I just bought this lens and found that there is no Les Profile in Lightroom yet.
To owners of this wonderful lens, which profile do you use for in LR...?
I think the biggest indicator would be whether your hiking 21 ever needs to turn into your astro 24. If both use cases are always separate, then it makes sense to keep both lenses separately.
I do most my astro while backpacking, so I've settled in the middle ground with the Loxia 21/2.8.
I love how we have so many options...
LeeRatters wrote:
I've avoided this thread for quite a while now. I have the CV21/3.5E & also a Samyang (Canon mount) 24/1.4 for Astro.
The f/3.5 is lovely for carrying for hiking (woodland/landscape) but I'm wondering on swapping them both out for this 21/1.4......??
akashyap wrote:
I think the biggest indicator would be whether your hiking 21 ever needs to turn into your astro 24. If both use cases are always separate, then it makes sense to keep both lenses separately.
I do most my astro while backpacking, so I've settled in the middle ground with the Loxia 21/2.8.
I love how we have so many options...
So far, we've always driven (with a short walk) for Astro - I've shot some stood next to the car!
Next year, we hope to do some overnight camping with Astro but yeah, I suppose I could get by as I am. There's just that part of me that doesn't like lenses sat around unused.....
Excellent images. Really pushes me towards having a third 21mm prime (have the 21/3.5 CV and 21/2.8 Lox).
Can't have too many 21mm native FE mount primes can you?
It seems like the hype has sort of died off on this particular lens even though it got great reviews from Fred and Phillip. I'm loving the recent photos that Hardcore has posted up, but other than that, I'm not seeing many images uploaded to Flickr or this thread recently that have really inspired me. For those that purchased it or made the switch from the Lox 21, what are your opinions now that you've had it for a while? I'm currently torn between the Lox and CV 21. I love the ergos of the CV (currently have the 40) and the neutral colors to match, but the Lox has been the gold standard for a while and it has that Zeiss 'Pop' / micro-contrast that makes it special. I'm mainly interested in it for landscape shots, but the extra speed is welcome if ever it's needed for other creative shots.
justincrabtree wrote:
It seems like the hype has sort of died off on this particular lens even though it got great reviews from Fred and Phillip. I'm loving the recent photos that Hardcore has posted up, but other than that, I'm not seeing many images uploaded to Flickr or this thread recently that have really inspired me. For those that purchased it or made the switch from the Lox 21, what are your opinions now that you've had it for a while? I'm currently torn between the Lox and CV 21. I love the ergos of the CV (currently have the 40) and the neutral colors to match, but the Lox has been the gold standard for a while and it has that Zeiss 'Pop' / micro-contrast that makes it special. I'm mainly interested in it for landscape shots, but the extra speed is welcome if ever it's needed for other creative shots....Show more →
If I didn't already own the FE 24/1.4 GM, I would have kept it. For landscapes, I prefer the smaller and lighter Loxia 21/2.8.
Both lenses have very similar resolution and micro-contrast. Both have some field curvature but I prefer the Zeiss's FC since it's inwards instead of wavy at infinity.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If I didn't already own the FE 24/1.4 GM, I would have kept it. For landscapes, I prefer the smaller and lighter Loxia 21/2.8.
Both lenses have very similar resolution and micro-contrast. Both have some field curvature but I prefer the Zeiss's FC since it's inwards instead of wavy at infinity.
I was wondering why you sold it. I might still go for it, but I have a Loxia 35 arriving soon and want to compare it with my CV 40 for landscapes before deciding on a 21. Images on Flickr tend to have a little more magic with the Loxias (21 & 35) from what I can tell, but I don't favor their colors as much as CV. The CV 40 is perfection OOC with its color at wider apertures, but I haven't given it a go stopped down yet. Deep down I want all CV's to keep the kit uniform and to satisfy my OCD, but alas. How are you liking the CV 65 for landscapes? It's the other lens I've been wanting to try, so in a perfect world it'd be CV21/1.4, CV40, CV65, 100-400 GM.
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone directly compare the 21Lox, 21/3.5 CV and 21/1.4 CV?
I've got two of the three . . . and don't use the Lox that much anymore due to the size/weight and the 21/3.5 being very close in IQ.
justincrabtree wrote:
It seems like the hype has sort of died off on this particular lens even though it got great reviews from Fred and Phillip. I'm loving the recent photos that Hardcore has posted up, but other than that, I'm not seeing many images uploaded to Flickr or this thread recently that have really inspired me. For those that purchased it or made the switch from the Lox 21, what are your opinions now that you've had it for a while? I'm currently torn between the Lox and CV 21. I love the ergos of the CV (currently have the 40) and the neutral colors to match, but the Lox has been the gold standard for a while and it has that Zeiss 'Pop' / micro-contrast that makes it special. I'm mainly interested in it for landscape shots, but the extra speed is welcome if ever it's needed for other creative shots....Show more →
Well, I'd have one if I had the cash...that's for sure.
Fred posted comments, maybe comparisons with the Loxia 21mm in his review of the 21/3.5, perhaps also did this for the 21/1.4. Each newcomer has to face the existing top dog, kind of. See page 1 of each new appearing lens.
jhinkey wrote:
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone directly compare the 21Lox, 21/3.5 CV and 21/1.4 CV?
I've got two of the three . . . and don't use the Lox that much anymore due to the size/weight and the 21/3.5 being very close in IQ.
The 21/3.5 is tempting for sure, especially for the price and weight (for longer hikes).
