Really? Few mentions of that from what I see (and no illustrating examples), and one of those was suggested to be a bad copy. From what I understand, CA isn't all that bad -- not as well corrected as the ZE21 (few, if any, wide angles lenses are), but not significantly worse than competing products.
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.
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:
Really? Few mentions of that from what I see (and no illustrating examples), and one of those was suggested to be a bad copy. From what I understand, CA isn't all that bad -- not as well corrected as the ZE21 (few, if any, wide angles lenses are), but not significantly worse than competing products.
That's why I said, n0b0 wrote:
Anyway, I look forward to your replacement 28/2 and proper testing.
Lol mate, I'm not trying to find faults in this lens, I'm actually trying to find reasons to buy it.
Lol mate, I'm not trying to find faults in this lens, I'm actually trying to find reasons to buy it.
Unfortunately since the ZE 28/2 just came out there hasn't been too many users that are actually posting their shots to forums. I've personally been looking at the ZF 28/2 (Nikon) mount shots and gauging whether I want the lens or not (and decided I do based on how this lens renders bokeh and how contrasty the images are). Here's a link to a large group of images from the ZF 28/2 (just to get a feel for the lenses drawing style).
snowboarder wrote:
Andrew, what's your take on ZE/ZF 18 f3.5?
I have not used one yet, it is on my purchase list. The mtf's look very good, and I imagine that once it is stopped down to F11 the corners should quite good as well.
Thanks philber. I look forward to some sample shots. I hope the vignetting won't be as bad as the 21mm as seen in the CZ21 vs Nikkor 14-24 shoot-out thread in Canon forum.
Distortion, yes, and this is specifically why I put it up, as I am not bound to say only nice things about Zeiss. But this "mustache" distortion has nothing to do with vignetting, which, as discussed, I am happy to say I have not found, as I am not bound to say only unpleasant things about Zeiss...
When necessary the Distagon 21's distortion can easily be fixed in Photoshop with no practical degeneration of image quality (except for those who think that sharpness is the same thing as image detail).
The method is:
- expand canvas to a square in which the height is the same as the image's diagonal
- apply spherical distortion to taste at about +3%
- crop the canvas to about 1.1 times the width of the image
- apply spherical distortion to taste at about -1%
- sharpen to taste
I hear PTLens is also a good way of fixing this but I have been too mean to pay for it so far.
The gullwing effect is noticeable with horizons if you don't correct it, but it is a small price to pay for a lens that is otherwise so excellent: http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/gullwingsea.jpg
I expect the ZE 28 to have quite mild barrel distortion if the Hollywood Contax is anything to go by.
Their tests show that its supposed to be very well controlled (just like the 35/2), so here's to hoping your copy really was jostled in transit or defective (and you get back a copy in better condition in regards to CA).
On distortion, its a very slight Barrel distortion
Andrew Gough wrote:
Thanks for posting the image, I was wondering how small it was.
Andrew, the Contax 18/4 was quite small and the build quality was excellent. It's not a focal length that I need, but I still like the lens just because of its construction. The Zeiss looks to have about the same barrel size except for the front part of barrel. The front elements look about the same size, so I'm guessing Zeiss flared the barrel to minimize the likelihood of a filter vignetting in the corners. These are 18/4's next to the 1Ds3 -
As I posted on another thread, the French distributor for Zeiss had the lens I used evaluated and declared that it was "perfect, like everything Zeiss make. Just perfect". I don't think the guy who said this would know CA if it shook his hand. They wouldn't send another copy for another attempt, so no 28mm ZE for philber as matters stand now. The 35 should be mine within less than 2 weeks, so we shall see if it is more like my beloved 21 or like the misbegotten 28...
I find it fascinating, though that nobody, absolutely nobody has posted 28mm ZE pics. This could mean either that Zeiss have delivered precious few, or that photographers are hugely unimpressed/uninterested...
I don't understand what it is people don't like about setting aperture with a dial on the camera body. To me, it's very easy and intuitive. I understand it's different than tradition with lens settings but, I don't think it's any worse. Right hand sets metering and aperture, left hand focuses. IMHO, it makes sense and it's quick and seamless.
