Reading Rockwells introduction to his review makes it very clear that he does not accept the ZF lens. He speaks of rebranded Cosina lens and so on... Dont know if this has a place in the first line of a review. This is more forum talk level.
Phuang, I have the Summi ROM, border performance up to 2.8 is better, but then the ZF fights back and is on top at f5,6. The bokeh is also nice with the ZF, the Summi is IMO less pleasing. I will sell the Leica BTW
Lotusm50 wrote:
Making them full frame but optimizing for only APS is sort of neither here nor there. They wind up being more expensive than an APS-only lens, but disappointing on a full camera.
I hope that's not the case. I'm sure many of us would be disappointed with a ZF 21/2.8 that was disappointing in the corners because Zeiss intentionally made it that way. Corner performance is one of the main reasons I stick it out Zeiss. I just did up some 11x14 prints, some from my 17-40L and some from my Contax 35-70, and the corners (among other qualities) on the 17-40 prints have reassured me that it's worth the trouble to stick with Zeiss.
Andi Dietrich wrote:
Reading Rockwells introduction to his review makes it very clear that he does not accept the ZF lens. He speaks of rebranded Cosina lens and so on... Dont know if this has a place in the first line of a review. This is more forum talk level.
Rockwell's tone and dismissive nature of his text betray an obvious bias and suggest to me that one should view the results with a certain amount of suspicion. His apparent nice cozy relationship with Nikon further suggests that he is probably not the most objective arbiter for this comparison.
I dont think other fast lenses would handle such situations much better. Right now I have no Makro Zeiss or Leica, but I would give them most credit in handling CA
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I do think that there are some sensor issues contributing to what most call CA beyond simply Sensor Bloom as a result of overexposure, at least for wide angle lenses.
I have read about terrible CA with the Canon 85 1.8 and I have yet to see it with my copy. Wide Open with heavy backlighting I suspect I would see it wide open as JJlphoto mentions.
Indeed, you will, and overexposed highlights will amplify the effect, as you mentioned earlier. In "normal" exposures, my 85/1.8 is fine wide open, but when challenged with backlighting, high contrast, bright whites/silvers, etc. it really shows up. I still love the lens
cogitech wrote:
... but when challenged with backlighting, high contrast, bright whites/silvers, etc. it really shows up. I still love the lens
These are the situations that separate the men from the boys -- the great lenses from the merely good. It also one of the reasons why I have issues with many of the lens comparisons found on line. Most, at best, give only lip service to these issues.
R90/2.8 II @ f/2.8
Under extreme condition, the R90/2.8 is similar to EF 85/1.8 in that they both exhibit severe purple fringing. With a basic achromat design, the purple (short wave length) deviates from the focus plane most which would become a purple "out of focus" effect. A more severe type of CA is the common red/green fringing on the focus plane. Different lens may have different result as the CA is truly based on glass selection.
R70-180 APO @ f/2.8
This one is taken from the other day. An apo lens performs much better in this regard, but it doesn't mean the CA can be totally eliminated. A superchromat lens is said to have a more strick control on CA. It would be great if someone could show us some photos.
Lotusm50 wrote:
These are the situations that separate the men from the boys -- the great lenses from the merely good. It also one of the reasons why I have issues with many of the lens comparisons found on line. Most, at best, give only lip service to these issues.
They all write it off as "easily correctable in post". I'm one who does not find it so easy. I'd really rather not have to deal with it, even as infrequently as I do (I'm careful not to push these sorts of lenses into a corner).
After my experience, it occurred to me that Zeiss might have optimized these lenses for 1.5x and I vocalized the suspicion in at least one forum. As I said, I did not have a great amount of experience in these matters at the time so I decided to cool my jets with respect to any more speculations until there was proof via the observations of someone with more experience than I or from Zeiss directly (I wasn't holding my breath). It is somewhat gratifying to learn that I wasn't completely out in left field. It is also to Zeiss' credit that they admit to such a thing. If we can get Canon to tell us what the heck is wrong with the 50L and fix it, we can get down to business.
Now, the question for me is: Will the ZS version of the 25mm be optimized for FF? Zeiss expressly stated that the ZS will be for Canon users, Which users, FF or 1.6x remains to be seen. I am committed to giving the 25mm another whirl, so as soon as a ZS version shows up at a US dealer (with a good return policy), I will buy, and of course, I will post pix to the various forums I frequent.
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread to talk about the 25mm.
Lotusm50 wrote:
The ZF 25mm is a curious beast. In some ways it is a stellar performer in other ways it seems to fall flat. In some respects, according to communication from Zeiss, its design was done to optimize performance for an APS-c sensor -- not full frame even though the lens covers full frame. Further, they make a point of the making the lens focus closely, yet seem to do little to optimize its performance at close focus (e.g. no floating element) with Zeiss suggesting it's use at close focus would be for "atmosphere" (which to me is a cop-out rationalization for bad performance). Zeiss could have done a lot more with this lens. I was originally quite interested in this lens, but no longer as it ultimately disappoints.
Here is the relevant text of the comments I received from Zeiss on the ZF 25mm:
In spite of the close minimum focus distance the lens has no floating elements. So the close focus is not intended to be used for copy work. It is for three-dimensional subjects, where there is a main part in the centre and the rest is just "atmosphere". It allows very dynamic pictures of small things, very different from the distant view of typical macro lenses. And in this kind of subjects field curvature is no issue. Testing the lens with flat targets reveals the typical weaknesses, but it is far away from many practical applications.
The close focus capability is also a kind of historical footnote, since the "great grandfather" of this lens for the Contarex had the same feature. The design is of course new, and we particularly looked for improved field flatness within the APS area.
rfkiii wrote:
It is also to Zeiss' credit that they admit to such a thing.
Except for the fact that they neglect to mention it in their product information or marketing at all. You have to pry it out of them in private.
rfkiii wrote:
Now, the question for me is: Will the ZS version of the 25mm be optimized for FF? Zeiss expressly stated that the ZS will be for Canon users, Which users, FF or 1.6x remains to be seen.
No, the ZS 25mm will be identical to the ZF 25mm. Your point about about Zeiss marketing the ZS specifically for Canon users is one of the things annoyed me about all this. Zeiss knows that it's potential Canon customers for the ZF/ZS lenses are mostly full frame, yet they design and market a lens to these potential customers that they know is not optimised for their format. The fact that they overlook this in their marketing, potentially deceiving their customers, is one thing. But another mind-boggling thing is the fact that they think it's a good idea to produce a full frame lens that is only optimised (or designed) to only APS frame requirements, in spite of knowing that the lens will have strong potential application on full frame cameras (digital and film). I elaborated on these points in my e-mail correspondence with Zeiss (not that it is likely to have any effect, or even likely to reach any decision-makers, but I figure someone has to voice their displeasure and point out their errors to them -- besides, it was good to vent).
Edited by Lotusm50 on Jul 29, 2007 at 09:31 AM GMT (Reason: typo)
lotusm50: good luck with that! I received no word at all from Zeiss in response to my full frame testing of the ZF 25mm which, if memory serves, was one of the first to show up online.
Clearly, somewhere along the line, they fell out with Canon – and, apparently, also with the concept of full frame.
Perhaps the ZF21 will be a return to form, but thus far the new range has been underwhelming: a mediocre 25mm, a pretty good 50mm, an OK 85mm and nice 100mm macro. This is not the Zeiss I remember . . .
Hubsand, if you think the 25mm ZF is mediocre why did you give it more points in your review then your exceptional copy of 24L
and as you have the 100mm macro it would be interesting to see some samples.
This whole issue about the Zeiss 25mm ZF is very perplexing. For instance, if one goes and looks at the MTF charts at Zeiss for the 25mm ZF, the 50 1.4 ZF AND the older Contax 28mm 2.8 at F 5.6, the chart for the 25mm ZF is clearly better than the older Contax 28mm and in fact the 25mm ZF chart looks very similar to the 50 1.4 ZF towards the corners. None of this seems to be backed up by any actual tests which I have seen though. So whats going on? If Zeiss really did not optimize the 25mm ZF for full frame, then why do the MTF charts show otherwise? And, why don't the charts reflect actual testing? Either we can no longer trust future Zeiss MTF charts as in the past OR Zeiss will not concede that there are some really flawed examples of this lens out there.
I have a copy of the ZF 35/2, which I am playing with on an S5 Pro. Nothing to show yet, and am too busy right now to play.
diglloyd.com rates the 100/2 macro as the best lens he has ever used, and mentioned to me that, in his experience, the 50/2 macro is very nearly as good. That's a handy length on the S5, too, so if the 35/2 produces images I like, I will get the 50. Could be an excellent portrait lens.
And the 25 is not a useful length, for me, on that body. The 21, OTOH, if it's good, would be a great length. Anyone have any idea whem the 21 might break cover?
I find the 2/35 incredibly versatile on my D200. The pictures have that nice, normal look to them. Not too compressed not too wide. Maybe I'm just still living in the film days for what I think looks "right". Who knows.
While I was happy with the 17-50 (very versatile, very cheap) and the 17-55 less so (just not worth the cash, IMHO), the prints out of the 2/35 are what really rock my world. There is a noticeable difference in the prints from this lens and that is what I really love about it. The word "pop" on this site is usually used in describing over-sharpened crap, but man, the printed photos from this lens really do pop. And print quality is why I do this stuff.
I'm even going to give that CA prone ZF 1.4/50 a shot, who knows, I might like it.
A 21 has me perplexed though. If it rocks, I mean ROCKS on FF, then great, but otherwise, why not a 17 or 18 as 21 is just so close to the 25. A 17 or 18 is what I'd personally like to see.
As soon as Nikon puts out a full frame DSLR, I'll be running out to buy a ZF 100 f2 Makro and the 35 f2.0 Distagon.
intero wrote
A 21 has me perplexed though. If it rocks, I mean ROCKS on FF, then great, but otherwise, why not a 17 or 18 as 21 is just so close to the 25. A 17 or 18 is what I'd personally like to see.
Actually, I would more wonder about the need for the 25mm as it is much closer to the 28mm than the 21mm (3mm vs. 4mm, and even closer if you look at it in terms of the FOV). Some people, however, really like the 24/25mm FOV, so you see 21mm, 25mm, and 28mm lenses in the same line-up. It's all a matter of taste, how you see and work, and the situation. There is clearly a role in a lens line-up for both 21mm and 25mm lenses, not to mention a 28mm and a 16 or 17mm.
Where DID the idea of a 21 come from? I have tried to find this reference but apart from this thread, cannot see any reference anywhere. Can anyone help? I am waiting on the 50/2 macro, as a result of the very nice images the 35/2 made on the weekend.
Kit Laughlin wrote:
Where DID the idea of a 21 come from? I have tried to find this reference but apart from this thread, cannot see any reference anywhere. Can anyone help? I am waiting on the 50/2 macro, as a result of the very nice images the 35/2 made on the weekend.
As far as I know, the idea of a ZF21 is just wishful thinking for people wanting to avoid the ~US$2600 price tag on a used CZ21.
As I mentioned in another thread, my money is on a Distagon 2.8/18 ZF, or thereabouts, as that would have the most impact on a crop body, save for a 15mm which would cost several arms and legs.
