Grenache wrote:
Have you compared the 24GM at comparable aperture? I have not shot the 25 Loxia, but the 24GM is crazy sharp, even at f/1.4, and it continues to sharpen a bit more through f/3.6. It would be hard for me to imagine a lens yet sharper.
Could not help but notice the CA in the far corners of the GM 24mm, and a little wobbly for resolution as well. Both wonderful of course, but I feel the L25 is more convincing. A worthy successor to the great CZ 25mm heritage.
akashyap wrote:
My ultra wide journey has taken me through a 10-18 f4, 16-35 f4, Loxia 21, and now I own a 16-35 f2.8, so I'll try my best to compare:
Long story short: the GM gets close enough to the Loxia in terms of sharpness and color for my liking that I prefer the functionality of the AF & zoom over the tiny MF prime. It came down to my use case of candid environmental portraits and landscape pictures while hiking: manually focusing on a moving target is difficult (not impossible), and constantly switching lenses for the correct composition really detracted from my hikes with my partner. Now, I love Zeiss rendering (colors and contrast mainly) and have tried to seek it out in as many lenses as I own (CZ 35-70, CZ 100-300, Batis 85, CV 40, 24 GM), so switching from the Loxia 21 to 16-35 GM wasn't easy. The Loxias will always maintain an extra layer of saturated colors, oozing microcontrast, and probably a tad more sharpness that can make a strong composition really stand out, but I wasn't in a place to consistently get strong compositions from the MF prime in the first place. If I was single and going on solo adventures, sure, but I'm not, so I opted for more compositions with less IQ instead of less compositions with more IQ.
I don't think differences in sharpness would be noticed even til 20*30 prints, and the GM has surprisingly good colors (relative to the 16-35 f4). I'm happy with my decision to keep the 16-35 over the Loxia.
Not sure if that's the kind of answer you were looking for ... ...Show more →
I agree with akashyap assement, "The Loxias will always maintain an extra layer of saturated colors, oozing microcontrast, and probably a tad more sharpness that can make a strong composition really stand out"
I own both the ZE 21 & Loxia 21 I think the colors are more pronounced in the ZE version, but the micro contrast goes to the Loxia, of course the weight and size also goes to the Loxia. The Loxia 25 & 85 are the stars of the Loxia line.
Never shot the GM 16-35 so no comment on that one, other than to say a lot more user friendly, as there will be no need to change lenses for the short or long end, like it would be with a single prime.
Grenache wrote:
Really?!? Have you compared the 24GM at comparable aperture? I have not shot the 25 Loxia, but the 24GM is crazy sharp, even at f/1.4, and it continues to sharpen a bit more through f/3.6. It would be hard for me to imagine a lens yet sharper. The ZE 25/2 was lovely, so maybe some of that magic?
I prefer the Loxia 25/2.4 to the ZE 25/2. And definitely both are better than the original ZF 25/2.8.
Zoom-wise, I only have Canon EF 16-24/4L IS. It is a very good zoom, but not better than the wide Loxia line-up. (Edit: I forgot that I also have the Sony 12-24/4G. Nice lens, but it doesn't get a lot of use -- I'll have to put it to use more often! )
Never missed a 16-35 with a set of Voigtlander 15, Loxia 25, and Voigtlander 40. Great sunstars, more speed at 25 and especially 40, and top notch image quality.
I've since added the GM 12-24 which provides superior sharpness and wider aperture for astro at ultra-wide angles, but when I want to travel light the 15-25-40 set is still my go-to kit.
I own the 16-35 GM (which gets a ton of use due to versatility) and the Loxia 21 (which I love).
They are on par in terms of sharpness (yes the GM gets a touch softer at the long end but it's sharp on the wide end), but as others have noted the colors and microcontrast of the Loxia are special - in this case (and for sunstars of course) it is definitely a cut above, in the way glass can be. How can I say it - there are lenses that are technically great (all the GM zooms IMO) and lenses that render a bit of magic in addition (L21, 85GM).
I rarely use the Loxia 21 just because the zoom is so versatile, but the resale value has dropped quite low, so keeping it, and probably should use it a lot more. Given the great value it currently is for a lens of that IQ, if you don't need the full zoom range and are fine with MF, the L21is very, very worth owning.
Have never shot the Loxia 25, just because it's not a focal length I use often.
As the sharpness playing field is close to being levelled for most applications and in terms of user acceptability, people are forced to evaluate other characteristics (including character, colour quality, lens speed, range of shooting opportunities, even quirks) which are of great importance to high quality imaging. A welcome development for all.
Zooms get turned over more frequently and lose value faster, it's almost certainly true. Owning a zoom means never experiencing or learning what suitable primes can offer your artistic journey - after all, you already have those focal lengths 'covered'. So the bar really should be higher for zooms, you can argue.
Putting aside the mix and match users (and there are many), do more photographers go from zooms to primes or vice versa? It's confused by the newcomers to the activity and the 'convenience first' mentality ushered in by the phone revolution, so it's hard to quantify with any confidence.
philip_pj wrote:
As the sharpness playing field is close to being levelled for most applications and in terms of user acceptability, people are forced to evaluate other characteristics (including character, colour quality, lens speed, range of shooting opportunities, even quirks) which are of great importance to high quality imaging. A welcome development for all.
Zooms get turned over more frequently and lose value faster, it's almost certainly true. Owning a zoom means never experiencing or learning what suitable primes can offer your artistic journey - after all, you already have those focal lengths 'covered'. So the bar really should be higher for zooms, you can argue.
Putting aside the mix and match users (and there are many), do more photographers go from zooms to primes or vice versa? It's confused by the newcomers to the activity and the 'convenience first' mentality ushered in by the phone revolution, so it's hard to quantify with any confidence. ...Show more →
My guess is that most (at this point in history) start with zooms, become "hooked", and then start collecting primes.
Grenache wrote:
Really?!? Have you compared the 24GM at comparable aperture? I have not shot the 25 Loxia, but the 24GM is crazy sharp, even at f/1.4, and it continues to sharpen a bit more through f/3.6. It would be hard for me to imagine a lens yet sharper. The ZE 25/2 was lovely, so maybe some of that magic?
Someone has already posted Fred's comparison, but yes, I owned the 24GM and L25 at the same time. The Loxia is sharper. Would it make a difference in prints? Maybe, maybe not. But once you see it, it's hard to unsee. As a landscape lens, the L25 is better, IMO, and not just in regards to sharpness. The GM is an unbeatable all around lens but I realized that my use of fast lenses is in the 35-50 range, not 24. I sold the GM and kept the Loxia.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Someone has already posted Fred's comparison, but yes, I owned the 24GM and L25 at the same time. The Loxia is sharper. Would it make a difference in prints? Maybe, maybe not. But once you see it, it's hard to unsee. As a landscape lens, the L25 is better, IMO, and not just in regards to sharpness. The GM is an unbeatable all around lens but I realized that my use of fast lenses is in the 35-50 range, not 24. I sold the GM and kept the Loxia.
Same here.
I really don't need a fast lens wider than 35.
Also - I really don't need AF wider than 28mm either.
I currently own both - use the 24 GM for pictures of my son (1.4 is helpful indoors) and 25 Loxia for landscapes.
The 24 GM is very sharp, but the 25 Loxia always wows me when I open the files in Lightroom.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Someone has already posted Fred's comparison, but yes, I owned the 24GM and L25 at the same time. The Loxia is sharper. Would it make a difference in prints? Maybe, maybe not. But once you see it, it's hard to unsee. As a landscape lens, the L25 is better, IMO, and not just in regards to sharpness. The GM is an unbeatable all around lens but I realized that my use of fast lenses is in the 35-50 range, not 24. I sold the GM and kept the Loxia.
)