rfkiii wrote:
I bought a used 35/2 ZF this week that had been listed on the FM Buy Sell forum. As usual, I took it down to my "testing location" for a set of shots. While there, I took a set of shots with the Contax 35-70 & EF 35L for a comparison. All samples shot with 5D at f11, the focus point (red brick building left center) was not quite at infinity. Wind very calm. Converted to jpeg from DPP with Level 7 sharpening. No further PP outside of DPP.
Results surprising.
What about the results do you find surprising? These samples were at f11, after all.
Edited by Lotusm50 on Jul 20, 2008 at 07:29 AM GMT
Well I dont want to blame anyone for this practice and dont want to put people here in the same corner, however I wonder why people which have issues with ZF lenses dont send the lens to Zeiss Germany to service them?
I will only speak for myself here of course. I'll use the 50L as an example. I returned two copies because I could not get a proper focus at f1.2 from any distance. Judging from other folks' samples at f1.2, I determined mine needed calibration. Would you agree that a properly calibrated lens is necessary in order to evaluate most of the lens' other attributes? Here's the Catch-22. If I send the 50L in for calibration, I have to register it. Registering it voids the rest of the retailer's return period. Let's say I get it properly calibrated, then determine that I can not work with the famous focus shift, what can I do about it then after registering the lens?
I returned a 25mm ZF. The pix were so distorted around a wide band at the edges as to be unsuitable for evaluation. After looking at samples from other photogs, I determined that I had a bad adapter issue (non-happypagehk - never again). I did not have enough time left on the retailer's return policy to get a happypagehk replacement adapter.
I returned a 28 ZF because it had a stronger field curvature than I expected for the intended application. (The 28 is unbelievable sharp wide open though but I digress.)
I plan to revisited all 3 at a later date.
I think some folks believe that buying and returning lenses to the retailer is somehow not right. Well, since many folks buy their lenses online these days, something has to replace the ability for a customer to examine a lens in hand as one is able to do when there is a brick and mortar shop involved. Of course, everyone involved should be responsible in returning the lens in perfect shape and the retailer inspecting it to make sure it was indeed returned in perfect condition in order to maintain this "honor system".
What about the results do you find surprising? These samples were at f11, after all.
I did not want to lead too much, 1.) because I am not as accomplished as some folks in these parts yourself being a good example, 2.) because none of the lenses resolved the left bottom corner to my 100% satisfaction , 3.) there was IMO a winner who was not the 35/2 ZF in the 100% crops I posted but I believe this changes if one looks at other sections of the image.
Either you can follow the link and download the RAW of any aperture you wish to see or tell me which aperture you prefer and I will post it. Would you prefer to see the same section or another?
I am a little bothered by the jpeg compression. I converted in DPP at 100% quality. The differences are subtle to begin with. Jpeg is masking some of that. I assume that most folks will run the samples through their usual sharpening routines.
Also, this is but one set of examples all manually focused (including the 35L) by someone who is an older gentlman that has only been focusing manually for a couple of years. There may be focusing errors. Another set of images on a different day will tell me more.
IMO, all of them stand on their own rights. I wouldn't kick none of 'em out of bed.
+1 Impressive - the L also looks pretty darn impressive as well. That said, You could buy almost 2-3 CZs for the price of the either of its test competitors.
StevenPA wrote:
Wow, Rick. MTFs be damned, the OLD ZOOM 35-70 certainly looks better than the brand new ZF 35 PRIME.
Their 'industrial' versions of the ZF line. They used to be labeled ZI and (IIRC) in a chrome finish, but it now looks as if they have dropped the line and are just selling ZF lenses into industry with no apparent mods/different QC(?)
The CZ 35-70 at 35mm is very very good, and very good through the full range. However, others have reported that it can easily slip out of calibration ... so I bought 2 ... one as a back up :-)
- What are your thoughts on the 50ZF? (your F8 test Cr2 I downloaded looked good)
- That said, IF you're shooting primarily landscapes at smaller apertures, have you tried the Leica 60 macro? By F4-5.6 it's MTF is like a dead man's EKG. I have one and it has exceptional performance starting at F4 (F2.8 - sharp in center only) across the frame. Bought mine for $100 - looks like hell, but mechanically and optically clean. Used they're roughly $400.
- What are your thoughts on the 50ZF? (your F8 test Cr2 I downloaded looked good)
- That said, IF you're shooting primarily landscapes at smaller apertures, have you tried the Leica 60 macro? By F4-5.6 it's MTF is like a dead man's EKG. I have one and it has exceptional performance starting at F4 (F2.8 - sharp in center only) across the frame. Bought mine for $100 - looks like hell, but mechanically and optically clean. Used they're roughly $400.
Some folks may not be sure which 50ZF you are referring to, so I'll talk about both lenses. Both ZF 50s are superb for landscape. I was perfectly happy with the 50/1.4 but I carry 8-9 lenses with me on a hike and from the reviews I figured I could combine two functions into one lens, landscape & makro. I sold the 50/1.4 to a buddy and switched to the 50 Makro. I haven't lost a step in the landscape arena and now I have makro capabilities if I need them. Now I can sell my EF 100 Macro which never turned me on.
Regarding the Leica 60mm, good information to know. You did not steer me wrong on the Leica 28, but I've bought a bunch of lenses lately with the 18mm ZF yet to come and I need to slow down spending and shoot for a while.
StevenPA wrote:
Wow, Rick. MTFs be damned, the OLD ZOOM 35-70 certainly looks better than the brand new ZF 35 PRIME.
While the c/y 35-70 zoom is indeed impressive, it needs stopping down to f11 to come close to the ZF 35. As the samples shown support, by f11 one would expect the differences in sharpness between competent lenses to be quite small. If you go to rfkii's download page with the raw files taken at all apertures, you will find that the difference between the c/y 35-70 and the ZF 35 expands as you open up the aperture. I have both lenses as well, and this is consistent with my informal observations. At f4.0 the differences are quite significant. Whether the 35-70 is a better value at half to a third of the cost of the ZF 35 depends on how much you shoot at apertures from f2.0 to f8.0 and how much the performance improvement available with the ZF in that range is worth to you.
Conner999 wrote:
Their 'industrial' versions of the ZF line. They used to be labeled ZI and (IIRC) in a chrome finish, but it now looks as if they have dropped the line and are just selling ZF lenses into industry with no apparent mods/different QC(?)
Thank you Rob, yes the fog is lifting now , I guess it slipped my memory since I've hardly seen any mention of them since the release. I wonder if anyone on this forum has got one. Possibly collectors pieces by now, they seem to be gone from the Zeiss web page.
Lotusm50 wrote:
While the c/y 35-70 zoom is indeed impressive, it needs stopping down to f11 to come close to the ZF 35. As the samples shown support, by f11 one would expect the differences in sharpness between competent lenses to be quite small. If you go to rfkii's download page with the raw files taken at all apertures, you will find that the difference between the c/y 35-70 and the ZF 35 expands as you open up the aperture. I have both lenses as well, and this is consistent with my informal observations. At f4.0 the differences are quite significant. Whether the 35-70 is a better value at half to a third of the cost of the ZF 35 depends on how much you shoot at apertures from f2.0 to f8.0 and how much the performance improvement available with the ZF in that range is worth to you.
I haven't had time to look at the other RAW files, but I'm not surprised that the ZF does better at larger apertures, especially wide open, which is well known to be the Achilles heel of the 35-70. If one is looking for speed (f/2), they would be well advised to look at lenses other than the 35-70. If stopped down landscape is one's game, however, then I see no need to add bulk and spend three times to seven to ten times more on one or two or more ZF lenses considering the 35-70's variable focal length and the fact that the MTFs just get better as one zooms from 35 to 70. I guess it's all up to compromise.
While the c/y 35-70 zoom is indeed impressive, it needs stopping down to f11 to come close to the ZF 35. As the samples shown support, by f11 one would expect the differences in sharpness between competent lenses to be quite small. If you go to rfkii's download page with the raw files taken at all apertures, you will find that the difference between the c/y 35-70 and the ZF 35 expands as you open up the aperture. I have both lenses as well, and this is consistent with my informal observations. At f4.0 the differences are quite significant. Whether the 35-70 is a better value at half to a third of the cost of the ZF 35 depends on how much you shoot at apertures from f2.0 to f8.0 and how much the performance improvement available with the ZF in that range is worth to you....Show more →
This is a good assessment but I couldn't find the left bottom corner acceptably sharp on any of the lenses until f11 (the right bottom corner beng placid water without a lot of detail to evaluate). I would prefer f5.6 or f8 on this scene anyday but on a 20x30 print, the maximum size I am allowed to hang in our home , I think I would find that corner (admittedly a smallish section) distractingly unsharp at those apertures. I guess it would only cost me $20 or so to order a 20x30 print of the f8 version from Mpix to test that theory.
The 35/2 ZF is going into the bag along with the 35-70 and the rest of my landscape kit on a return trip to Moab, UT, Arches NP and Canyonlands NP in two weeks. We'll give it the ol' baptism by fire test.
rfkiii wrote:
Some folks may not be sure which 50ZF you are referring to, so I'll talk about both lenses. Both ZF 50s are superb for landscape. I was perfectly happy with the 50/1.4 but I carry 8-9 lenses with me on a hike and from the reviews I figured I could combine two functions into one lens, landscape & makro. I sold the 50/1.4 to a buddy and switched to the 50 Makro. I haven't lost a step in the landscape arena and now I have makro capabilities if I need them. Now I can sell my EF 100 Macro which never turned me on.
Regarding the Leica 60mm, good information to know. You did not steer me wrong on the Leica 28, but I've bought a bunch of lenses lately with the 18mm ZF yet to come and I need to slow down spending and shoot for a while. ...Show more →
Yep, I am the guy who bought your 50 f1.4, and it is a stellar lens. The only lenses I have that come close are my 400f5.6 and 500f4, and perhaps slightly behind the 35L. I have a hard time mounting a lesser lens.
To your original examples, I have a hard time seeing any difference in those samples. Call it a draw for that particular day. I have found that lighting can make a huge difference in percieved sharpness when I test known subjects like the view from my front yard. 20 minutes between first and last shot can make a big difference.
I may download a couple later and try them out for myself.
, 3.) there was IMO a winner who was not the 35/2 ZF in the 100% crops I posted but I believe this changes if one looks at other sections of the image.