Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #11 · New Zeiss ZE lens 28mm f2 | |
Specularist wrote:
Perhaps they do this simply because they can. The Zeiss brand will sell lenses even if they're not all flawless gems. Of course it would dilute the Zeiss brand, but these days everyone is burning up brand equity in this way.
That would be unsustainable though, because the Zeiss cachet is largely based on past optical quality. In ten years today's Zeiss lenses will be the past glories of Zeiss, and a couple of them are somewhat inglorious...
Of course there are other, better reasons for lenses to differ in performance. The Zeiss lenses vary significantly in price, for a start. Some of them are surprisingly affordable given their high build quality and limited sales volume, but the 21 mm is expensive. And it's priced that way despite its relatively modest aperture and focal length. Zeiss could therefore afford to blast the troublesome CA with a dose of exotic glass and fully sixteen lens elements.
(I know it seems strange to declare a 21 mm f/2.8 "modest", but in an age of 17 mm tilt-shift, 24 mm f/1.4, and 14-24 mm f/2.8 zoom lenses, there are limits to my gullibility!)
So why might the 28 mm f/2 be different from the 21 mm f/2.8? Well, it's obviously a stop faster: no trivial matter. It's also significantly cheaper, much smaller, and more focused on central sharpness (in order to get good contrast wide open at f/2). It's clearly not a lens designed for shooting landscapes, though it can be pressed into such service. It's instead a handheld, out-and-about, people-and-places kind of lens. As such it excels. For its price, you're not going to find higher performance at 28 mm and f/2 from anyone. The field curvature is unproblematic or even beneficial for most large-aperture, mid-range, people shots.
The 25 mm f/2.8 is small, affordable, and optically lovely. It does have a little lateral CA and field curvature too; but not bad considering its price. This lens also has the best resistance to flare and ghosting of any lens I know. It's perfect for shooting outdoors at night.
The much-maligned 18 mm f/3.5 is remarkably compact. Compare its optical arrangement to that of the Nikkor Auto 20 mm f/4 of 1974, which was designed specifically to be small. Notice the similarities? The Zeiss is of course optically better, yet retains pleasingly small dimensions. But in the original ZF press release Zeiss made no mention of the lens' compactness, which to my mind is its principle attraction! This was corrected for the ZE press release, which briefly stated:
"Despite its short focal length, the Distagon T* 3,5/18 ZE has an extremely compact design compared to other zoom lenses in its category. Internal focusing also helps to reduce its size while delivering extremely precise and smooth focus control."
So Zeiss is learning. Their marketing efforts aren't great, and their lens line is very incoherent, but each lens does have its strong points. I'm just grateful they make mechanically satisfying lenses while Canon and Nikon are selling expensive "pro" lenses made of plastic and silicon....Show more →
Yes, Zeiss has a long way to go in how the market, advertise and communicate the intended (or recommended) uses for particular lenses. Asd it stands, everyone seems to compare the ZF 18, 25, and 28mm lenses to the 21mm. Little in Zeiss' descriptions of these lenses would lead purchasers to do otherwise. As you suggest they are all designed to different criteria and compromises. However, this doesn't help much if you are looking for a well-corrected 28mm or 18mm lens that has typical Zeiss attributes. Further, while many of these lenses are designed to meet price points, they still appear to be expensive relative to competitor products. Most consumers don't consider Zeiss to make cost-compromised products. They expect them to be universally excellent. With this, the ZF line doesn't really meet or perhaps attempt to meet what consumers expect. Then, when they discover that the product don 't perform expected their reaction and comments are more negative and disparaging than warranted. Just read the comments on this and other forums. I don't think this serves Zeiss well. This is the one aspect of the Zeiss' market strategy with the ZF lenses that I think was not well thought out.
I agree with the commenter that would like to see "Zeiss flex it's optical design muscles by making a set of lenses with uncompromising image quality at any cost". It would serve to meet what people expect from Zeiss and cement their reputation. They could then, with adequate differentiation of the product line, produce the ZF lenses as a "consumer" line. As it is now, the ZF as Zeiss' primary product line, without Zeiss being totally upfront about it, the ZF's may be slowly undermining Zeiss reputation.
That said, I thoroughly agree that the ZF 25mm is "optically lovely". Not perfect, but its few flaws are unobtrusive, and it excels in other areas. Really, a wonderful lens that I am quite happy with.
|
Most of the thrill with the Contax 28mm F2 @ F2 or F2.8 was with closer subjects. Around F4 it began to morph into a nice landscape lens. At F5.6 its corners were perfect on my 1Ds2. My 28mm should be here in a day or two. Looking forward to it.
). They can not afford to build the whole lineup to these standards, otherwise they would not sell - there are not a lot of people for manual focus lenses that could afford the kind of money for every prime. I would expect them to come out with a great 35/1.4, so build up the same strong points in the C/Y lineup.