rceres wrote:
I think it is likely that the personality of this lens will be more important than the specs. Especially wide and ultra fast lenses tend to have optical characteristics (combiniatoin of lens design tradeoffs to minimize some distortions at the expense of other distortions) that impart a specific personality to the lens. We won't really know the personality of this new lens until we actually try it on a camera. I'll bet this one is a winner. The minimum focus distance will help make this lens easier to use at least than it's predicessor.
You know, never heard it put that way but agree...interesting. Lenses when taken as a whole do have a certain "feel" that is reflected not by one aspect, but the whole as it is used by the photographer. Not a techical review, but how well it performs as a tool for creating images...anyway, nicely said!
Cableaddict wrote:
Do wedding guys actually shoot the ceremony with a 24mm on a FF sensor? I mean, well. maybe, but I'm very surprised if the answer is "yes." At the reception, there are these things called "lights."
Sometimes, there are lights. Here there weren't (many)
I dont see a comparison between the EF and the Distagon very useful, these are different lenses for different jobs. If you want a kit that can do everything perfectly you should really have both, EF for low light, more bokeh and moving subjects, ZE for slow work with ridiculous resolution, corner sharpness and ultimate CA & distortion correction. Having said that, we have yet to see how the EF will do in the latter areas, it may prove to be a moot point. But I predict the Zeiss will win, slower lenses usually have an advantage there.
I'd take the EF anyday, but I'm not really a landscape or architecture photographer. I'm also curious to see what they have fixed in the new version of both lenses.
Man, one thing not very frequently mentioned about the 24 f1.4...look at that beautiful bokeh... This lens can really paint some beautiful out of focus highlights and background blur..It's a great lens, and in this regard, I think it's nicer than the 35 L.
Well, with the release of this revamped 24L I'm definitely going to postpone buying the 35 f1.4L, I'll wait and get the new supadupa new lens coatings on the 35L Mk2 which I am pretty sure will be released over the next year or so. Until then my old 35 f2 will keep me going!
rceres wrote:
I think it is likely that the personality of this lens will be more important than the specs. Especially wide and ultra fast lenses tend to have optical characteristics (combiniatoin of lens design tradeoffs to minimize some distortions at the expense of other distortions) that impart a specific personality to the lens. We won't really know the personality of this new lens until we actually try it on a camera. I'll bet this one is a winner. The minimum focus distance will help make this lens easier to use at least than it's predicessor.
I agree, I have a 24L now and love it. The MKII version looks like it could be a slam dunk, but if the photos don't have the same (or similar, or better) "look & feel", that would be disappointing.
A more relevant comparison might be the Nikkor 14-24 as a universal WA and UWA expedient to replace several (German and Japanese) primes. Because, after all, with an adapter the Nikkor fits the EOS mount and It's F2.8 and MF too.
The conventional wisdom seems to be that the 14-24 is the very best 14mm (prime or zoom) ever (and that's at a lower cost than some 14mm primes). So who will test the "ridiculous corner sharpness" of the Nikkor 14-24 set at various Zeiss/Leica prime lengths?
How can a Mk II version possibly be worse in "look and feel" ... or any other way to a Mk I version? It has never happened before. A newer version has always been better, thanks to advancement in lens design and manufacture. I mean, why would Canon want to release a Mk II version and sell for a higher price if it's not going to be significantly better? Surely they know that we consumers are not idiots. The Mk II version has better/special coating, circular aperture for even nicer bokeh, sharper wide open especially at the corners, and several other improvements.
Since the Zeiss 21 Distagon is not going to be available for another 6 months or so, I will probably get the 24L now .... and then sell it to get the ZE lens when it comes out next Spring. For my purpose I believe the Zeiss lens will suit me a lot better, and I've had a love affair with Zeiss lenses for nearly 30 years.
timnosenzo wrote:
I agree, I have a 24L now and love it. The MKII version looks like it could be a slam dunk, but if the photos don't have the same (or similar, or better) "look & feel", that would be disappointing.
bobbytan wrote:
How can a Mk II version possibly be worse in "look and feel" ... or any other way to a Mk I version? It has never happened before. A newer version has always been better, thanks to advancement in lens design and manufacture. I mean, why would Canon want to release a Mk II version and sell for a higher price if it's not going to be significantly better? Surely they know that we consumers are not idiots. The Mk II version has better/special coating, circular aperture for even nicer bokeh, sharper wide open especially at the corners, and several other improvements....Show more →
Wow, relax there. I don't doubt that it will be an improvement, and no, I don't think people are idiots. I'm simply saying that when you change all of the lens elements, and add new lens coating, you're going to change the unique characteristics of the lens. My point was that hopefully those changes will be improvements.
Zeiss lenses are great, but not having AF is very difficult for low light. Actually, not having AF stinks in general and is the reason why I sold mine.
bobbytan wrote:
How can a Mk II version possibly be worse in "look and feel" ... or any other way to a Mk I version? It has never happened before. A newer version has always been better, thanks to advancement in lens design and manufacture. I mean, why would Canon want to release a Mk II version and sell for a higher price if it's not going to be significantly better? Surely they know that we consumers are not idiots. The Mk II version has better/special coating, circular aperture for even nicer bokeh, sharper wide open especially at the corners, and several other improvements.
Since the Zeiss 21 Distagon is not going to be available for another 6 months or so, I will probably get the 24L now .... and then sell it to get the ZE lens when it comes out next Spring. For my purpose I believe the Zeiss lens will suit me a lot better, and I've had a love affair with Zeiss lenses for nearly 30 years.
Totally agree with you .... and that is the reason why I would never buy the current line of Zeiss lenses ... as they are "totally" MF and my eyesight sucks. The ZE lenses however, are completely different. Firstly, you don't have to stop down the aperture, as it's auto-aperture, and you have focus confirmation which works really well - I know that, as I have used Contax cameras and Zeiss lenses for a long time and that's exactly how it works. With focus confirmation and with live view for critical focussing, MF is a breeze even with my bad eyesight.
davewolfs wrote:
Zeiss lenses are great, but not having AF is very difficult for low light. Actually, not having AF stinks in general and is the reason why I sold mine.
timnosenzo wrote:
Wow, relax there. I don't doubt that it will be an improvement, and no, I don't think people are idiots. I'm simply saying that when you change all of the lens elements, and add new lens coating, you're going to change the unique characteristics of the lens. My point was that hopefully those changes will be improvements.
Sorry Tim - I didn't mean to come through so strongly. And you are right - as the lens is completely re-designed, it's character or personality may change, but I am pretty sure it will only be better .... with the rounded aperture, etc.
bobbytan wrote:
Totally agree with you .... and that is the reason why I would never buy the current line of Zeiss lenses ... as they are "totally" MF and my eyesight sucks. The ZE lenses however, are completely different. Firstly, you don't have to stop down the aperture, as it's auto-aperture, and you have focus confirmation which works really well - I know that, as I have used Contax cameras and Zeiss lenses for a long time and that's exactly how it works. With focus confirmation and with live view for critical focussing, MF is a breeze even with my bad eyesight.
I have a Nikon and it too has focus confirmation as it does with all AIS style lenses. The problem is that there is no AF assist light which can be useful at times.
So maybe I will get the Zeiss, AND a Canon 24, but I doubt it would be the 24L- If I'm buying a fast 24, it would not be for landscape work. For the type of shots Stan shows, above, a little corner softness & even distortion isn't going to bother me one bit.
I'll be looking for a used Mark I, now that the prices will (hopefully) go down a bit.
