p.2 #1 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
No arguments...I'm already sort of embarrassed that I could compare all 4 of these lenses...If I had the FE 28 and WA converter I'd probably be diagnosed with terminal GAS.
TheEmrys wrote:
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.
p.2 #2 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
tsdevine wrote:
No arguments...I'm already sort of embarrassed that I could compare all 4 of these lenses...If I had the FE 28 and WA converter I'd probably be diagnosed with terminal GAS.
You should be ashamed of yourself your worse than me.
p.2 #3 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Well, I have to admit I currently own all four of these lenses as well. I can even throw in the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS as well not to mention my two TS-E Canon's.
I'm still shooting Canon which is why I have the ZE 21 and EF 16-35 f/4L IS. But I've been switching all my landscape and architectural work from Canon 5DIII to Sony A7RII along with using my A7RII for travel.
I love the feel and quality of the Batis and Loxia and as long as I have the A7RII I will have these. I adapted my ZE 21 a lot with the A7R. I had thought to sell it once the Loxia 21 was announced and delivered. But for me its so hard to give up a great lens. I'm going to hold off on this decision until I see the 5D Mark IV. There are times when I take only my Canon kit but now that the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS is out I usually just take it. When I had the f/2.8L II version the Zeiss 21 and an 18mm were what I used for landscape almost exclusively (didn't own the TS-E 17 back then). The f/2.8L II was more for photojournalism type work since its corners were not sharp for me.
On my A7RII, now that I have the 21mm I use it for landscape and the batis 25 for street and walking around.
The FE 16-35 is a nice lens and of course very flexible. I will tend to use it most from 16-21 where I really don't shoot a lot. At 21 and up I will use my primes unless I've packed light for travel.
p.2 #5 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Not sure if you're directing that question to me, my son's name is Ted so it's a funny coincidence.
The ZE 21 is pretty big compared to my other primes, and it makes it cumbersome to use. I've been working on a small prime set for landscape shooting, which is predominantly what I do. The Loxia to me is just an incredible technical feat that I'm sure will become my favorite of all the lenses that I compared here. I'm more of a prime guy, so I'm a little conflicted with the FE 16-35 and Batis 25. But I'll figure that out over time.
-Tim
swldstn wrote:
Ted,
Forgot to ask which of the four do you enjoy the most. For me the 21 for landscape and the 25 for street/walking around.
p.2 #6 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Tim,
Sorry, I did mean to send it to you and not your son. Big coincidence.
If I wasn't still shooting some Canon I would definitely favor the Loxia 21 over adapting the ZE 21 to the A7RII. That is my plan. I will probably sell the ZE 21 in the end.
The Loxia 21 is for landscape, The Batis 25 is for street and walking around. The 16-35 is for travel maybe? We'll see. I've thought about getting the Voigtlander 15mm III when it become native. I have a version II m-mount I bought when I still had my Zeiss Ikon, a film camera. If I get that then I will give up the 16-35 since traveling with the CV 15, L21, L35, and L50 is real easy for me personally.
p.2 #7 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Yeah, that's sort of my rational with the L21, FE 16-35, and B25.
I also have the V15 III (native) on preorder. It would give me V15 III, L21, SMC Pentax 28 f/3.5 K, FE 35 f/2.8, FE 55, and Contax G90. I went down the FE path with the 35 and 55, I bought them before the Loxia's came out. I have to say that I don't mind having AF for those focal lengths, but I can understand the draw to the Loxias based on my experience with the L21.
p.2 #9 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Many thanks for posting these, Tim. I'm very impressed by the Loxia 21.
I noticed something a bit odd, though, and wondered if you have any ideas how it has arisen? If you look at the crops from your f/8 photos below, the Batis diagonal lines are very jagged, like they're made up of squares joined together. The 16-35 diagonal lines are much smoother, and the Loxia's are maybe somewhere between the two. I thought it might just be because the primes are sharper, but the middle red rectangle shows a feature that is clearly significantly sharper in the 16-35 shot than the Batis shot.
Could it be distortion correction affecting the lenses differently?
p.2 #10 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Well, I did have the FE 35/2.8 and FE 24-70 f/4 OSS until recently and sold those. I have both the FE 35 and Loxia 50/2 and the Batis 85. For Zooms I have the 70-200mm f/4. I'm playing around with the FE 90 f/2.8 Macro but I'm not sure if I will keep it. I'm pretty happy adapting my ZE 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar. I got the 90 when my Batis 85 kept getting delayed and delayed. For me personally I prefer the Batis to the 90 Macro for portrait work.
p.2 #11 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
stevei wrote:
Many thanks for posting these, Tim. I'm very impressed by the Loxia 21.
I noticed something a bit odd, though, and wondered if you have any ideas how it has arisen? If you look at the crops from your f/8 photos below, the Batis diagonal lines are very jagged, like they're made up of squares joined together. The 16-35 diagonal lines are much smoother, and the Loxia's are maybe somewhere between the two. I thought it might just be because the primes are sharper, but the middle red rectangle shows a feature that is clearly significantly sharper in the 16-35 shot than the Batis shot.
Could it be distortion correction affecting the lenses differently?
I can't tell on my iPad but it's possible it's diffraction. The Batis will hit it before the zoom. Batis optimum is 5.8 and the zoom at F8 from my testing them awhile back. They all go by F11 pretty much some will hit it at F8
p.2 #12 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
There should be no distortion correction coming into play, I believe I have that disabled on the camera (which shouldn't affect RAW anyway) as well as in PhotoNinja. I've applied the same level of sharpening for all the shots, it's usually my "starting point" from which I dial up or tune back. So I didn't fine tune it for each lens. I just picked my normal default and ran with it.
There are two methods (that I know of) in PhotoNinja for removing CA. One is through the CA tool, which tries to shift the CA back in line with where it should have been if the lens didn't have the issue in the first place. This tool works really well, but usually makes those areas look "softer". So it's a double edged sword. The other approach is to use the defringe tool within the Noise section, it just removes the CA....but in the process I've seen it cause jaggies like you note. So it may be a function of what default sharpening I chose, as well as choosing to use the defringe tool vs the CA removal tool. You might want to compare the SooC JPEGs as I have CA removal turned off in camera. So you are seeing the images agnostic to the RAW converter I chose.
If I would be going for ultimate quality, I might choose to use the CA tool...or dial back sharpening, etc. But I tried to keep sharpness and CA removal consistent across all the shots.
-Tim
stevei wrote:
Many thanks for posting these, Tim. I'm very impressed by the Loxia 21.
I noticed something a bit odd, though, and wondered if you have any ideas how it has arisen? If you look at the crops from your f/8 photos below, the Batis diagonal lines are very jagged, like they're made up of squares joined together. The 16-35 diagonal lines are much smoother, and the Loxia's are maybe somewhere between the two. I thought it might just be because the primes are sharper, but the middle red rectangle shows a feature that is clearly significantly sharper in the 16-35 shot than the Batis shot.
Could it be distortion correction affecting the lenses differently?
p.2 #13 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Briefly looking at the SooC JPEGs...I just think that it's mainly due to the lenses out resolving the sensor. I need to check the default sharpening I have in camera. But at the pixel level, a diagonal line is hard to represent. If the line is small enough, and the lens is sharp enough, you'll end up with jaggies.
Something I see more often in my Foveon shots as the pixel density is lower, so you see it more often.
p.2 #14 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Yes yes, it is most likely so. Leica M9 was so frighteningly sharp with some lenses that on pixel level it produced jaggies. Adapted Canon 90mm TS-E does so as well on A7RII.
p.2 #15 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
swldstn wrote:
Tim,
Sorry, I did mean to send it to you and not your son. Big coincidence.
If I wasn't still shooting some Canon I would definitely favor the Loxia 21 over adapting the ZE 21 to the A7RII. That is my plan. I will probably sell the ZE 21 in the end.
The Loxia 21 is for landscape, The Batis 25 is for street and walking around. The 16-35 is for travel maybe? We'll see. I've thought about getting the Voigtlander 15mm III when it become native. I have a version II m-mount I bought when I still had my Zeiss Ikon, a film camera. If I get that then I will give up the 16-35 since traveling with the CV 15, L21, L35, and L50 is real easy for me personally....Show more →
I agree with the uses of the Loxia 21 vs Batis 25 vs FE16-35 and own all three. I have the VC 15/4.5 version III which is wonderful compared to the version II. For travel, I can certainly rely on the zoom. But as you say, traveling with a prime set of VC15, Loxia 21, Batis 25, VC Ultron 35/1.7 and FE55/1.8 is very reasonable.
p.2 #16 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
I'm in a little flux right now. My travel kit is growing and I also decided I need to think two lens sets on AF for PR and other things than the landscape travel so I'm setting myself up for this change.
Right now I have VC15, Loxia 21 and 50 plus the 28F2. That's a nice travel set
Than I have the 35 1.4 FE and Batis 85
The 85 is getting switched out for the GM. Regardless of what I'm shooting the GM is in the bag
FE 35 1.4 . Love this lens but not a travel piece and it may depending on how good get switched out for the 24-70. If that becomes the case than I want a better 28. The Sony is nice but I'll want a killer one . I'm not that pushed to sell the 35 1.4 so gotta see what happens
p.2 #17 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
tsdevine wrote:
Briefly looking at the SooC JPEGs...I just think that it's mainly due to the lenses out resolving the sensor. I need to check the default sharpening I have in camera. But at the pixel level, a diagonal line is hard to represent. If the line is small enough, and the lens is sharp enough, you'll end up with jaggies.
That was what I thought at first, but it's not consistent with the 16-35 shot both resolving the sharpest detail AND having the smoothest diagonal lines.
Looking at the SooC jpgs, they look very similar to each other for smoothness of the diagonal lines, so I think it must be the defringe and/or sharpening settings in processing the raw files. I've found you have to be really careful comparing lenses if you use smart / content aware algorithms, e.g. shadows and highlights in ACR can have unpredictable effects, even when using the same settings for each shot, because it alters what it does based on the content it's applied to, so it can end up not making the same changes to each shot.
It creates an interesting dilemma when choosing which lens you prefer. One approach is to do zero processing on all the shots, and regard that as a fair comparison. But the problem is that not all faults are equally correctable, so we might prefer lens A over lens B when both have zero processing, but lens B might have more easily fixed faults such that we prefer lens B over lens A when both are optimally processed based on their individual characteristics. The difficulty then is how we become confident that we have worked out the absolute best processing that can be done with each lens. If we apply the same processing settings for each lens, the processing might suit one lens better than another, and the content aware nature of some modern algorithms might mean that different processing is being performed on each lens for the same settings.
p.2 #18 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
Thanks Tim for the test. Very interesting. From these images I clearly prefer the ZE and Loxia images, both at f/8 and f/11. I was thinking about getting the Batis in addition to the Loxia 25mm, but I'm not so sure anymore.
p.2 #19 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
That's part of the reason I called it a casual comparison. There a lot of people who want a comparison, but it is somewhat challenging to provide one that everyone is happy with. (Taking into account the time I'm willing to spend doing it.) I in no way am saying there aren't flaws with what I've done.
p.2 #20 · Casual Loxia 21 / ZE 21 / FE 16-35 / Batis 25 Comparison
I will try to post f/5.6 comparisons tonight. But the issue of field curvature will become more apparent when I do that. So it might get more interesting.
And remember guys, I just picked up the Loxia and have had very limited time shooting with it. So I'm learning how it behaves on the fly with these comparison.
