magnification cost. Essentially the OM-1 had a AF-style focus screen.
Probably the best 35mm OVF was the Pentax LX2000, which had a much brighter modern focusing screen with the already excellent LX finder. The focusing screen technology didn't peak until 2000 or so, so the LX2000, FM3a and R8/R9 had serious advantages over older designs due to improved focusing screens.
Oct 15, 2015 at 01:11 PM
p.9 #9Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
mawz wrote:
And it wasn't that great, having owned an OM-1, it had a terrible focus screen, getting its bright view via low tooth, so much more difficult to focus with than a F2 or F3 finder, which were comparably bright but 0.8x magnification and with much better eyepoint, the F3HP had even better (21mm) eyepoint, but at a magnification cost. Essentially the OM-1 had a AF-style focus screen.
You must not have a very good memory... I still have my OM-1 (and OM-4Ti) and a selection of Olympus focusing screens, and can confirm you recollections are nowhere close to reality.
And it wasn't that great, having owned an OM-1, it had a terrible focus screen, getting its bright view via low tooth, so much more difficult to focus with than a F2 or F3 finder, which were comparably bright but 0.8x magnification and with much better eyepoint, the F3HP had even better (21mm) eyepoint, but at a magnification cost. Essentially the OM-1 had a AF-style focus screen.
You must not have a very good memory... I still have my OM-1 (and OM-4Ti) and a selection of Olympus focusing screens, and can confirm you recollections are nowhere close to reality.
Oct 15, 2015 at 01:16 PM
p.9 #10Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
molson wrote:
You must not have a very good memory... I still have my OM-1 (and OM-4Ti) and a selection of Olympus focusing screens, and can confirm you recollections are nowhere close to reality.
The original OM-2 focusing screen (split/microprism) wasn't optimal, but there were several excellent alternatives. I didn't have any focusing problems either: big, bright and enabling fast and very accurate focus. Maybe it wasn't ideal for those who used glasses, but I guess most DSLRs aren't great with glasses either.
mawz wrote
And it wasn't that great, having owned an OM-1, it had a terrible focus screen, getting its bright view via low tooth, so much more difficult to focus with than a F2 or F3 finder, which were comparably bright but 0.8x magnification and with much better eyepoint, the F3HP had even better (21mm) eyepoint, but at a magnification cost. Essentially the OM-1 had a AF-style focus screen.The original OM-2 focusing screen (split/microprism) wasn't optimal, but there were several excellent alternatives. I didn't have any focusing problems either: big, bright and enabling fast and very accurate focus. Maybe it wasn't ideal for those who used glasses, but I guess most DSLRs aren't great with glasses either.
Oct 15, 2015 at 02:00 PM
p.9 #11Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
And for Olympus, even the lowly OM-10 had .92x, albeit with 93% coverage rather than the OM-1's 97%. But still...
Oct 15, 2015 at 02:16 PM
p.9 #12Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
artur5 wrote:
The short flange design certainly allows for smaller (i.e. shorter) WA lenses, but Sony's implementation of the sensor filter stack negates most of this advantage over SLR glass. If Sony had opted for a very thin IR filter and no AA filter (or substitute clear glass) Zeiss would have been able to design 'quasi-pancakes' for the E mount ( had they wished to do so )..As things are now, we'll see, at most, E mount wide angles sized midway between the monster SLR lenses and the tiny classic RF wides. When I say tiny, I mean Leica Elmarit style, because...Show more →
This is often said, but it's not at all clear that it's true.
On digital sensors, there are four issues:
vignetting
colour shift
astigmatism in corners because of cover glass.
raised expectations for wide open and corner performance
(1) and (2) The vignetting and colour shift have nothing to do with the cover glass (and it's a bit mitigated by BSI) and they rule out a lot of the super compact designs.
(3) The astigmatism in the corners is related to a mismatch between the lens and the cover glass. This may not be a theoretical constraint on the lenses: The 35mm loxia is an example of a lens that is redesigned taking the cover glass into account, whilst still retaining its basic biogon design. Of course it's not great wide open, especially in the corners *but that's a feature of the biogon design, not because of residual cover glass effects*
(4) Finally raised expectations: more lens buyers are pixel peepers now (indeed the extreme anti-pixel peepers use their phone). Many of these compact designs come from a time when you paid big bucks hoping to get sharp edge to edge at f8; and expected much worse performance wide open, and had little hope of sharp corners wide open (and in any case rarely enlarged your prints enough to care). But now someone dropping big money will moan on the forums if their lens is dodgy in the corners - and this rules out the tiny symmetrical designs. Not saying it should, I'd be happy for a minuscule pancake 40mm f2 with a decent centre but rubbish corners wide open. And I'd pay a fair bit for it. But is it commercially viable in general? I doubt it.
The short flange design certainly allows for smaller (i.e. shorter) WA lenses, but Sony's implementation of the sensor filter stack negates most of this advantage over SLR glass. If Sony had opted for a very thin IR filter and no AA filter (or substitute clear glass) Zeiss would have been able to design 'quasi-pancakes' for the E mount ( had they wished to do so )..As things are now, we'll see, at most, E mount wide angles sized midway between the monster SLR lenses and the tiny classic RF wides. When I say tiny, I mean Leica Elmarit style, because...Show more →
This is often said, but it's not at all clear that it's true.
On digital sensors, there are four issues:
vignetting
colour shift
astigmatism in corners because of cover glass.
raised expectations for wide open and corner performance
(1) and (2) The vignetting and colour shift have nothing to do with the cover glass (and it's a bit mitigated by BSI) and they rule out a lot of the super compact designs.
(3) The astigmatism in the corners is related to a mismatch between the lens and the cover glass. This may not be a theoretical constraint on the lenses: The 35mm loxia is an example of a lens that is redesigned taking the cover glass into account, whilst still retaining its basic biogon design. Of course it's not great wide open, especially in the corners *but that's a feature of the biogon design, not because of residual cover glass effects*
(4) Finally raised expectations: more lens buyers are pixel peepers now (indeed the extreme anti-pixel peepers use their phone). Many of these compact designs come from a time when you paid big bucks hoping to get sharp edge to edge at f8; and expected much worse performance wide open, and had little hope of sharp corners wide open (and in any case rarely enlarged your prints enough to care). But now someone dropping big money will moan on the forums if their lens is dodgy in the corners - and this rules out the tiny symmetrical designs. Not saying it should, I'd be happy for a minuscule pancake 40mm f2 with a decent centre but rubbish corners wide open. And I'd pay a fair bit for it. But is it commercially viable in general? I doubt it.
Oct 15, 2015 at 05:43 PM
p.9 #13Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
DavidBM wrote:
This is often said, but it's not at all clear that it's true.
On digital sensors, there are four issues:
vignetting
colour shift
astigmatism in corners because of cover glass.
raised expectations for wide open and corner performance
(1) and (2) The vignetting and colour shift have nothing to do with the cover glass (and it's a bit mitigated by BSI) and they rule out a lot of the super compact designs.
(3) The astigmatism in the corners is related to a mismatch between the lens and the cover glass. This may not be a theoretical constraint on the lenses: The 35mm loxia is an example of...Show more →
Nicely put, I would like to add to this that Zeiss is not known to make super tiny lenses due to their own philosophy of relaxed design. So I highly doubt it's because of the thick sensor stack that these Zeiss lenses are much bigger than the comparable RF lenses. Just look at Fuji lenses, albeit APS-C, they can certainly make tiny good lenses for thick sensor stack (Fuji's body is even worse than Sony at handling M lenses). If Leica wants to design E-mount lenses, I strongly believe they can come up with small lenses as well, but with wavy field curvature.
artur5 wrote
The short flange design certainly allows for smaller (i.e. shorter) WA lenses, but Sony's implementation of the sensor filter stack negates most of this advantage over SLR glass. If Sony had opted for a very thin IR filter and no AA filter (or substitute clear glass) Zeiss would have been able to design 'quasi-pancakes' for the E mount ( had they wished to do so )..As things are now, we'll see, at most, E mount wide angles sized midway between the monster SLR lenses and the tiny classic RF wides. When I say tiny, I mean Leica Elmarit style, because those Zeiss ZM Biogons are quite long compared to most RF wides designed for film cameras..On digital sensors, there are four issues:
vignetting
colour shift
astigmatism in corners because of cover glass.
raised expectations for wide open and corner performance
(1) and (2) The vignetting and colour shift have nothing to do with the cover glass (and it's a bit mitigated by BSI) and they rule out a lot of the super compact designs.
(3) The astigmatism in the corners is related to a mismatch between the lens and the cover glass. This may not be a theoretical constraint on the lenses: The 35mm loxia is an example of...Show more →
Nicely put, I would like to add to this that Zeiss is not known to make super tiny lenses due to their own philosophy of relaxed design. So I highly doubt it's because of the thick sensor stack that these Zeiss lenses are much bigger than the comparable RF lenses. Just look at Fuji lenses, albeit APS-C, they can certainly make tiny good lenses for thick sensor stack (Fuji's body is even worse than Sony at handling M lenses). If Leica wants to design E-mount lenses, I strongly believe they can come up with small lenses as well, but with wavy field curvature.
Oct 15, 2015 at 06:22 PM
p.9 #14Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
molson wrote:
You must not have a very good memory... I still have my OM-1 (and OM-4Ti) and a selection of Olympus focusing screens, and can confirm you recollections are nowhere close to reality.
Had the OM-1n and OM-4T in fact. And those recollections were reality, as of a few years ago when I owned them. Poor eyepoint, middling focus screen for its era (and WAY behind more modern bodies).
Frankly the OM-4Ti was pretty good in terms of viewfinder, quite a bit better than the OM-1n. Still not a great focusing screen, but notably better than the stock one in the OM-1n. In either case they aren't close to the quality of a F3 or LX finder (although the OM-4T would be with a Beattie intenscreen, it's weakness was just the middling focus screen, the optics are excellent)
I've never quite understood the love for the OM-1n (or Pentax MX) and their low-eyepoint/high magnification finders combined with what were mediocre focusing screens for the era.
mawz wrote
And it wasn't that great, having owned an OM-1, it had a terrible focus screen, getting its bright view via low tooth, so much more difficult to focus with than a F2 or F3 finder, which were comparably bright but 0.8x magnification and with much better eyepoint, the F3HP had even better (21mm) eyepoint, but at a magnification cost. Essentially the OM-1 had a AF-style focus screen.Had the OM-1n and OM-4T in fact. And those recollections were reality, as of a few years ago when I owned them. Poor eyepoint, middling focus screen for its era (and WAY behind more modern bodies).
Frankly the OM-4Ti was pretty good in terms of viewfinder, quite a bit better than the OM-1n. Still not a great focusing screen, but notably better than the stock one in the OM-1n. In either case they aren't close to the quality of a F3 or LX finder (although the OM-4T would be with a Beattie intenscreen, it's weakness was just the middling focus screen, the optics are excellent)
I've never quite understood the love for the OM-1n (or Pentax MX) and their low-eyepoint/high magnification finders combined with what were mediocre focusing screens for the era.
Oct 15, 2015 at 06:50 PM
p.9 #15Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
technic wrote:
You must not have a very good memory... I still have my OM-1 (and OM-4Ti) and a selection of Olympus focusing screens, and can confirm you recollections are nowhere close to reality. The original OM-2 focusing screen (split/microprism) wasn't optimal, but there were several excellent alternatives. I didn't have any focusing problems either: big, bright and enabling fast and very accurate focus. Maybe it wasn't ideal for those who used glasses, but I guess most DSLRs aren't great with glasses either.
Most DSLR's are actually very good for glasses wearers due to the high eyepoint and middle to low magnification.
molson wrote
mawz wrote
And it wasn't that great, having owned an OM-1, it had a terrible focus screen, getting its bright view via low tooth, so much more difficult to focus with than a F2 or F3 finder, which were comparably bright but 0.8x magnification and with much better eyepoint, the F3HP had even better (21mm) eyepoint, but at a magnification cost. Essentially the OM-1 had a AF-style focus screen.Most DSLR's are actually very good for glasses wearers due to the high eyepoint and middle to low magnification.
Oct 15, 2015 at 06:53 PM
p.9 #16Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
technic wrote:
You must not have a very good memory... I still have my OM-1 (and OM-4Ti) and a selection of Olympus focusing screens, and can confirm you recollections are nowhere close to reality. The original OM-2 focusing screen (split/microprism) wasn't optimal, but there were several excellent alternatives. I didn't have any focusing problems either: big, bright and enabling fast and very accurate focus. Maybe it wasn't ideal for those who used glasses, but I guess most DSLRs aren't great with glasses either.
There were some good alternatives, on par with the best 1st party screens available in the early/mid 80's but none of the 3rd party screens match the quality of the last generation of 1st party screens from the LX2000, FM3a (which also work in the FE, FE2, FA and FM2n, great upgrades for the older bodies) and the last Leica R bodies. There was a real jump in focus screen technology in the late 90's which allowed for a high tooth (high-pop) screen with much less reduction in brightness, older screens had to trade off brightness for pop. It's the same tech which allowed for the later AF bodies to have bright viewfinders with the partially-silvered mirrors.
molson wrote
mawz wrote
And it wasn't that great, having owned an OM-1, it had a terrible focus screen, getting its bright view via low tooth, so much more difficult to focus with than a F2 or F3 finder, which were comparably bright but 0.8x magnification and with much better eyepoint, the F3HP had even better (21mm) eyepoint, but at a magnification cost. Essentially the OM-1 had a AF-style focus screen.There were some good alternatives, on par with the best 1st party screens available in the early/mid 80's but none of the 3rd party screens match the quality of the last generation of 1st party screens from the LX2000, FM3a (which also work in the FE, FE2, FA and FM2n, great upgrades for the older bodies) and the last Leica R bodies. There was a real jump in focus screen technology in the late 90's which allowed for a high tooth (high-pop) screen with much less reduction in brightness, older screens had to trade off brightness for pop. It's the same tech which allowed for the later AF bodies to have bright viewfinders with the partially-silvered mirrors.
Oct 15, 2015 at 07:01 PM
p.9 #17Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
DavidBM wrote:
But now someone dropping big money will moan on the forums if their lens is dodgy in the corners - and this rules out the tiny symmetrical designs. Not saying it should, I'd be happy for a minuscule pancake 40mm f2 with a decent centre but rubbish corners wide open. And I'd pay a fair bit for it. But is it commercially viable in general? I doubt it.
you should check out the m-rokkor 40/2.
But now someone dropping big money will moan on the forums if their lens is dodgy in the corners - and this rules out the tiny symmetrical designs. Not saying it should, I'd be happy for a minuscule pancake 40mm f2 with a decent centre but rubbish corners wide open. And I'd pay a fair bit for it. But is it commercially viable in general? I doubt it.
you should check out the m-rokkor 40/2.
Oct 15, 2015 at 08:52 PM
p.9 #18Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
hiepphotog wrote: By the way, that landscape shot at f/2.8 gives a strong case for this Loxia, especially for those adapting the SEM 21 on a modded Sony.
Patience is rewarding.
Few months ago I sold my last Zeiss ZF.2 lens - Distagon 21/2.8 and replaced it with mentioned SEM21 and now Loxia is ready for Santa's list! I would love to have all benefits of Loxia (no adapters, EXIF, no PP CornerFix 'cleanup') but time and tests will tell how the two stand side by side.
For now, SEM21 is still one of the smallest, lightest and best 21mm lenses out there.
Patience is rewarding.
Few months ago I sold my last Zeiss ZF.2 lens - Distagon 21/2.8 and replaced it with mentioned SEM21 and now Loxia is ready for Santa's list! I would love to have all benefits of Loxia (no adapters, EXIF, no PP CornerFix 'cleanup') but time and tests will tell how the two stand side by side.
For now, SEM21 is still one of the smallest, lightest and best 21mm lenses out there.
Oct 15, 2015 at 09:02 PM
p.9 #19Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
artur5 wrote:
The short flange design certainly allows for smaller (i.e. shorter) WA lenses, but Sony's implementation of the sensor filter stack negates most of this advantage over SLR glass. If Sony had opted for a very thin IR filter and no AA filter (or substitute clear glass) Zeiss would have been able to design 'quasi-pancakes' for the E mount ( had they wished to do so )..As things are now, we'll see, at most, E mount wide angles sized midway between the monster SLR lenses and the tiny classic RF wides. When I say tiny, I mean Leica Elmarit style, because...Show more →
I don't know. I have a modded a7, and there are some improvements with certain lenses that were marginal, but it didn't make the ZM Biogon 21/4.5, 25, or 35/2.8 any more usable, and the slightly greater amount of improvement with the Elmarit-M 24 was still disappointing. The vIII Elmarit-M 28 shows some nice improvement, but nothing that makes me want to use the a7 over the a7II with the lens. It's a much better behaved digital back for stitching, so it was worth it to me, but if I had high hopes on using the tiny wides available, I would be struggling to justify it. There's more to making an RF wide play well with a digital sensor than just thinning the stack.
Also, with the exception of the 28 ASPH, all of the Elmarit wides are fairly substantial.
The short flange design certainly allows for smaller (i.e. shorter) WA lenses, but Sony's implementation of the sensor filter stack negates most of this advantage over SLR glass. If Sony had opted for a very thin IR filter and no AA filter (or substitute clear glass) Zeiss would have been able to design 'quasi-pancakes' for the E mount ( had they wished to do so )..As things are now, we'll see, at most, E mount wide angles sized midway between the monster SLR lenses and the tiny classic RF wides. When I say tiny, I mean Leica Elmarit style, because...Show more →
I don't know. I have a modded a7, and there are some improvements with certain lenses that were marginal, but it didn't make the ZM Biogon 21/4.5, 25, or 35/2.8 any more usable, and the slightly greater amount of improvement with the Elmarit-M 24 was still disappointing. The vIII Elmarit-M 28 shows some nice improvement, but nothing that makes me want to use the a7 over the a7II with the lens. It's a much better behaved digital back for stitching, so it was worth it to me, but if I had high hopes on using the tiny wides available, I would be struggling to justify it. There's more to making an RF wide play well with a digital sensor than just thinning the stack.
Also, with the exception of the 28 ASPH, all of the Elmarit wides are fairly substantial.
Oct 15, 2015 at 10:58 PM
p.9 #20Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
GMPhotography wrote:
Just talked to Andrew at Newtonville camera in Ma.
I'm first on there list for the Loxia 21 so you may want to join me. I'm not going broke alone.
I'm taking you all down with me. ROTFLMAO
I'll race you to insolvency, but not over this. Short of finding the perfectly priced Macro-Sironar-Digital, I am calling a glass moratorium on myself until Q1. My teles are demanding an a7rII, and I don't argue with them, so that's getting priority in the dwindling budget.
Just talked to Andrew at Newtonville camera in Ma.
I'm first on there list for the Loxia 21 so you may want to join me. I'm not going broke alone.
I'm taking you all down with me. ROTFLMAO
I'll race you to insolvency, but not over this. Short of finding the perfectly priced Macro-Sironar-Digital, I am calling a glass moratorium on myself until Q1. My teles are demanding an a7rII, and I don't argue with them, so that's getting priority in the dwindling budget.
Oct 15, 2015 at 11:07 PM