I would really like to see a comprehensive comparison of the two 28/2.0 lenses. I imagine the new ZF at least meets and perhaps exceeds what the C/Y version is capable of. Unless we start talking about "mythical powers", and lenses such as the C/Y 21 have attained that level of worship on these boards, I would like to know why Zeiss can't make another 21 of similar (real) calibre.
Tomioka/Yashica/Kyocera optical production was a high-quality affair, especially with CZ technical input and on-site QA. Yashica's house brand (the ML line specifically) had some remarkable primes (e.g. fisheye, 21/3.5, 100 macros). The equivalent parnership today (with Cosina) don't have the photographic prowess of Yashica (RIP), nor the technical and financial muscle of Kyocera. It was Kyocera who manufactured products like the Contax AX (moving-mount AF) and the Distagon 21 (UD glass, 14 elements, floating group). Cosina didn't even know how to float a group until last year.
With the demise of the real Hasselblad (Victor Hasselblad AB Göteborg) and the Contax brand, it seems CZ Oberkochen has gone waay upscale in their main lens production (Sinar, ARRI). Token "low end" products are the limited-edition V-mount primes, and the specialist ZM lenses (D15/2.8, S85/2).
In short, I can't imagine the return of a WA lens of D21 caliber from CZ or anyone else, although Leica keeps plugging away. The combination of manual focus, optical performance, build quality and original street price of $1500 makes the D21 unique in its time. Pity about the gull-wing distortion, but nothing is perfect!
Possibly Canon and Nikon have Ketchup-ed or even have overtaken Zeiss when it comes to lensdesign today.
Puts mentioned about 2 years ago that at the current pace Canon is improving lenses they soon are going to have the best lensdesign around, he also said that Canon lenses often have decentering problems and that Leica and Zeiss have better control of the manufacturing process. I hope I remember this right.
Look up hubsands tests between the 24L and the 21 Distagon and listen to what he has to tell about the 14-24 Nikkor.
The time is not going backwards, if Zeiss indeed lost the capability to construct a lens like the 21 Distagon they can stop the lens business and sell funny hats in the street and watch Canon and Nikon make business.
Frankly I think Zeiss should be capable of delivering top notch lenses even today
I'm not sure if its the case with the Zeiss 21, but certain glasses with desirable optical properties used for lens elements are no longer used due to new regulations(RoHS) restricting the use of certain materials such as lead and cadmium.
Exactly.
I have compared the pre- and post-lead Zeiss Biogon T* 4.5/38 (probably the best MF wide angle ever) on a Alpa 12 SWA (more of a measuring instrument than a camera) using digital backs and film. It is a clear difference. It is the same optical formula. The use of lead is the only difference of series 1 and series 2. (This lens behaves a bit similar as the 21mm Distagon. Centerwise its sweet spot is wide open.)
StevenPA: Yes. It would be highly informative, if someone does a careful comparison of the Contax and the ZF 28mm f/2.0. They are based on a similar optical calculation. The ZF has one element in addition, being part of a group, that was conceived as one element in the Contax version.
Lotusm50: I cannot verify what you say. All the lenses you mentioned have their sweet spot three stops down. (Judging the Vario-Sonnars you have to calculate an average through the focal lengths. It is all about optimization there.)
I'm not sure if its the case with the Zeiss 21, but certain glasses with desirable optical properties used for lens elements are no longer used due to new regulations(RoHS) restricting the use of certain materials such as lead and cadmium.
Exactly.
I have compared the pre- and post-lead Zeiss Biogon T* 4.5/38 (probably the best MF wide angle ever) on a Alpa 12 SWA (more of a measuring instrument than a camera) using digital backs and film. It is a clear difference. It is the same optical formula. The use of lead is the only difference of series 1 and series 2. (This lens behaves a bit similar as the 21mm Distagon. Centerwise its sweet spot is wide open.)
StevenPA: Yes. It would be highly informative, if someone does a careful comparison of the Contax and the ZF 28mm f/2.0. They are based on a similar optical calculation. The ZF has one element in addition, being part of a group, that was conceived as one element in the Contax version.
Lotusm50: I cannot verify what you say. All the lenses you mentioned have their sweet spot three stops down. (Judging the Vario-Sonnars you have to calculate an average through the focal lengths. It is all about optimization there.)
Arianne Dubois wrote:
Lotusm50: I cannot verify what you say. All the lenses you mentioned have their sweet spot three stops down. (Judging the Vario-Sonnars you have to calculate an average through the focal lengths. It is all about optimization there.)
All I have to say, is go to the exact same website that you quote in your statement and look at the measurements of the lenses I list.: http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/TestZ.htm
Center sharpness not improving when stopped down is typical of many of the slower Zeiss lenses. The 85/2.8 S and 105/3.5 S also probably fit that description, although the website did not measure these. Further the Zeiss 21mm Distagon is NO different, again quoting the measurements, as the "sweet spot" of the 21mm Distagon is also NOT wide open (if that is what you are implying). The lens is maximally sharp across the frame 2 stops down at f5.6, which is typical for most Zeiss lenses. The 21mm D is better at f4, f5.6 and f8, and potentially at f11 as well (depending on your use), than it is at f2.8. Again, this is pretty typical for an f2.8-f4.0 speed Zeiss lens and not unique at all.
The link mentioned above by artur5 (thank you for that one) is the most informative information I've ever read about the 21mm Distagon. (Please, one of the Italian guys here should properly translate and post it for the ensuing ages.) It confirms what I stated: The secret of the 21mm Distagon is based on (higly exotic) polluted glass.
I will translate just one quote (sorry for mistakes, I did my best):
"Zeiss is supposed to only have produced approximately 5.000 of the 21mm Distagon and then removed the lens from the market, because the famous exotic glasses it was based on were characterized by the presence of substances that were prohibited at a later date by recent EEC regulations. Glass elements containing Cadmium, Arsenic and Lead have been banned since then. And it simply had become impossible to produce the optical formula of the 21mm Distagon any longer."
The author goes on explaining, that the more recent Distagon 35mm f/3.5 for Contax 645 is what we could expect from a contemporary successor of the Contax 21mm. It is based on the same optical matrix realized with only 11 elements instead of the super-complex 15 elements of the original 21mm. He calles this one clearly inferior especially in tangential resolution.
Edited by Arianne Dubois on Jan 15, 2008 at 11:38 AM GMT
Lotusm50: I know about the MTF tests this website is based on. I took part of doing those. Please read carefully what I wrote: Centerwise the 21mm does not get any better stopped down. Believe me, there is no other Contax lens with similar characteristics. (At f11 the resolving power is about 10% below wide open. Again: Talking about the center.) It means that in certain (and common) photographic tasks where the object and the focal point is placed in the center of the frame, you can and you should use the full f/2.8 aperture. This gives you options of gaining extreme high resolving power under critical conditions. (There are very well known photographers in the art world that have established their reputation on the use of the 21mm Distagon and certain bw films that are able to resolve what the lens can do.)
And: You cannot compare the difficulties of achieving this in a > 90° wideangle construction with tele lenses. (Try to read the link of artur5. Enlightening!)
Arianne, LOOK at the numbers on the site. CENTERWISE, there are other c/y Zeiss lenses that do not get better stopped down. The 21D is NOT the only one by your own numbers.
I would also point out that Zeiss' own MTF's do not support you claim. Zeiss' MTF's indicate that the 21mm D is sharper in the center at f5.6 than f2.8. Again, nothing unique in this regard here.
This isn't worth arguing. I'll let the numbers (and the MTF's, as well) speak for themselves. If people are interested in knowing the facts, they can look for themselves. This back and forth is ridiculous.
Is cadmium banned in the EU? I think NiCa batteries are still available.
My Italian is very bad, but I understand that by "extreme high resolving power under critical conditions" means improved close up performance by 3 floating elements? From what I read about the retrofocus design is exactly that center performance of these lenses is outstanding and corners are the problem zone of these lenses. I 'd say my 50mm HB Distagon is also outstanding wide open on a DSLR but it is only f4
Perhaps the reputation of the 21mm is based on the difficulty of achieving such excellence in a very wide angle lens.
No other manufacturer has been able to match this quality corner to corner, as recently published tests on the 1DSIII clearly demonstrate.
Longer focal lengths generally have a lot more competition from different manufacturers, and choice is often down to personal aesthetic preference. Excepting the moustache distortion which architectural photographers can find problematic, it's difficult to dispute the overall supremecy of the 21mm Distagon.
NiCad's are still available in the EU, but they are being phased out and replaced with NiMh's instead, I believe no new imports of NiCads are allowed to the EU. This stems from a general ban on the use of Cadmium in consumer goods, as well as paints etc, which I assume includes lens coatings.
As the estuary wildlife in the river Fal near me found out when a local tin mine was shut down and overflowed, Cadmium is not a pleasant substance to have leached into the environment.
Paul Yi wrote:
can this used on 5D with an adapter?
Has anyone tried this lens?
Depends on the adapter you use and your 5D. My 21mm distagon would work on my 5D with no problem(mirror didn't hang). It was a Bob Shell adapter. That adapter's locking screw stripped so I needed to get a new one...I got one custom ground by Son Pham on this Bd. That one would make my 5D mirror barely hang and therefore it was unusuable w/o grinding the edge of the mirror...frown. I did get a 1Ds3 though and the mirror now clears fine on that body. This lense will never go on my 5D at this point, unless I decide to dremel grind the front edge of the mirror.
Something of an irony about the Cadmium issue: it would only be a problem when you discard the lens and grind the optics into tiny bits. And how many 21mm Distagons have ever thus been abused, I wonder?
Please help! I'm considering purchasing a 21 2.8 Distagon, this week. I just bought a 5D. Also, I own a 20D. I have two questions:
1) Will I have any mirror clearance issues with either camera?
(I just bought a 28 2 Distagon, attached to the 5D, and got the error 99 message-locked up. I removed the lens immediately.)
2) Am I better off purchasing this or the Nikon 14-24?
3) How would the IQ of a D300/Nikon 14-24 combination compare to 14-24 attached to 5D?
hubsand wrote:
Something of an irony about the Cadmium issue: it would only be a problem when you discard the lens and grind the optics into tiny bits. And how many 21mm Distagons have ever thus been abused, I wonder?
Wouldn't it be because of the waste produced in the glass making process, not the disposal of actual lenses?
The combination of manual focus, optical performance, build quality and original street price of $1500 makes the D21 unique in its time. Pity about the gull-wing distortion, but nothing is perfect!