hmm...the crops don't look mindblowingly sharp to me...can't the 18-55 IS get the same results? Isn't the 21 f/2.8 supposed to be one of the sharpest wide angles? Frankly the corner crop looks soft
Come on Dawei, this is 100% crop on 5D II wide open in the corner. It may not even be within the DOF given it's not in the same plane as the centre where it was focused.
Looks good to me. I use the contax version which in all honesty I would imagine in a controlled head to head would be very similar (either way) So, enjoy the inspiration that these superb lenses give you.
Now if you want to be blown away for a few hundred dollars pick up a contax 100 3.5
The crops look really good, as good as the old C/Y version if not better. This will be THE lens for me to get if I go back to full frame and landscape.
rockitman wrote:
It will be interersting to see this new version compared with the old C/Y mount w/ adapter 21mm distagon. I can't say I'm happy about the new glass in lieu of the $3 grand I spent on a C/Y version distagon two years ago. I hope my old version is at least as good. That would reduce the financial pain I am experiencing right now...
Chris, this lens won't make yours any bit worse it's still one of the best WA out there. There were a few copies of C/Y distagon went through my hand, if I didn't switch my main focus to bird/macro, I would have still kept at least one C/Y 21mm.
dolina wrote:
snowboarder you have the ZE 21 and 24L II do you see that much of a focal length difference that it feels you have a redundant lens?
they are different not because they are different focal lengths...
They are really completely different - Zeiss 21 is sharper, no CA and the bokeh is not really
that exciting, 24L II is just magic wide open if you're OK to deal with CA.
I was testing my 24L II today and found a combination of a local channel desaturation
which seems to work well for CA removal. I'm frankly disappointed that this lens
has that much CA. This is my 2nd copy and only slightly better...
But the quality of out of focus bg and the color and contrast quality is amazing.
So I will keep it. For sharpness I will pick my Zeiss 21 over this lens any day.
24L II is very sharp stopped down to f5.6-8. But still not as sharp as Zeiss 21.
Plus I like Zeiss to be wider. 24L II is just the widest fast lens on the market.
I'm not sure if it makes sense. If you want a landscape lens, no doubt Zeiss is better.
Superb samples. I think the distortion could only be an issue for architecture.
Guys, how does the resale value of the ZEs compare with Canon L lenses? Canon Ls hold most of their value, up till a new model comes out. Is this the same for ZEs?
snowboarder wrote:
they are different not because they are different focal lengths...
They are really completely different - Zeiss 21 is sharper, no CA and the bokeh is not really
that exciting, 24L II is just magic wide open if you're OK to deal with CA.
I was testing my 24L II today and found a combination of a local channel desaturation
which seems to work well for CA removal. I'm frankly disappointed that this lens
has that much CA. This is my 2nd copy and only slightly better...
But the quality of out of focus bg and the color and contrast quality is amazing.
So I will keep it. For sharpness I will pick my Zeiss 21 over this lens any day.
24L II is very sharp stopped down to f5.6-8. But still not as sharp as Zeiss 21.
Plus I like Zeiss to be wider. 24L II is just the widest fast lens on the market.
I'm not sure if it makes sense. If you want a landscape lens, no doubt Zeiss is better.
SKumar25 wrote:
Superb samples. I think the distortion could only be an issue for architecture.
Guys, how does the resale value of the ZEs compare with Canon L lenses? Canon Ls hold most of their value, up till a new model comes out. Is this the same for ZEs?
Did you know the old C/Y 21mm distagon went skyrocket to $3500 mark just a few years ago? I believe ZE will hold its value very well. The only serious competition from Canon is 24 TS-E II, but it costs $500 more. Plus Zeiss doesn't upgrade its lenses as often as Canon does.
garyvot wrote:
I wonder if your 24L II may need an adjustment... My copy seems as sharp as those Zeiss crops of yours at 2.8.
BTW, DPP can correct CA and color blur automagically for Canon lenses... you might give it a try.
Well, I might've been a bit harsh for the 24L II, I'm going through my test samples
taken today and it's not that bad...
Here there is an f2.2 shot, I did some CA removal and it looks great.
I will try DPP, has never even launched it yet...
I may be the odd one out here, but I don't even look at corner sharpness before selecting a lens. There are much more important factors that make it or break it for me. First is the ambiance. Is the shot "alive" or not. What the Germans would call "Gestalt". If that is not there, then the rest simply does not matter. Then, colour, contrast, drawing style etc... then of course, is there something negative, like distortion or CA. Then only softness in the corners. The fact that I shoot 99% handheld and 100% MF also shows that sharpness is not my N° priority.
So if any of you guys know fabulous lenses except for corner sharpness, I may be the one you need to talk to...
WOW, the LoCA on that Canon 24II is just terrible! Take a look at the top corners. Terrible CA and bokeh! This is exactly the type of thing that turned me off on the original 24L.
trihai wrote:
Hello Dave: Do you have any photos with the Contax 100 3.5?
Snowboarder: Please post more photos please.
Thanks
I did have some test shots up on P base but would you believe I deleted them all on Tuesday.
I`m suffering a virus at present( not swine flu I hope) so will sort some out when I feel better.
pdmphoto wrote:
WOW, the LoCA on that Canon 24II is just terrible! Take a look at the top corners. Terrible CA and bokeh! This is exactly the type of thing that turned me off on the original 24L.
CA and fast glass go hand in hand. The Distagon may have minimal CA, but it does not do f/1.4. Horses for courses...
