Bought the Zeiss and rented the Canon from lensrentals.com for my 7D. I found the exact same results as the original poster.
The Zeiss had less CA, less Flare, less ghosting, and sharper corners. I don't doubt that the Canon is a great lens but the Zeiss looks better to me and its much more enjoyable to use for video.
I am surprised by the low rating of 50 f/1.4. In any of the tests (including mine), it was very sharp at f/4.0 (and very good already at f/2.8)
I was, too.
We can suspect that I may have a bad copy or that the experiment was flawed.
But overall its curve is in the mid pack of some of the better lenses.
There is somehow an exposure difference between the two test shots although both lenses were set at the exact same aperture. I have seen that before on several occasions. That difference was apparently enough for the two lenses to "draw" differently. Snowborder, could you look up whether there is a difference in the shutter speed used, please? I don't have any ZE lens and I have never used one either; does it have AF confirmation similar to the Voigtlander in EF mount or Canon TS-E lenses? Thanks!
snowboarder wrote:
Not true, it's the same lighting, Canon shot was taken one minute later, the same angle,
same exposure, same everything.
The difference is exactly the subject of the exercise - it's how Canon renders the image
comparing to Zeiss.
In the first photo with the Zeiss 35 ZE lens, the camera and the photographer are *closer* to the rock, and thus you can see more details.
This is not a fair test. Even for a un-scientific test, we at least need to frame the photos the same, so that we can compare.
The second photo looks over-exposed. For people who are reading about this test, I recommend you to play with these two photos in DPP.
As the distance from the rock to the camera is not the same, the lighting is also different. When your body is closer to the rock, you block more light from the sun; and vice versa.
To the best of my knowledge there is only one type of AF confirm. When one rotates the focusing ring, the AF point(s) light(s) up when in focus. That applies to Zeiss ZE lenses, or other Zeiss types if you use an adapter that offers AF confirm due to on-board electronics. But the ZEs offer full electronic aperture control in all modes, just like a Canon lens, which adapted Zeiss lenses do not.
Hope this helps.
twilighter wrote:
In the first photo with the Zeiss 35 ZE lens, the camera and the photographer are *closer* to the rock, and thus you can see more details.
This is not a fair test. Even for a un-scientific test, we at least need to frame the photos the same, so that we can compare.
The second photo looks over-exposed. For people who are reading about this test, I recommend you to play with these two photos in DPP.
As the distance from the rock to the camera is not the same, the lighting is also different. When your body is closer to the rock, you block more light from the sun; and vice versa.
Pondria wrote:
Not suprising to me.
I use the lens often as I like the frames that 35mm focal length gives. But I always felt that the sharpness was overrated. The sharpness doesn't come out until f/4 or so. http://www.sesee.com/Photo/Exports/MTF-wide-mid.jpg
What's most remarkable is how well the 24-105 does.
I've never noticed my 1Ds3 giving me any signs of focus confirmation using my ZE21. I manual focus, and I decide when it's 'there'. Will the camera try to tell me anything?
For me, the comparison the OP presents is useless, since I never use lenses wide open for landscapes such as the example, and the sweet spot of the lens is what I'm interested in, maybe from f5.6 to f16.
Having done a similar test with various 80 - 100mm lenses using Av mode, I can tell you that the shutter speed varies from lens to lens. I had to go back and redo the test, metering with a Gossen Luna Pro and then setting manual exposure rather than Av. Even doing this there were some differences in image brightness but it was much less than in Av mode. It's very hard to judge the difference in IQ when there's such a large difference in image brightness and I don't think a test that uses Av mode for different manufacturers is very valid. I appreciate the effort involved but as suggested above, please go back and use a better subject and manually set the exposure the same for both lenses.
and you're not surprised how much better that EF 50/1.4 tests than the 35L at f2 and below? Around here almost everyone claims the 35L is perfect wide open.
mfurman wrote:
to Pondria:
I am surprised by the low rating of 50 f/1.4. In any of the tests (including mine), it was very sharp at f/4.0 (and very good already at f/2.8)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Wow, that 24 f/2.8 is absolute crap by those numbers. Can't say I've heard anyone say that of the lens.
It just shows that, as Pondria wrote, sharpness is overrated. Sure, it is easy to use it as the way to judge a lens, because it can be measured, unlike, for example, the rendition of colour, or the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus. But it is far from being the only important parameter. Oh, and, yes, I did own a EF 24 f:2.8. And, no, its "terrible" lack of sharpness did not prevent me from getting good pics out of it
