Well, I hope so, because I have one on order What I know is that the 35 is the second-best rated Zeiss WA after the 21, and ahead of the 28 (this is an approximate average of people's opinions, nothing scientific). Problem, though, is that I tried the 28mm, which is the third-best rated, and returned it promptly because of CA. My guess is that this lens was sub-par, but Zeiss say otherwise, so I let the matter rest.
Further food for thought is that Zeiss delayed the issue of the 21 "until they reworked it", and now the result is fabulous. Then they relased ealier this week the .2 ZF (Nikon mount) series, and indicated that the 25mm will be introduced later, after they re-work it.... And of course, there is a rumour of a 35mm f:1.4 to be released, if you believe it, in December. My take on all this is that Zeiss have made strides in lens performance which they implemented on the 21 Distagon, already one of their best designs in C/Y times. This has to do with absence of CA and flare. They are now re-doing the 25, probably their least popular WA, though one or two members here love theirs. Getting an extra stop on my 35 doesn't matter to me much, so I am not lusting for the f:1.4. Unless of course, it happens to be better than the f:2 because of these "lastest improvements"...
Hope this helps...
What I would love to see is a shot of the night sky, wide open. It's a brutal test that will reveal any coma or astigmatism; the stars will show it very quickly. It looks like it might do very, very well based on what I am seeing. For astrophotography, that would be killer. Anyone able to provide a shot like that?
For reference, take a look at this shot comparing crops from the two Canon 24L's. By f/2.8, the Mark II is doing really well in the corners, and I am wondering how the Zeiss would compare.
I'll be getting the 35 also, just to complete my reckless spending spree.
Sort of off topic, but anyone know why Zeiss has opted to stick with MF only? The Contax N AF was not the fastest in the world, but it's good enough for a bumpkin' like me. Wouldn't they sell more lenses with AF (or would the price point then be counterproductive)? Anyhow, I guess my converted 17-35 / 2.8 with AF will remain a legend in its own right.
My guess is that they have a contract with Sony that prevents them from offering AF to anybody else, thus giving Sony an advantage. Just a guess, though.
Nice church shots philber.
I had some nice church shots, (outside) but was asked to leave the premises and told pics could not be published, so you won't see those till I decide to really live on the edge.
Just received my copy, waiting for the weekend to see how it performs in "normal light". While waiting here are few shots from graveyard in moonlight. Two first at f/2.8 and last f/5.6.
Z250SA wrote:
Oh my! f2.8 and sharp from the grass to the stars!
No it isn't - on A3+ print it can be clearly seen that only gravestones and bushes directly behind them are only thing in focus. Of course when viewing these websize thumbnails everything seems sharp, and the subject also doesn't stand out like it does in printout. Below 100% crop: http://www.vahonen.com/1/jpg.php4?id=117&name=117.jpg
Samuli, the only reason why I don't call yourshots 2 and 3 fantastic is because the N�1 is even better, mind-blowing actually. If I were you , I wouldn't complain too loudly about the lens that lets you take such shots, even if I know a guy like you can make miracles out of a matchobx with a pinhole!
philber wrote:
Samuli, the only reason why I don't call yourshots 2 and 3 fantastic is because the N�1 is even better, mind-blowing actually. If I were you , I wouldn't complain too loudly about the lens that lets you take such shots, even if I know a guy like you can make miracles out of a matchobx with a pinhole!
Thanks for the compliments! Thou frosty gravestones & grass + some moonlight made the scene look wonderful, I just was lucky enough to be there to photograph it.
PS. I'm not complaining about the lens, the picture was not supposed to be sharp everywhere. On large print (A3+) the gravestones really stand out from the background, just like I wanted. If I would have needed more DOF I would not have used f/2.8. In principle I hate "everything sharp" pictures, it's so rare that those work for me.
The clarity (from this lens and Zeiss lenses in general) is what gets me. I've seen this exhibited in pictures of mountains too. These image really do feel like theres nothing between you and the scene that was photographed. Your two images above, snowboarder, really showcase this.
Bluetsunami, i think that is more from a good photographer than from this lens.
I still have not seen anything from this ZE21 that could not have been done pretty much to the same extent with any other 20/21mm (besides those awful zuikos haha).
ISO1600 wrote:
Bluetsunami, i think that is more from a good photographer than from this lens.
I still have not seen anything from this ZE21 that could not have been done pretty much to the same extent with any other 20/21mm (besides those awful zuikos haha).
If that is the case, ISO, how do you explain that "good photographers" like Snowboarder tend to gravitate towards Zeiss lenses?
BTW, you are not the only one to make this case. Others also contend that, for example, at f:8 all lenses pretty much look the same.
If that is the case, ISO, how do you explain that "good photographers" like Snowboarder tend to gravitate towards Zeiss lenses?There are plenty of awful photographs taken with Zeiss lenses, too. And plenty of good photographs taken with Canon, Nikon, Leica, Olympus lenses etc. Look on pbase at the ZF21 photos - they might as well have been taken with a point and shoot. While lenses do make some difference, light, luck and skill have a much greater influence on the quality of a photograph, especially when we're talking top primes from one brand against top primes from another. The Zeiss 21mm is arguably the best at its focal length, but there are certainly other pieces of equipment that are able to take equally fantastic photos, particularly ones that are as heavily post-processed as some of the photos on this thread. That is the skill of a photographer and an editor above and beyond anything else, and I think that's a much more laudable skill than the ability to buy expensive lenses.
What I know is that the 35 is the second-best rated Zeiss WA after the 21, and ahead of the 28 (this is an approximate average of people's opinions, nothing scientific). Problem, though, is that I tried the 28mm, which is the third-best rated, and returned it promptly because of CA. My guess is that this lens was sub-par, but Zeiss say otherwise, so I let the matter rest.
