philber wrote:
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......Show more →
Looks like my quest for a great 28mm prime continues.
I have used the C/Y 28/2 for many years so I have got quite a feeling about it. John's pictures have exactly the same feeling, the same type of bokeh and color renditon. Close-up performance is similar too, i.e. excellent as before.
I sold my C/Y because it does not clear the mirror of my 5D II, looks like the ZE28 would be the perfect replacement.
I was big fan of the CY 28/2 and Zeiss clearly improved on it. My past CY 28/2's (had several them) tended to be glowy wide open (most likely halation) in certain conditions. I'm not seeing that in the ZE. I read somewhere in this thread about CA; I haven't run into anything bad yet - aside form typical LoCA in the bokeh --- which can be seen in the 100 crop. We did some product shots ~2 weeks ago the 100% crops were going head to head with the Canon 50mm F2.5 Macro. The 28/2 definitely has some serious resolution capabilities. Thus far I'm liking the ZE more than I expected. Now, if Zeiss would just announced the 50/2 and 100/2 ZE... It's Xmas for heaven's sakes, give us something!!!
Excellent shots, John! It is not only the sharpness of the lens that might be wicked, methinks...
Maybe I should have tried the C/Y instead of the ZE... even if I need to file it down just a bit, like my 25.
The Contax 28/2's worked fine on my 1Ds (1, 2 and 3). With the 5D's it's a gamble; AE's are almost guaranteed not to clear, and MM's are usually okay.
I took some landscape shots as well, and after seeing your results with the CA, etc., I was scared to look at mine. So far I'm not seeing any CA or fringe. The raw file above is a good representation of the day's result. There might be a trace of CA somewhere in there, and if there is, it's negligible in my view. The resolution is very impressive.
I'm not sure if you returned or exchanged your lens. If you returned it, if you get a chance try another, it might be worth it. I like the Contax's too, but at this point - with no adapter issues, full EXIF and auto-metering / aperture - I'm sticking with the ZE. One other thing I should mention, I didn't use a hood on the 28 today. Most of the shots were pretty conservative, so a hood really wasn't needed. The only gripe I have is the lens cap - it pops off too easily.
I asked for an exchange, John, except that the French distributor for Zeiss said that the lens was perfect and thus that no exchange was forthcoming. My own estimate was that the CA was so visible that this was a one-off defective lens, rather than a type-wide weakness, but the distributor thought otherwise.
I am not sure that this was a clever move from Zeiss, considering that I am a big-time fan of theirs. But, hey, France is a free country and I never force people to work against their free will.
We will see how I fare with the 35mm as and when I get mine.
Until then yours looks just fine, except that fine photogs could make great shots happen even with lousy gear, so your pictures speak more about you than bout the lens...:-)
Looks like a very nice lens (which Zeiss isn't?) but if I were to invest over 1K for a fast wide prime I'd rather walk the extra mile, spend more and get the 24/1.4 II. Bigger (but not by much), heavier (but not by much), more expensive but wider, a full stop faster and can AF.
John Black wrote:
The raw file above is a good representation of the day's result. There might be a trace of CA somewhere in there, and if there is, it's negligible in my view.
Opinions may differ here. I find the lateral color conspicuous.
There seems to be a bit of visible ca if you zoom in 1:1; but it seems heavier on the edges of the frame than the center. At the very edge it seems a bit strong.
John Black wrote:
Actually, northwest of Dallas - it's Denton, TX.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Looks like a very nice lens (which Zeiss isn't?) but if I were to invest over 1K for a fast wide prime I'd rather walk the extra mile, spend more and get the 24/1.4 II. Bigger (but not by much), heavier (but not by much), more expensive but wider, a full stop faster and can AF.
But of course, the 24/1.4LII fails to deliver the exceptional look produced by the Zeiss lens. If you appreciate the quality and look produced by the Zeiss lens, the 24L just doesn't cut it.
Lotusm50 wrote:
But of course, the 24/1.4LII fails to deliver the exceptional look produced by the Zeiss lens. If you appreciate the quality and look produced by the Zeiss lens, the 24L just doesn't cut it.
You can check Snowboarder's opinion, who purchased both the 24L II and the ZE 21 at the same time. He concurs.
John Black wrote:
There might be a trace of CA somewhere in there, and if there is, it's negligible in my view.
Your .CR2 shot gives an example of some CA on the side of the steeple. I had the same purple fringe, except it as smack in the middle of the picture, and, far from requiring zooming to see it, was visible on the camera LCD without magnification, i.e. visible on a 3" pic. You confirm what I guessed: my sample was sub-par.
John Black wrote:
Now, if Zeiss would just announced the 50/2 and 100/2 ZE... It's Xmas for heaven's sakes, give us something!!!
Your wish is Zeiss' command. They told me that they would release every ZF-mount lens in ZE mount this year, except the last one would be the 100 Makro, announced this year with delivery early Jan 2010. So, happy?
