GMPhotography wrote:
Not sure I’m going to get past the next few hours. Walking to a B&H now. Think there is a bank handing out money along the way. I went to Adorama yesterday and that was trouble and my wife caught me.
That's also what I hope Zeiss will do with the loxia line: a 15mm would be a great addition to the current family.
fplstudio wrote:
Thanks Fred for the test. This CV is now the new best wide angle for landscapes no doubts.
I may however get the AF GM 24 instead to pair with the CV21/3.5 and still eagerly looking for a future smallish CV/Loxia 15mm f/2.8 with astro & landscape performance and filter thread.
“Screw the justification, just enjoy yourself . But the best one is one is manual focus the other is not. Simply
Now from your spouse I’ll send over the baseball helmet. I kinda got caught today. I went to Adorama this morning. Spent a little more than I thought I would”
YOLO
Btw dont listen to me , ive been divorced twice!! Lol
Im going to work, Have AC’s to fix, Enjoy the new 21...
sandycrane wrote:
Be careful. Wives are harder to replace than lenses.
Yes, but lenses can be wildly more useful and rewarding than wives )) (ok, shameless wife bashing season officially open - please report this to the dutiful authorities ) )
philip_pj wrote:
The p1 comparison image fully illustrates the difference between a company that makes lenses for human hands to use, and one that makes life harder than it need be.
Some of Zeiss Loxia's visible ergo shortcomings, as compared here include:
Same diameter low rise aperture/focus rings; placement of fine knurled aperture ring too close to body (millimetres close) impeding functionality; fine knurling attracts dirt; waste of unused front barrel while jamming controls at the rear with overly busy design; focus ring incorporates distance scale on knurling within finger access section; hard to read index for chosen aperture (one of many lines vs clear dot in CV); narrow DOF scale index ring; weak purchase on focus ring knurling (no finger indents); no 10f/3m or 0.7m marking on focus ring distance scale; poor separation of metric/imperial focus distances (CV uses color); compressed distance marks in focus ring (too large font); poor hand grip for mount/demounting, which easily moves aperture and focus rings; narrow hood mount with weak index mark (CV uses aperture index to assist); tallest ring is DOF scale index ring. CV's work method logic is from front to back: choose aperture (front ring), then focus (middle ring) then check focus distance and DOF (if needed).
Does it all matter?
Depends on whether you ever need to quickly and efficiently; work wearing gloves; work directly from the EVF and need certainty of your finger moves. Industrial product design is serious business because it is the direct interface between the product and your body, so it's all the more surprising Zeiss have not done a better job of it. Sound interface design = 'don't make me think'. ...Show more →
Well put. As much as I like the Loxia's, I sometimes still struggle to unmount them. I'm still keeping them, because I like the results I'm getting from them and more importantly changing to CV now would mean having to deal with yet another new filter size. I have to say, though, CV sure have made things interesting.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
I made it through the night. GAS has subsided Looks like a beautiful option but I'll just have to make the 24GM work
+1. Looking at this thread, GAS briefly kicked in, but quickly subsided. I'm going to keep my Loxia 21 and will probably add the 24 GM at some point, because I need AF.
DaveFP wrote:
I have just started thinking of picking up a Loxia 21.
Any good reason to continue in that direction vs going with this lens?
I like the idea of 1.4 at a similar size but I know more about Zeiss's build quality and service.
Thoughts?
Zeiss has changed. And not necessarily in a good way. The new designs - Milvus, Loxia, Batis - don’t have the same impeccable ergonomics, don’t exude the same quality, and sometimes the look of the images is not that special, anymore. Technically correct, good rendering, good color, but sometimes no “Wow factor” in the new designs. Some of them have it, some not.
The new Voigtlanders, for me, are the “old” / new Zeiss - fabulous build quality and MF ergonomics, and a lovely blend of character and technical performance. There is that unquantifiable “magic dust” in those lenses ) (basically warmer colors and loads of microcontrast with realy nice OOF transitions).
I’ve had all the Loxias and a couple of Batis lenses (40 and 135). They are all getting replaced by a mix of GM (I sometimes need AF) and Voigtlander lenses.
I’m trying to raise the money for the 21. I actually decided awhile ago I want something wider than my 50 that was very fast . Thought this would be the answer and bought the 3.5 to hold me until I finished up with buying my Profotos which now I have and getting antsy for it. BH could not find there demo this morning and I was called to get the truck earlier to unload , so ran out of time.
Soooooooo my 3.5 is brand new , used it a little yesterday. My kids come to me Wednesday so they can bring me the box but if you want the 3.5 let me know. I will list this at some point
))
