What about CA? I was disappointed with the ZE 28 in this field, not knowing whether my copy was substandard or not. How do the 2 compare in this respect?
Lotusm50 wrote:
Actually, since much of the concern with the lens is with curvature of field, the issue will be much less evident on a crop sensor. I would further say that to get a Sigma 30mm instead based on this discussion would be a misinterpretation of this thread. If my decision was between these 2 lenses, there would be no question that I would get the ZF 28/2. If your looking for the legendary Zeiss qualities, you're not going to find them in a Sigma lens, ...
I'm just looking for a 28mm or 30mm lens with great quality to use as my normal lens. Unfortunately the choice is very limited and I happened to be juggling between CZ 28/2 ZE and Sigma 30mm.
I realised that in a discussion, the choice of words can sometime exaggerate a problem, that's why I asked if there's any owner here who can post their real world samples. This way at least I will have some idea of what this lens is really capable of.
Further, the issue we are discussion here with the 28/2 are also present in the Sigma 30. We just don't necessarily expect to see them (rightly or wrongly) in the Zeiss lens so it becomes an inflated issue.
The problem is that, compared to Sigma 30mm, the Zeiss lens costs twice as much, half the speed and is a manual focus lens. Now I've seen some really great shots from the Sigma 30/1.4, surely it's not unreasonable to expect a big WOW from the CZ 28/2.
I'm not dismissing this CZ lens as bad, I just expect a bit more from it. If you say the issue is less of a concern on a crop body, I think it might be worth getting after all.
If you are interested in fast normals for a crop body there are a lot more options you might consider. At 28mm the Nikon 28mm f/2 seems to be a decent lens and is a lot less expensive. So is the Olympus 28mm f/2 and Minolta has a 28mm f/2 Rokkor and MD that can be converted to EF mount. None of these has auto aperture, but if you are shooting wide open or near wide open you may not find that a problem--I don't. Pentax also has the 31mm f/1.8 FA limited that is a very highly regarded lens. This can be adapted to EF mount fairly easily, but again won't have auto aperture. Also if you are willing to go to 35mm there are a plethora of fast alt glass choices, but given your preferences above you might want to start with the ZE 35mm f/2 which should be available within a month. I hope this helps.
Hi Steve, thanks for the suggestions, some of which I might recommend to my friend but unfortunately they're not suitable for me.
For one, I don't want just decent. If I did, I would've bought either Canon's 28/1.8 or 28/2.8.
Secondly, I'm done messing with adaptors. My Pentax M 200/4 works great but I have to be careful not to lock the mount otherwise I get error from my camera. Getting them adapted professionally is also not worth the cost to me.
Last of all, 35mm is a tad too long.
I really do appreciate the suggestions though. Once again, thank you.
N0b0, in the shot I posted, you can see 2 parametres which outline which lens was at work. One is the drawing style, the other one is the colour cast. Each lens manufacturer imbues its lenses with a certain colour cast, and Sigma's is one of the more noticeable, with a tendency towards yellow/gold. The other one is the drawing style, which has to do with managing transtions between foreground and background, in-focus and out-of-focus, micro and macro contrast.
On the other hand, this shot does not show anything in the areas of bokeh and corner sharpness. As I said, I only posted it because you reqyested it, and it was the only one left.
Now these are small differences, they don't "change" a picture, but, once you are familiar with a lens, or lens line, you can often see the familiar "signature".
I understand what you mean, I just got the TSE17 and I really notice the difference in the way it renders bokeh and how it can be very sharp without looking harsh. I think I see that same sharpness characteristic in this photo as well.
Anyway, I really do want to get this lens but right now I'm just not very convinced that it's worth all that money.
n0b0 wrote:
The problem is that, compared to Sigma 30mm, the Zeiss lens costs twice as much, half the speed and is a manual focus lens. Now I've seen some really great shots from the Sigma 30/1.4, surely it's not unreasonable to expect a big WOW from the CZ 28/2.
I think it is a matter of whether you want something ordinary or something exceptional (despite a couple modest shortcomings).
The Zeiss may cost twice a much but it is much better built and much higher quality. As with all things, you get what you pay for. You can buy the ordinary and pedestrian, or you can spend more and get beautiful imaging that you will readily see in your images and quality build that will last. As suggested there are other less expensive options, like the Olympus and Nikon offerings, but these will all require you to manually stop down the lens each time you take an image, and neither of them can match the ZE (and suffer from curvature of field, as well). On a crop body, the ZE 28/2 would make an excellent standard lens.
n0b0 wrote:
I understand what you mean, I just got the TSE17 and I really notice the difference in the way it renders bokeh and how it can be very sharp without looking harsh. I think I see that same sharpness characteristic in this photo as well.
Anyway, I really do want to get this lens but right now I'm just not very convinced that it's worth all that money.
Sorry I don't have a shot at hand right now, but I will try to post one when I get home.
One other thing to consider is that you are talking a crop lens vs a full frame lens. So you get the best part of the image circle. So, if you need the speed, go for the Sigma, if you need a good lens for close range, great stopped down, you should check the 28 or maybe try the 35/1.4.
Does anybody have any experience with Zeiss 18mm f3.5? I got my 21 yesterday and fell in love
with not only the image quality, but the build quality as well.
I'm willing to try the new 18 ZE, it should be in stock any day now...
Am I gonna be disappointed?
snowboarder wrote:
I'm willing to try the new 18 ZE, it should be in stock any day now...
Am I gonna be disappointed?
I don't know. What do you expect? Don't expect it to be the equal of the ZE21, becuase it is not. If it was, it would be bigger, heavier, and a lot more expensive.
As described by Specularist in an earlier post to this thread, "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."
Lotusm50 wrote:
I don't know. What do you expect? Don't expect it to be the equal of the ZE21, becuase it is not. If it was, it would be bigger, heavier, and a lot more expensive.
so I guess to achieve the similar results as from the 21, I will have to close it down.
Is it fair to expect the same quality from both at f8-11?
Or the distortion and corner sharpness still won't match?
According to the published distortion by Zeiss, they are basically identical. The 21 is sharper wide open than the 18 is stopped down. At f/8 to f/11 they might be close, but the 21 will be noticeably better especially in the corners. Image rendition however is likely to be similar.
Valorin wrote:
According to the published distortion by Zeiss, they are basically identical. The 21 is sharper wide open than the 18 is stopped down. At f/8 to f/11 they might be close, but the 21 will be noticeably better especially in the corners. Image rendition however is likely to be similar.
thanks! Good info. I might still grab it to compliment my 21, which I'm sure will be
used more often
Valorin wrote:
According to the published distortion by Zeiss, they are basically identical. The 21 is sharper wide open than the 18 is stopped down. At f/8 to f/11 they might be close, but the 21 will be noticeably better especially in the corners. Image rendition however is likely to be similar.
I would question your comment about corner sharpness, I never had a problem with corner sharpness, even at f4 and f5.6 it is acceptable or even very good. The problem with this lens is that it vignettes a lot and that it does not really have a lot of punch. Also resolution is not really going to improve by stopping down, allover it is an ok lens though.
I probably wouldn't have major problems with the corner sharpness of the 18 either, but the corners of the 21 should be noticeably better although not significantly better. I forgot about the vignetting, although for my uses that doesn't really matter since I add a bit of vignette in post anyway.
n0b0 wrote:
Well this is bloody disappointing. I was really interested in this lens as my normal lens on a crop body, seeing as how people are talking about the legendary 3D-like zeiss IQ. I guess I'll get that Sigma 30mm EX after all, since Canon's 28mm lenses aren't worth the money.
What's disappointing?
