-Pretty much confirms what I wrote, above, including the cooler colors of the Zeiss. Oddly, that reviewer liked the Zeiss color. I do not. (speaking only of the 28/2.8)
The one thing I do prefer about the Zeiss, based on that test, is its 3D rendering. -But since I use my 28mm mostly for landscapes / citiscapes, I don't think I'd want to lose the Nikon's amazing edge-to-edge sharpness, in trade for a little better 3D.
---------------------------------
Also according to that test, the Zeiss is noticeably sharper in the center, at F11. Tempting, but I must have the world's sharpest Nikon 'cause it's almost as sharp as my Zeis ZF50 makro.
Maybe the difference is that the 16:9 test was of some steps that were not too far away, and I typically shoot at far distances.
Is it possible for one lens to be sharper than another (in the center) at less than 20 feet, but only equivalently-sharp at 50 feet?
ziyadj wrote:
Contax Distagon 21MM 2.8 on 5D Mk2 (I Love this lens!)
All right, Ziyad, knock it off with this lens! There's no way I'll have a budget for another copy of the D21 for a long time. The 5D2/D21 combo looks killer.
I haven't owed or used a D21, but from my experience I think that the Oly 21/2 is somewhere in the top three, at 1/2 or less of the price of the D21. The Oly 21/3.5 is very good as well.
CVickery wrote:
I haven't owed or used a D21, but from my experience I think that the Oly 21/2 is somewhere in the top three, at 1/2 or less of the price of the D21. The Oly 21/3.5 is very good as well.
Based on KEH pricing it looks like the Oly 21/2 is going for around 60% of the D21 and climbing (or more properly the C.Y D21's price is steadily falling). The ZF of course costs a little less than 50% more than the Oly 21/2.
The days where the D21 was unobtanium do appear to be over for now.
Jim, Not sure if you've seen this one from the CZ 21/2.8. I know everyone else has, but I think it shows quite well what you are getting when you spend the money on this lens.
cogitech wrote:
Every time it is mentioned around here I get a pang of regret that I was forced to let it go.
Paul, I remember when you got this and then had to sell it. You had the lens for such a short time, but this one pic, the castle pic, will always serve as a reference point for the capabilities of the D21.
Well, I think everyone knows what I've got at 21mm. The OM 21/3.5 is a fine lens, and I like it lots, but it's no D21. Then again, what is? The thing for me is that there's not much else out there that I feel really offers that much over the OM 21/3.5 considering the price that needs to be paid.
OM 18/3.5, hard to find and *at least* double the cost of the 21/3.5.
OM 21/2, hard to find and pricey, and I don't think offers all *that* much over the 21/3.5.
C/Y 18/4, need to get it in AE mount, and then there still might be mirror issues.
CV 20/3.5, if I didn't have the OM 21/3.5, I'd probably have this one.
I don't know anything about Nikon at this focal length; maybe I should learn more.
The OM21/3.5 is a best compromise for me right now. I like to do a lot of hiking, and this little lens is so ridiculously portable. For ridiculous portability, I guess I'm willing to sacrifice some image quality. I like the colours as well. They come across to me as 'neutral on the cool side', and the files are very flexible in post for some reason. The sharpness across the frame is good at infinity is good, unlike the 17-40. I can deal with the vignetting at f/11, an obvious consequence of the miniaturized design. There can be a lot of objectionable CA (blue fringing?) along high contrast edges in the extreme corners, so the lens has to be aimed at subjects with care. But for all its shortcomings, there's just not much else out there that I want to transition toward right now. I'll think again once the ZE 21 hits the shelves; until then the OM 21/3.5 is my choice.
StevenPA wrote:
Paul, I remember when you got this and then had to sell it. You had the lens for such a short time, but this one pic, the castle pic, will always serve as a reference point for the capabilities of the D21.
Thanks, although I think an ex-FMer's airplane cockpit shot takes the 1st prize as a reference shot close-up
I should mention that I ended up with the Zuiko 21/3.5 for quite some time and I really enjoyed it for the most part. Ultimately its corner CA let me down once too often and I needed some quick cash so I let it go. I assumed I would replace it with the CV 21 (or the Sigma 20/1.8), but surprisingly I have not really found the need. When I want wider than 28, I just go right to the Tamron 17/3.5 (which is still far better than anyone around here ever admits, other than Mawz).
If I ever get another 20-ish lens, it'll be the CZ Distagon 21/2.8.
I sort of had some lust for the Distagon 21, one of those "maybe someday" lenses...
But for that asking price arena I am instead salivating over the possibility of getting the new 17/4 L TS-E lens. All reports etc indicate that this lens (and the new 24) are excellent and free of CA.
I have the 45 TS-E and really like it. I spent most of yesterday doing food illustrations in a restaurant and the two lenses I used were the 45 TS-E and the 58/1.2 Rokkor.
Here is the Canon Technical report on the the new TS-E lenses. I know this is the Alt forum but I view TS-E lenses as acceptable members...
Cableaddict wrote:
Has anyone directly compared the CY 28/2.8 to the Nikon Ai-s 28/2.8?
I haven't, but from the various pics I've seen online, my Nikon is equal to or possibly nicer than the Zeiss. Both are incredibly sharp, corner-to-corner, both have pretty low distortion, and both are slightly lacking in color saturation.
PhotoMaximum wrote:
I sort of had some lust for the Distagon 21, one of those "maybe someday" lenses...
But for that asking price arena I am instead salivating over the possibility of getting the new 17/4 L TS-E lens. All reports etc indicate that this lens (and the new 24) are excellent and free of CA.
I have the 45 TS-E and really like it. I spent most of yesterday doing food illustrations in a restaurant and the two lenses I used were the 45 TS-E and the 58/1.2 Rokkor.
Here is the Canon Technical report on the the new TS-E lenses. I know this is the Alt forum but I view TS-E lenses as acceptable members...
I just bought and tested the new 17 TS-E lens against my Nikon 14-24G and 16-35mk1 and I found it is almost as sharp as the Nikon in the center and just a little bit less sharp in the extreme corners/borders.
It performs well even fully shifted. Mainly taken only architecture shots so far but look forward to trying it out on some landscape shots and using the tilt to gain extra fore-aft sharpness.
The only negative I found so far is that it is prone to flaring since it does not have a lens shade.
I posted some of my comparison pics in GetDPI canon forum if you want to see them.
Wish I could post more TS-E 17 pictures here!
I also didn't see anyone here recommend the Nikon 14-24G which is a stellar performer, only a close second to the mighty CZ 21. I love my copy and enjoy being able to cover that range of focal lengths with one lens.
Lotusm50 wrote:
The Zeiss Contax 25/2.8 has a bit of reputation for being a bit soft. However, there are many people who just love this lens. Color and contrast are exceptional and it produces absolutely lovely images,
Somehow spotted this old thread. Short comment about Contax Distagon T* 2.8/25: I think this lens is misused/misunderstood. Lens is plenty sharp but it has very narrow depth of field for a 25mm lens*, which makes people think that lens is soft or corners are soft. It's funny to see these "tests" where people are focusing to infinity and then studying the sharpness of grass in bottom corner of image which is 1.5m distance, and then claim lens is soft at corners... I don't know why this lens has this kind of behaviour, maybe because over corrected optical design using reverse telephoto design??
* depth of field does not only depend on focal length and aperture - it also depends on lens design. The formulas what are often used to calculate DOF are based on theoretical very simple lens.
Example of shallow depth of field, not typical to 25mm wide angle lens:
Contax Distagon T* 2.8/25 @ f/8, 1/80s, ISO 100, polarizer:
Bottom right corner 100% crop (NOTICE! Not any kind of sharpening in the crop):
center 100% crop (NOTICE! Not any kind of sharpening in the crop) - notice how the tree which is few meters backwards from the tree which I focused is already blurred:
This kind of came to surprise to me and ruined this photo, would have needed to use f/11 instead. Now I can barely print this to A4.
Naturally this shallow depth of field can be utilized to create nice 3D effect on situations in which you would not get it with 25mm lens - f/2.8 or f/4, can't remember which - Norway, Vareid:
Samuli, I too, have a C/Y25 f:2.8. My experience is that there is indeed something "funny" about this lens. It can be very sharp indeed, but only at or below f:8.0. Stopped down any less than that, the sharpness goes gradually away, and not only in the corners. Brainiac observed the same thing with his copy. I am not sure, even though I respect what you say as coming from someone much more knowledgeable than myself, that I am convinced by your argument about DOF. Because a f:2.8-25mm lens should have already massive DOF when focused at infinity at f:4.0. So if it is not very sharp, including to some extent in the center, I can't see lack of DOF as being the cause. I am going to sell this lens to a member, and have informed him of this. For this reason, I have given him a ridiculously low price. Let me know what you think...
It is huge though, and heavy. Nikon 20 f/4? You can find them as low as 80-90 usd.
