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.
Could you please point out the LoCA to me. I'm not seeing it.
Dawei Ye wrote:
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
This may be the one time I have heard the Canon plastic 18-55mm being compared to the Zeiss 21mm f2.8.
If the crops posted are even remotely possible on the Canon 18-55mm, that must be one spectacular specimen
OP: Thanks for posting - impressive lens for sure - looks like Zeiss 21mm is on my short list.
could you upload a pic of the ze21, i never saw how different ("more fat") it looks compared to the zf21 version
thx
btw, did you notice any cyan shift in bright areas towards the corners?
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.
That bokeh is NOT typical of this lens. I strongly suspect it needs an adjustment.
FYI, I have had several BNIB Canon lenses over the years arrive with similarly terrible bokeh, including a 24-105L, a 28 1.8 and a 16-35L II (milder case). For a long time I just assumed the bokeh on those lenses was bad, despite what others on the Net seemed to think. (Well, the 28 is not a bokeh champ, but it's better than my original copy).
It was only later, after I handled other samples, that I realized that my copies needed a fix.
The real interesting comparison would be the new ZE 21 vs. the Oly 21/2 and perhaps other Alt 21s (like the Rokkor 21/2.8). I'd expect the Ze to be a bit better at least, as it should be for the price and newness of it.
The newer 24L is an amazing lens, I recently used one, nothing wrong with it. For landscape I would probably get the Zeiss though, wider angle and less weight
Doo-bop wrote:
The newer 24L is an amazing lens, I recently used one, nothing wrong with it.
Well, I don't agree, my 2nd copy is not much better that the first one.
Terrible CA, much worse than my 35L, 50L and even 24-70L...
Not so much excitement about 24L II for me, Zeiss is amazing though
Ed Sawyer wrote:
The real interesting comparison would be the new ZE 21 vs. the Oly 21/2 and perhaps other Alt 21s (like the Rokkor 21/2.8). I'd expect the Ze to be a bit better at least, as it should be for the price and newness of it.
OK - I have a Contax 21, Canon 24 L2, Oly 21 f3.5 and Canon 17-40. I can see I'm going to have to do some tests of all these one day. I've never really tested them together because I just don't see any competition between them for my use. When I need a normal to ultra-wide zoom I take the 17-40. When I need a tiny wideangle I take the Oly. When I need to shoot 1080p and stills at the same time and see in the dark I take the 24L2. And when I just want gob-smacking quality I take the Zeiss. Spoilt I guess. ;-)
brainiac wrote:
OK - I have a Contax 21, Canon 24 L2, Oly 21 f3.5 and Canon 17-40. I can see I'm going to have to do some tests of all these one day. I've never really tested them together because I just don't see any competition between them for my use. When I need a normal to ultra-wide zoom I take the 17-40. When I need a tiny wideangle I take the Oly. When I need to shoot 1080p and stills at the same time and see in the dark I take the 24L2. And when I just want gob-smacking quality I take the Zeiss. Spoilt I guess. ;-)...Show more →
Great idea! I'm a bit snowed under with other commitments right now, but I'm itching to run some tests of this type: 24L II v ZE21 v CZ21 v 24L I . . . vs 14-24mm. Vs 24TS-E II.
hubsand wrote:
Great idea! I'm a bit snowed under with other commitments right now, but I'm itching to run some tests of this type: 24L II v ZE21 v CZ21 v 24L I . . . vs 14-24mm. Vs 24TS-E II.
Well if you need to use any of my glass, Mark, you're always welcome. We should meet up again, geek out, and drink beer. It's been too long...
brainiac wrote:
Could you please point out the LoCA to me. I'm not seeing it.
Still no answer to this. I hope you're not referring to the intensified blue around the leaves at the top right of the shot below, because that is neither LoCA nor CA. It is simply the intensification of the blue of the sky due to the darkening effect of the unfocussed leaves. If this was exposed a stop or two less the overexposure of the sky would be less, and colour would be more consistent. In short, this is an exposure/sensor/latitude effect, not a lens artefact. http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7660/24lii22.jpg
This effect is one of the reasons why I have droned on about the importance of being able to push the shadows. The cure is to expose much less, and push the shadows in post. Shots like this have enough contrast to present a real challenge to the latitude in current sensors.
Now that the ZE 35 has been announced, I am seriously considering whether some good old fashioned manual focus lenses are in order. It seems like ZE 21 + 35 would make a very nice wide angle combo.
it is only zoom i have left.