p.1 #1 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
It was 12 degrees (Fahrenheit) when I shot these, so don't expect perfection. I had to remove the camera from the tripod to mount the ZE 21 as well as I have to use the extra long foot I put on the Metabones adapter. All of these shots were focused via live view on the face of the building just above the porch roof, except for the Loxia which I focused using the hard stop (to compensate for some forward field curvature.) The ZE 21 was also at the hard stop. On my 5D, 5D II and Metabones III the ZE doesn't have hart stop infinity. On my Metabones IV, it does (or if not then I can't reach infinity.) Similar processing applied to all of them, but some vignetting correction was done to all except the ZE 21. All these were taken with IBIS/OSS off, on a tripod, with the 2 second timer. Processing was done via PhotoNinja 1.2.7.
p.1 #3 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Yes, all top dollar optics here. As I move to wider apertures, I think my ZE 21 and Batis 25 might be a little soft in the lower right hand corner (could be the adapter for the ZE 21.) The Loxia is really small compared to the others, it does vignette the most as well though.
-Tim
james3shin wrote:
They all look good from my point of view. I think we're splitting hairs in this comparison Never a bad thing to pick from a good batch.
p.1 #8 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
To me the knock I'd put on the zoom is the foreground depth of field. When shooting this focal length, I often have something in the foreground (present samples excluded) and that would require stopping down further than the other lenses.
p.1 #9 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
On my copy of the Loxia, focus to the hard stop at f/8 and it's bitingly sharp pretty much everywhere. I posted a covered bridge shot which exhibited similar behavior.
p.1 #11 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Much prefer the ZE of the 21s, more faithful color, tone grades and three dimensionality, you pick up visual cues more quickly. The Batis does very well also in this regard, and it's 60 grams oighter and does f2 very well. All are very good. Thanks, Tim.
p.1 #14 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
I see green vignetting in the lower left corner of the ZE 21, something that would occasionally would crop up when shooting it on my 5D and 5D II as well. It's also the beast of the bunch due to its size including the adapter.
The Batis is a stretch in this comparison due to the different FL. If it's wide enough for people, then it's a good choice.
Ultimately it's hard to make a "bad" choice depending on what your priorities are.
-Tim
philip_pj wrote:
Much prefer the ZE of the 21s, more faithful color, tone grades and three dimensionality, you pick up visual cues more quickly. The Batis does very well also in this regard, and it's 60 grams oighter and does f2 very well. All are very good. Thanks, Tim.
p.1 #15 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Thank you for your efforts, Tim! I am making the move from ZE 21 to Loxia 21 to save weight/ size, the test is very reassuring that image quality will be very similar.
I find the distant background in the left mid frame slightly sharper in the Loxia image than the ZE21 at f/8, apart from that very equal.
p.1 #17 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Full disclosure, I purposely focused the Loxia to mitigate field curvature which has some people up in arms. If I focus on the mansion wide open, then stop down, you won't see the same edge performance. I'll try to post those versions tonight at both f/8 and f/11. I wonder if this will affect the lack of 3D that a couple people commented above (compared to the ZE.)
I'm quite pleased with the Loxia, at this point I have no regrets in replacing my ZE 21 with it.
-Tim
twoeye wrote:
Thank you for your efforts, Tim! I am making the move from ZE 21 to Loxia 21 to save weight/ size, the test is very reassuring that image quality will be very similar.
I find the distant background in the left mid frame slightly sharper in the Loxia image than the ZE21 at f/8, apart from that very equal.
p.1 #18 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
One example is possibly foreground sharpness. In the FE 16-35 shot, I focused on the front of the mansion above the porch. Notice that the foreground seems softer with the zoom. For my style of shooting, that's a negative.
-Tim
Jon H Richter wrote:
Ok in this particular scenario all lenses look very similar, though I personally find the Loxia pics best.
I wonder in which scenarios we would see more differences in IQ between the primes and 16-35?
p.1 #19 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
tsdevine wrote:
One example is possibly foreground sharpness. In the FE 16-35 shot, I focused on the front of the mansion above the porch. Notice that the foreground seems softer with the zoom. For my style of shooting, that's a negative.
I can confirm that, I took many images with soft foreground corners in Indonesia last summer because of the lack of time and the AF on the center.
The field curvature of the zoom makes it very tricky to focus. Complicated focusing, zoom and AF is not a good combination for me.
p.1 #20 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
I would kind of like to see how the 28mm and 21mm converter would have faired. I am not huge on testing, but I loved the 28/2. The 21 converter shocked me with how good it was.
Never a bad thing to pick from a good batch.
