p.1 #2 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
The Distagon 21/2.8 and Makro-Planar 100/2. The Distagon 35/2 maybe to a slightly lower degree. A Distagon 35/1.4 will be available Q1 2011 and will likely be part of the "top 3" most impressive Zeisses.
p.1 #3 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
Superstars: 21/2.8, 100 MP
Excellent: 35/2, 50 MP
Special (excellent for some things but bad for others): 50/1.4 & 85/1.4
Mediocre*: 28/2
We don't speak of it: 18/3.5
*=Will be disputed by some but is generally not considered to be a top performer.
p.1 #5 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
In the hands of the right photographer even the worst of these Zeiss lenses can produce some wonderful results - ie. Philber with his 28mm and Donuss with the 18mm!
p.1 #7 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
denoir wrote:
Mediocre*: 28/2.8
*=Will be disputed by some but is generally not considered to be a top performer.
Not to dispute, I'm honestly interested to know because the focal length suits me.
I subscribe to Diglloyd's Zeiss articles, and know about the field curvature and that it has slightly more CA than the 35/2. What else should make me think twice?
p.1 #9 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
alundeb wrote:
Not to dispute, I'm honestly interested to know because the focal length suits me.
I subscribe to Diglloyd's Zeiss articles, and know about the field curvature and that it has slightly more CA than the 35/2. What else should make me think twice?
Simply put it lacks the punch of the 35/2 (i.e depth/3D or whatever you wish to call it) and its rendering lacks the fine detail of the 21. If you look through the Z* image thread you can find several comparisons with other lenses. Philippe (philber) has done a number of comparisons with the 21 and there was alway a unanimous consensus that the 21 rendering was better.
My advice is to look through the sample thread. If the rendering style of the 28 does appeal to you, go for it. It's not a bad lens, it's just that the ones next to it (21 & 35) are generally considered to be better.
Put in another way the 28 is a jack of all trades but the master of none. All the other have some characteristic or feature that is unique or superior to the rest. The 28 does not - it is mediocre in every category. "Mediocre" here however means compared to the other Zeiss glass - not on an absolute scale. It's still a Zeiss with good colors and micro contrast.
p.1 #10 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
IMO the absolut best ZE lens is 21mm Distagon. It really stands out far above the rest. Second place belongs to 35mm, 50MP and 100MP and then there is everything else besides 85mm. Last place in my book goes to 85mm f/1.4 and for its near distance performance.
p.1 #11 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
faremax wrote:
IMO the absolut best ZE lens is 21mm Distagon. Second place belongs to 35mm, 50MP and 100MP and then there is everything else besides 85mm. Last place in my book goes to 85mm f/1.4 and for its near distance performance.
No, but you are correct in essence that neither planer 50 or 85 is optimized for closeups - you need be careful when you do it and it will only work well under certain circumstances. The 85 & 50 Planars are the last lenses I would recommend somebody to get as a first Zeiss lens. It does not mean that they are the worst though, just the most difficult to use. Unfortunately Zeiss pricing makes sure that many people get the 50/1.4 as their first lens which is definitely not a good idea.
As for the rest of the lenses you listed, the 100 MP is significantly better by any metric than the 50 MP or the 35/2. If you just go by optical performance the 100 MP is way above the 21 as well, but it's not fair to compare an UWA to a tele lens.
p.1 #12 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
I was talking about "my book" and I put them from UWA to tele without any preference. I agree that optically 100MP is very good but when you compare it along others in its class I think there are equal IQ or even better lenses. When you compare UWAs 21mm is definitely a top contender if not a clear winner. I had a chance to compare 17mm TS-E and I liked Zeiss better. Maybe I am wrong but I am an amateur and I buy whatever rocks my boat and not what others say.
p.1 #14 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
faremax wrote:
I was talking about "my book" and I put them from UWA to tele without any preference. I agree that optically 100MP is very good but when you compare it along others in its class I think there are equal IQ or even better lenses. When you compare UWAs 21mm is definitely a top contender if not a clear winner. I had a chance to compare 17mm TS-E and I liked Zeiss better. Maybe I am wrong but I am an amateur and I buy whatever rocks my boat and not what others say.
The only lens that could measure up to the 100 MP is the Leica 100/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit-R. It's an APO so it has no issues with LoCA but it is slightly less sharp and it's an f/2.8 rather than an f/2. Beyond that I don't think it has an equal present or past.
The 17-TSE and 24-TSE are as sharp across the frame as the 21 but there is of course a difference of rendering style.
p.1 #17 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
Thank you!
I have been following the Z* images thread for a while, not so much lately, my Distagon 21/2.8 is in Oberkochen for repair (without knowing how it happened, I discovered one day the sunshade was smashed and the front cone was loose. Optics and everything fine, though) and it is no fun to be in that thread without a working Zeiss :-) Looked through once again, and found a few '28 images, including one of philbers comparisons with the '21.
The differences between the appearance of the images, as I see them, I would attribute to, in order of importance:
1 Quality of light.
2 Workflow, especially sharpening.
3 Depth of field.
4 Field of view.
5 Lens optical properties.
I saw some '28 images with more puch that '35 and '21 images, and vice versa. Nothing very conclusive IMO. If anything, it seemed less consistent than the others, it could be either flat or outstanding. I guess it is more difficult to use.
The 28/2 is on my list, after the MP 50. Would love the MP 100, but I just can't live without the tilt function in my Canon TS-E 90.
p.1 #19 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
faremax wrote:
Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar not only measures up but IMO beats it in IQ. Plus offers true 1:1 macro
Umm. how do you figure? The MTF shows that the 100 MP is sharper at f/2 than the 125 APO-L is at f/5.6..
I have never used the 125mm but the simple optical data show the 100 MP playing in a completely different league. The Voigtländer an APO - a feature absent in the 100 MP but pretty commonplace in for instance Sigma macros.
Have I missed something? I this the correct Voigtländer lens? I'm asking because I can't see how you could come to compare these two as they clearly are on completely different levels of performance.
p.1 #20 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
I think the consensus is that the 21 and 100 have reached legendary status, although not completely without flaws (21 has distortion, 100 is not really a macro).
The 35f2 seems to be regarded as the next best lens, but a lot of Zeiss shooters are drooling over the soon to be released 35f1.4.
All three are sharp wide open in the center and are better than other equivalents in corner sharpness. But it's the special color, contrast and depth in the photos that are the real reason to love the Zeiss look. The build quality is excellent, although they're all large and heavy compared to other brands.
If you can afford them the 21, 35 (either one) and 100 make a great kit.
