I am relying on you guys to help me answer an important Zeiss lens buying question here in the next couple of days, I have an SPL water housing,and the camera body is a Canon 20D. Neither my 1D Mk III nor my 5D Mk II will fit in. So, I need to make a decision for shooting surf from the impact zone, and the two choices are either the Zeiss 28mm f/2, or the Zeiss 25mm f/2.8. Since I have no AF, I want to make sure I am setting myself up for the sharpest images possible.
Zeiss 28mm f/2, or the Zeiss 25mm f/2.8, that is the question, please help.
Thanks!
Jon Shafer, wwww.SantaBarbaraSurfer.com
This image was captured with my 1D Mk III and a Zeiss 35mm/f/2. If it weren't for this forum I wouldn't even know that you could get Zeiss lenses specifically made for Canon mounts. THANK YOU!!!
As for Distagon 25/2.8 is a very good and wildely underestimated lens.I think it is like this because most people do not know it's strengths and limitations well enough.
The lens is excellent for flower close ups:
Has much of 3D Zeiss look very often:
Is not bad for landscape/cityscape
And for architecture/details
ZF 25/2.8 is a significant improvment compared to 25/2.8 C/Y that I used to have concerning corner sharpness and contrast.
I prefer my ZF 25/2.8 over 28/2.8 ZE mainly because o it's extended versatility (close up facility and FL suitable for both FF and APS-C).
Peire, there is no ZE 28mm f:2.8. Either you are referring to a C/Y 28mm f:2.8 or to a ZE 28mm f:2.0. That one, which I owned for about one year, is also very sharp close-up.
Come on philber,I just made 3 typos in the text above.
I referred to ZE 28/2.It is very sharp for close-ups as 25/2.8 ZF but ZF 25 goes down to 17cm,whereas 28/2 "only" to 0,24m.
C/Y 28/2.8 is as sharp as 28/2 ZE for close ups/infinity and goes to pretty the same 0,25m,but it's much smaller and lighter,so I use it more often than 28/2 ZE.
Peire wrote:
Come on philber,I just made 3 typos in the text above.
I referred to ZE 28/2.It is very sharp for close-ups as 25/2.8 ZF but ZF 25 goes down to 17cm,whereas 28/2 "only" to 0,24m.
C/Y 28/2.8 is as sharp as 28/2 ZE for close ups/infinity and goes to pretty the same 0,25m,but it's much smaller and lighter,so I use it more often than 28/2 ZE.
Well, for shooting in the water housing, I am going to be pretty close to my subjects. Normally I would use a Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, but I am looking for an alternative with a more realistic-looking result.
The reviews here on FM tend to support the less-expensive 25mm f/2.8 over the 28mm f/2, have I got it right? Less money is better too.
The reviews here on FM tend to support the less-expensive 25mm f/2.8 over the 28mm f/2, have I got it right? Less money is better too.
Neither I'm trying to support any lens in particular nor I'm thinking about savings.My point is that 25/2.8 Z Distagon is a decent,versatile lens.
Having 25/2.8 ZF,28/2 ZE and 28/2.8 C/Y (plus 25/2.8 C/Y in the past) I noticed that the one I use least of this setup is 28/2 ZE.
IMO 25/2.8 ZF can easily replace 28/2 with only slight corner IQ loss at mid range distances.At infinity they are more or less on par and at close ups 25/2.8 has an edge.It also has 6,2 deg wider FOV, weights 50g less and it's cheaper too.
Peire wrote:
Neither I'm trying to support any lens in particular nor I'm thinking about savings.My point is that 25/2.8 Z Distagon is a decent,versatile lens.
Having 25/2.8 ZF,28/2 ZE and 28/2.8 C/Y (plus 25/2.8 C/Y in the past) I noticed that the one I use least of this setup is 28/2 ZE.
IMO 25/2.8 ZF can easily replace 28/2 with only slight corner IQ loss at mid range distances.At infinity they are more or less on par and at close ups 25/2.8 has an edge.It also has 6,2 deg wider FOV, weights 50g less and it's cheaper too.
I appreciate your candor. And this is the perfect answer. Lighter is better when dragging a housing through the surf. The shorter focal length is better as is the lower price. Any idea where I can find hyper focal distance?
Yes, you could very well be right Philber. I was thinking that that it was a heck of a lot of clouds but then I thought I kinda liked them. Appreciate the feedback.
Jon Shafer - my experience is that hyperfocal of ZF 25/2.8 (adapted) varies depending on camera/adapter combination.Even Z lenses with native mounts on dedicated cameras do not always behave as expected.
What I usually do is to set presumed distance/aperture and play around to find satisfactory DOF.
I shoot the ocean a lot, off a tripod, everything sharp. I'm thinking of trying a few Zeiss lenses on my 5D II. I already know I will be buying the 50 mm MP, because I need the focal length, and the 21 mm Distagon. I will be interested to see if the 21 makes me want to sell either the Canon 17 mm TSE, or the Canon 24 mm TSE. Probably not, because TSE. But image quality for big prints (30 x 21, and sometimes larger) is paramount. Sometimes a lens that produces the best image just drives another out of the bag.
Curious if anyone has comparison comments or shots that relate the 100 MP to the Canon 90 f2.8 TSE . The 90 TSE is my current gold standard lens for image quality. It also gets my vote for most cost-effective image quality available from Canon. And it has tilt and shift. I can't imagine selling it.
I already know the TSE 90 offers less magnification than the Zeiss, and generally softer bokeh. I'm most curious about color and contrast. I consider both to be excellent with the TSE 90, but some of the shots I see here create room to wonder if the Zeiss might be even better. And one wonder is how much of what I see is post processing, and how much is the lens? Any comparables to show?
splathrop wrote:
Curious if anyone has comparison comments or shots that relate the 100 MP to the Canon 90 f2.8 TSE . The 90 TSE is my current gold standard lens for image quality. It also gets my vote for most cost-effective image quality available from Canon. And it has tilt and shift. I can't imagine selling it.
I already know the TSE 90 offers less magnification than the Zeiss, and generally softer bokeh. I'm most curious about color and contrast. I consider both to be excellent with the TSE 90, but some of the shots I see here create room to wonder if the Zeiss might be even better. And one wonder is how much of what I see is post processing, and how much is the lens? Any comparables to show? ...Show more →
I'm interested in this comparison, too. I have both lenses, the TS-E for about 10 years (fantastic lens!) and the Zeiss 100 MP for only a few weeks. I intend to compare them directly in the future, but not in the next weeks.
My first impressions are that the Zeiss has more microcontrast, looks sharper from at least f2.8 to f4 (maybe due to the contrast) and vignettes significantly more wide open. The colors are also more saturated with the Zeiss. The bokeh from the TS-E is smoother in most circumstances, the Zeiss-bokeh tends to be harsher with some backgrounds. The Zeiss seems to have more OOF CA at 2.8, at f4.0 it is almost gone. Manual focusing is easier with the Zeiss, probably due to f2.0. I expect to use the Zeiss more in the future than the Canon if I don't intend to use tilt (shift doesn't get much use anyway with the 90mm).
