The 25 f/2.8 was never made in ZE mount, just ZF and ZS. My view is that the 25 f/2 is an amazing lens. It should have stronger performance up close than the F/2.8 because it has a floating element and the f/2.8 does not. At infinity the f/2 should be a bit better too except in the far corner, but the f/2.8 is a great all around lens so you have to decide if the improvement and ZE mount is worth it.
Diploneis wrote:
A short video slideshow of images I took in Norway over the last year. Piano by my good friend and great photographer Wim Lassche. Watch in HD and turn the sound on! Most of the images are shot with 2.8/21, some with 2/35 and couple with Fuji X100S...
Steve Spencer wrote:
My view is that the 25 f/2 is an amazing lens. It should have stronger performance up close than the F/2.8 because it has a floating element and the f/2.8 does not.
Funny, I have it the other way around. The ZF 25 2.8 does 1:2, the 2.0 does 1:6. Aside from mere measurements, the draw of the 2.8 is absolutely sublime for environmental macro portraiture, and allows for more creative subject placement at close focus. The 2.8 is practically a macro lens from my experience, and no slouch at landscapes either. Just my 2ç.
From a lot of browsing through Zeissimages, I think the main difference I'm seeing with the f/2.0 25 and 28 is the heavy contrast on the 28, what I was calling a more sombre look.
The 25/2.8 maybe somewhere in the middle.
I'm definitely down to one of the 25s now. It may come down to the best deal I see first, a bit of serendipity as I grow weary of research and taking out a mortgage for all of them and the Otus line too begins to seem like an easier solution than having to decide!
Can't describe what it's like to be inside our museum all day shooting a new exhibit, oblivious to anything going on outside, then finally finish the job at 5 p.m. and walk out to my car and be instantly surrounded by the Walking Dead. I'd shot the exhibit with the Otus, so Otus it was for the Zombies.
coogee wrote:
25/2 - expensive, very limited second-hand market, seems to get very negative reviews on performance at infinity which makes me think it isn't going to be my 'wide 50MP'.
25/2.8 - don't know much about it, could be a cheap option although ZE seem to be rarer.
28/2 - top of the list at the moment. cheaper, performance at f/8-11 sounds perfect, and it doubles up for an awesome closer in lens with character.
Make no mistake, the 25/2 is optimized for infinity focus. The high performance excludes the corners, but the lens is not different from your beloved 50 MP in that regard. Both lenses need to be stopped down significantly for the (extreme) corners to catch up.
If you ask me, the 25/2 is easily the best lens from the three listed above. You will get the same answer if you ask Zeiss.
Oct 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
taran wrote:
Funny, I have it the other way around. The ZF 25 2.8 does 1:2, the 2.0 does 1:6. Aside from mere measurements, the draw of the 2.8 is absolutely sublime for environmental macro portraiture, and allows for more creative subject placement at close focus. The 2.8 is practically a macro lens from my experience, and no slouch at landscapes either. Just my 2ç.
Yes, it is true the 25 f/2.8 has a very close .17m MFD, whereas the f/2 has a .25m MFD, so you can get closer with the f/2.8, but keep in mind how close that is. At MFD, the f/2.8 has a working distance of only 6cm (or 2.4 inches), so you are very close indeed at such a wide angle and such high magnification. For my use the f/2 is gets as close as I have ever wanted to get at such a wide angle (13cm or just over 5 inches in working distance). Of course some might want the really short MFD of the f/2.8.
What I was commenting on was the performance at MFD and I am a big fan of floating element designs for close focus work. I am surprised Zeiss didn't add one to the f/2.8. it does do quite well without one, but it would do better with one and for my taste I can see the difference even though it isn't all that large and prefer the f/2 images, but I can see why some might want what the f/2.8 has to offer. If it came in ZE mount, I would be very interested in the f/2.8 for its size and all around performance, but I have to admit I have a pretty strong preference for lenses that focus the Canon/Leica/ Zeiss C/Y mount way.
It's now a straight battle for me between budget and desire/determination. I feel happy to buy a 25/2.8 (the 1:2 magnification especially is very alluring) but perhaps even happier with a 25/2 (landscape/mid-distance is to be primary use.) I am waiting to see what eventuates.
I appreciate all the discussion, hugely helpful to me (and others later I hope)
I should really post some images and quit asking questions!
Most of the images are shot with 2.8/21, some with 2/35 and couple with Fuji X100S...
