Hexonxonx wrote:
The 25/2 was already terrific on my former 6D ( anyday over the 21/2.8 ) now on the AR7 it's kind of " one step louder "
2/25-not many posts here.. I would prefer f2 and something lighter for every day (but I bought 35 instead),, 21 is specialized for landscape. 25 is specialized for every day.. Zeiss really makes you want all of their offerings.
I never trust reviews online and try to download raw files... in other words 21 and 25 are both good. Some aspects better, some worse..
tccin3d wrote:
2/25-not many posts here.. I would prefer f2 and something lighter for every day (but I bought 35 instead),, 21 is specialized for landscape. 25 is specialized for every day.. Zeiss really makes you want all of their offerings.
I never trust reviews online and try to download raw files... in other words 21 and 25 are both good. Some aspects better, some worse..
Has anyone compared the ZE/ZF 25/2 with the Sony Zeiss 24/2 SSM? I just recently picked up the Sony, but I've always had an interest in the ZE lens.
tccin3d wrote:
21 is specialized for landscape
Unless I move to Switzerland I don't think I ever shoot landscape with 21, just too wide. For me it' has been very good lens for almost anything else, just damn hard to use due to insane field of view.
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21 ZE @ f/4.5, 0.3s, Sony A7 @ ISO 100, Hoya 82mm polarizer
.....corn for my balcony, let it grow ~20-30cm, sometimes I cut the tips, and it still grows, green all the time. cheap but looks nice. Feels like giant grass. Almost Sony/Nikon green.
1.4/35 ZE
I very much like the B & W conversions Toothwalker. These are from a walk last evening with my son. The portraits are with the ZE 100 MP, the landscapes are with the ZE 21 f/2.8.
