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.10 #1Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
freaklikeme wrote:
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.
Arguing was futile, the CV180 and the others won this one: The A7rII is in the mail.
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.
Arguing was futile, the CV180 and the others won this one: The A7rII is in the mail.
Oct 15, 2015 at 11:45 PM
p.10 #2Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
melcat wrote:
I'd say it was: the Olympus OM Zuiko 21mm f/2 is smaller and lighter than the ZE Distagon, and has similar moustache distortion. It did vignette and was more like T2.5. The sceptic in me thinks Zeiss just don't know how to do small lenses as well as that. (And maybe modern requirements for lead free glass have an effect too.)
I really liked the Zuiko 21/2 when I had used it on a 5D and DsIII. It was a fun lens and much better than you would think, given the size. Still, while I never owned them both at the same time and shot them in a side-by-side comparison, I'm not convinced the Oly would stand up all that well to the Distagon at like apertures. And I think you're glossing over the fact that OM had a very long register, so with the adapter, it really isn't all that small a Sony. Do you think Oly could've chopped off that much distance and kept the same size and performance on a digital platform?
I also disagree with the skeptic in you. I think Zeiss knows very well how to make small, high performance lenses, and if digital sensors behaved like film, we'd already have them. I think they're just being realistic about the modern medium and what can be accomplished at a price point people are willing to pay. I also think it's a little unfair to judge them based on their SLR lenses, seeing how they made an entire line of high-performers that had to work well with with three to four different mounts. They're much more interesting when they're working in a closed ecosystem, like the M mount, and now the E-mount. I think they're off to a great start.
I'd say it was: the Olympus OM Zuiko 21mm f/2 is smaller and lighter than the ZE Distagon, and has similar moustache distortion. It did vignette and was more like T2.5. The sceptic in me thinks Zeiss just don't know how to do small lenses as well as that. (And maybe modern requirements for lead free glass have an effect too.)
I really liked the Zuiko 21/2 when I had used it on a 5D and DsIII. It was a fun lens and much better than you would think, given the size. Still, while I never owned them both at the same time and shot them in a side-by-side comparison, I'm not convinced the Oly would stand up all that well to the Distagon at like apertures. And I think you're glossing over the fact that OM had a very long register, so with the adapter, it really isn't all that small a Sony. Do you think Oly could've chopped off that much distance and kept the same size and performance on a digital platform?
I also disagree with the skeptic in you. I think Zeiss knows very well how to make small, high performance lenses, and if digital sensors behaved like film, we'd already have them. I think they're just being realistic about the modern medium and what can be accomplished at a price point people are willing to pay. I also think it's a little unfair to judge them based on their SLR lenses, seeing how they made an entire line of high-performers that had to work well with with three to four different mounts. They're much more interesting when they're working in a closed ecosystem, like the M mount, and now the E-mount. I think they're off to a great start.
Oct 15, 2015 at 11:50 PM
p.10 #3Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
twoeye wrote:
Arguing was futile, the CV180 and the others won this one: The A7rII is in the mail.
We can all go broke together.
freaklikeme wrote
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.We can all go broke together.
Oct 15, 2015 at 11:53 PM
p.10 #4Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
freaklikeme wrote:
And I think you're glossing over the fact that OM had a very long register, so with the adapter, it really isn't all that small a Sony.
Not glossing, just forgot! But I think the OM is a lot lighter. And it's all metal and glass.
And I think you're glossing over the fact that OM had a very long register, so with the adapter, it really isn't all that small a Sony.
Not glossing, just forgot! But I think the OM is a lot lighter. And it's all metal and glass.
Oct 16, 2015 at 02:16 AM
p.10 #5Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
freaklikeme wrote:
I really liked the Zuiko 21/2 when I had used it on a 5D and DsIII. It was a fun lens and much better than you would think, given the size. Still, while I never owned them both at the same time and shot them in a side-by-side comparison, I'm not convinced the Oly would stand up all that well to the Distagon at like apertures. And I think you're glossing over the fact that OM had a very long register, so with the adapter, it really isn't all that small a Sony. Do you think Oly could've chopped off...Show more →
Maybe the promise of (more) compact high quality lenses with mirrorless can only be realized when we have 'organic' type sensors that don't have the angle sensitivity problems of current digital sensors?
The Zuiko 21/3.5 was a really small lens optically and even if it has a relatively long flange-back, it should be possible to make a compact SWA mirrorless lens with that using a collapsible design - at least for MF lens.
The 21/2 has bigger elements but still small/light compared to current options like the Nikon 1.8/20mm (with AF but mostly 'plastic' construction) or Loxia 2.8/21 (one stop slower - but I don't doubt the Loxia is better optically).
I really liked the Zuiko 21/2 when I had used it on a 5D and DsIII. It was a fun lens and much better than you would think, given the size. Still, while I never owned them both at the same time and shot them in a side-by-side comparison, I'm not convinced the Oly would stand up all that well to the Distagon at like apertures. And I think you're glossing over the fact that OM had a very long register, so with the adapter, it really isn't all that small a Sony. Do you think Oly could've chopped off...Show more →
Maybe the promise of (more) compact high quality lenses with mirrorless can only be realized when we have 'organic' type sensors that don't have the angle sensitivity problems of current digital sensors?
The Zuiko 21/3.5 was a really small lens optically and even if it has a relatively long flange-back, it should be possible to make a compact SWA mirrorless lens with that using a collapsible design - at least for MF lens.
The 21/2 has bigger elements but still small/light compared to current options like the Nikon 1.8/20mm (with AF but mostly 'plastic' construction) or Loxia 2.8/21 (one stop slower - but I don't doubt the Loxia is better optically).
Oct 16, 2015 at 03:24 AM
p.10 #6Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
melcat wrote:
Not glossing, just forgot! But I think the OM is a lot lighter. And it's all metal and glass.
Have you compared the two lenses in performance? Sometimes we are losing sight that old vintage lenses might be smaller and lighter than the current lenses, but they can't compete technically, especially WO. The fact is, digital sensor just put more demand on these lenses. If we are talking about film, I would go with the G 21 over any Zuiko 21 any day.
freaklikeme wrote
And I think you're glossing over the fact that OM had a very long register, so with the adapter, it really isn't all that small a Sony.Have you compared the two lenses in performance? Sometimes we are losing sight that old vintage lenses might be smaller and lighter than the current lenses, but they can't compete technically, especially WO. The fact is, digital sensor just put more demand on these lenses. If we are talking about film, I would go with the G 21 over any Zuiko 21 any day.
Oct 16, 2015 at 09:04 AM
p.10 #7Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Somewhat off topic, but I just saw that the news about this lens draw more comments on dpreview than the new Canon M10 mirrorless camera.
A manual focus wide angle lens getting more attention than a new cam from Canon? The times are a changing indeed!
A manual focus wide angle lens getting more attention than a new cam from Canon? The times are a changing indeed!
Oct 16, 2015 at 09:12 AM
p.10 #8Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
hiepphotog wrote:
Not glossing, just forgot! But I think the OM is a lot lighter. And it's all metal and glass.Have you compared the two lenses in performance? Sometimes we are losing sight that old vintage lenses might be smaller and lighter than the current lenses, but they can't compete technically, especially WO. The fact is, digital sensor just put more demand on these lenses. If we are talking about film, I would go with the G 21 over any Zuiko 21 any day.
Just nitpicking here, but while you are probably right for the vast majority of lenses, there are some older lenses that compete very well with current offerings.
melcat wrote
freaklikeme wrote
And I think you're glossing over the fact that OM had a very long register, so with the adapter, it really isn't all that small a Sony.Just nitpicking here, but while you are probably right for the vast majority of lenses, there are some older lenses that compete very well with current offerings.
Oct 16, 2015 at 09:49 AM
p.10 #9Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Not surprised. This looks to be a beast in performance and than size , weight area its on the small side.
Oct 16, 2015 at 09:50 AM
p.10 #11Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Hard to judge by those few web-sized samples, but they don't look special to me at all.
Steve Huff posted a "review" as well and his pictures are simply terrible.
You could see the SLR Distagon 21 image quality right away, this one, not sure...
Steve Huff posted a "review" as well and his pictures are simply terrible.
You could see the SLR Distagon 21 image quality right away, this one, not sure...
Oct 17, 2015 at 05:38 AM
p.10 #12Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
But, at 21mm and in a small package, it is not like we have much choice, especially in native mount. Like none. Besides, the MTF look quite promising, and the fact that Zeiss haven't released a bad "new" lens in years. Thus my order is in. With a bit of luck, I should be playing with one in a couple of weeks at the Paris show.
Oct 17, 2015 at 06:23 AM
p.10 #13Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I actually think that the samples twoeye posted look very good. They are web resolutions with a lot of processing, however, so they don't really tell us that much about the performance--especially compared to other lenses. The MTF sure looks good, and I think it will be a very nice choice for the Sony cameras. Will it be an good as the C/Y or ZE/ZF probably not in at least some ways -- it doesn't have a floating element so near performance probably won't be up to the DSLR lens. Still it looks like a great option to me. I haven't preordered yet, but I will be quite surprised if I don't get this lens to replace my ZE 21D.
Oct 17, 2015 at 06:43 AM
p.10 #14Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Steve Spencer wrote:
I actually think that the samples twoeye posted look very good. They are web resolutions with a lot of processing, however, so they don't really tell us that much about the performance--especially compared to other lenses. The MTF sure looks good, and I think it will be a very nice choice for the Sony cameras. Will it be an good as the C/Y or ZE/ZF probably not in at least some ways -- it doesn't have a floating element so near performance probably won't be up to the DSLR lens. Still it looks like a great option to me....Show more →
At least to Lloyd, it doesn't seem to be a problem
Loxia 21mm: Close focus performance
I actually think that the samples twoeye posted look very good. They are web resolutions with a lot of processing, however, so they don't really tell us that much about the performance--especially compared to other lenses. The MTF sure looks good, and I think it will be a very nice choice for the Sony cameras. Will it be an good as the C/Y or ZE/ZF probably not in at least some ways -- it doesn't have a floating element so near performance probably won't be up to the DSLR lens. Still it looks like a great option to me....Show more →
At least to Lloyd, it doesn't seem to be a problem
Loxia 21mm: Close focus performance
Oct 17, 2015 at 09:15 AM
p.10 #15Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
snowboarder wrote:
Steve Huff posted a "review" as well and his pictures are simply terrible.
It's probably not the lens though....
Steve Huff posted a "review" as well and his pictures are simply terrible.
It's probably not the lens though....
Oct 17, 2015 at 10:18 AM
p.10 #16Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
I'm not impressed by those samples, especially coming from a seasoned digital pro. Some of the most important for me to judge are only posted at web resolutions (?). Even then, I seem to spot a weakness on the LHS? Also, front to back, corner to corner sharpness isn't displayed. The F8 shots with sharp foregrounds appear to have OOF backgrounds, which make me think there may some field curvature, and focus might be front heavy to get the corners in focus. More importantly, I don't see the high IQ look I would expect to see. Hiep's 21/24 Leica M samples (even if with other issues), stand out more to me from an IQ standpoint.
Oct 17, 2015 at 12:05 PM
p.10 #17Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
You would think that by now, people would be used to seeing terrible review samples, regardless of the gear involved, as manufacturers have no interest in doling out samples to people who might know what they're doing.
I pre-orderd a Loxia 21 yesterday, in spite of all the review photos...
I pre-orderd a Loxia 21 yesterday, in spite of all the review photos...
Oct 17, 2015 at 12:29 PM
p.10 #18Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
Steve Spencer wrote:
I actually think that the samples twoeye posted look very good.
Steve, I haven't noticed these. Or else I didn't recoginze what I saw as hiw rok. Care to educate me? Thanks!
I actually think that the samples twoeye posted look very good.
Steve, I haven't noticed these. Or else I didn't recoginze what I saw as hiw rok. Care to educate me? Thanks!
Oct 17, 2015 at 12:39 PM
p.10 #19Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
philber wrote:
Steve, I haven't noticed these. Or else I didn't recoginze what I saw as hiw rok. Care to educate me? Thanks!
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant the ones shot by Christain Dandyk that twoeye posted the link to,
Steve Spencer wrote
I actually think that the samples twoeye posted look very good.Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant the ones shot by Christain Dandyk that twoeye posted the link to,
Oct 17, 2015 at 12:48 PM
p.10 #20Zeiss Unveils the Loxia 21mm f/2.8
lens looks great (pixel peeping), images look like those taken by people not particularly good at or used to shooting ultrawides.
Oct 17, 2015 at 02:28 PM