p.2 #1 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
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 figure by using both at the same time and making my own conclusions. I don't buy and keep equipment by looking at charts and reading reviews. I buy, test and sell it if I don't like the results. I am more than satisfied with sharpenss of Voigtlander as it is plus I reduce size of all of my images when I process them so I doubt you would notice any difference between those 2 when size is reduced. I bought first 85mm f/1.4 and then 100MP to see if any of them would make me want to sell my 85mm f/1.2II. Zeiss 85 was terribly soft with objects closer than 20-30 feet and 100MP did not impress me enough to sell 85mm1.2II nor Voigtlander. Plus 1:2 macro was a big minus too. If this is what you like I am very happy for you, I am simply stating my opinion.
p.2 #2 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
The CV is in a totally different league for APO correction. Comparing it to a Sigma APO is close to blasphemy (I have the 150 and 70 macros and had the 120-300 Sigma APO as well). It is also a cream-machine in the bokeh department.
If you are looking for Zeiss contrast the Voigtländer will not be your lens.
I'm also not totally surprised it is beat by the Zeiss in resolution. The CV has quite a bit of spherical abberation for such a slow lens. It still beats the heck out of the Sigma macros and I wouldn't part with it for 2 Z* 100MPs.
p.2 #3 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
faremax wrote:
I figure by using both at the same time and making my own conclusions. I don't buy and keep equipment by looking at charts and reading reviews. I buy, test and sell it if I don't like the results. I am more than satisfied with sharpenss of Voigtlander as it is plus I reduce size of all of my images when I process them so I doubt you would notice any difference between those 2 when size is reduced. I bought first 85mm f/1.4 and then 100MP to see if any of them would make me want to sell my 85mm f/1.2II. Zeiss 85 was terribly soft with objects closer than 20-30 feet and 100MP did not impress me enough to sell 85mm1.2II nor Voigtlander. Plus 1:2 macro was a big minus too. If this is what you like I am very happy for you, I am simply stating my opinion....Show more →
And you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion. I was just wondering the reasoning behind you statement about the 125. My curiosity increased by cogitech's agreement with your statement as the performance numbers simply don't add up.
The thing is that, if we go by preference of rendering style only rather than the optical performance measurements then it becomes difficult to answer the OP's question.
p.2 #4 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
MichaD wrote:
The CV is in a totally different league for APO correction. Comparing it to a Sigma APO is close to blasphemy (I have the 150 and 70 macros and had the 120-300 Sigma APO as well). It is also a cream-machine in the bokeh department.
If you are looking for Zeiss contrast the Voigtländer will not be your lens.
I'm also not totally surprised it is beat by the Zeiss in resolution. The CV has quite a bit of spherical abberation for such a slow lens. It still beats the heck out of the Sigma macros and I wouldn't part with it for 2 Z* 100MPs....Show more →
Interesting, thanks for the info. I wasn't seriously comparing it to a Sigma - I was just saying that APO design isn't necessarily associated with high IQ.
p.2 #5 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
denoir wrote:
Have I missed something?
Yes, that figures don't tell the whole truth. I like Zeiss because of things that can NOT be read in figures, and other people might prefer the Voigtländer for the exact same reason; it fits their taste.
I had the Voigtländer 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar for a short while, which is said to be almost as good as the 125/2.5. While it did smash most Nikkors, it doesn't at all give the "Zeiss look", which I love. Instead it's dead sharp and has a very smooth drawing with close to no CA or LCA what so ever. A very fine lens, but I prefer the Makro-Planar very much, even when well stopped down.
MTF should be banned as a method for telling if a lens is good!
Edit: And if the OP is after the Zeiss look, I'd advise him not to buy the 125 even if I've never tried it. Nothing indicates that the Lanthar would have more of it than any other good non-Zeiss lens.
Even though they have VERY different optical designs, I find the 35/2, 50/1.4 and 100/2 of mine to be able to give a look that puts them together in the same, special league regarding colors, "3D" and contrast. And so does my 35/2.8 ZM when used on digital, so out of 4 Zeiss lenses I've used, all of them have "it".
p.2 #6 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
No, figures don't tell the whole truth but the MTF charts can tell a lot. Apart from the regular sharpness measurements, you can see for instance how good micro contrast it has, if CA is likely to be problematic etc. Figures have the great benefit of being comparable to other figures.
Drawing style on the other hand is difficult to compare and subjective. So when somebody asks "What are the best Zeiss lenses?" we can either give a long list of "I like X because I really like it." or we can compare numbers.
I personally prefer to 1) look at the MTF curves and 2) see sample images. I am much more influenced by the sample images than by the curves but the curves are far more useful to know the strong and weak points of the lens.
p.2 #8 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
philber, thank you for the writeup and example, much appreciated.
I am not out of the way for speciality lenses, if I know what they give me. Rather a set of lenses with different strengths and weaknesses than one general lens. I have heard the 35/2 is maybe the most balanced of the ZE lenses ( I would rather use the word "balanced" than "perfect" about the 35/2). Not that I don't want that lens, but 35 mm is a focal length where I value large aperture and autofocus for indoors work. For walkaround, city, village, agriculture and landscape 28 mm is a focal length that suits me better, especiall when used on both 35 mm and APS-C cameras. It disappoints a bit to hear that the 28 is not optimal for landscape, I may have to look closer into the CA and PF examples to see how it works out.
p.2 #9 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
Anders, the fact is that you can´t be sure before you try a lens yourself. If you like 28mm in general, you might get a wonderful lens, because you might have The 28mm Eye that the nay sayers don´t.
p.2 #11 · 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
Even if the OP wanted to forego the Zeiss and give another brand a try, where in the world can you get a CV 125? The Canon mount would be ideal, but very few were made. I've tried to get one in the past and was unsuccessful, so I gave up. Someone might be lucky enough for one to drop in their lap, but the Voigtlander isn't much of a contender for someone not willing to wait to buy a lens.
p.2 #12 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
Z250SA wrote:
Anders, the fact is that you can´t be sure before you try a lens yourself. If you like 28mm in general, you might get a wonderful lens, because you might have The 28mm Eye that the nay sayers don´t.
Pröva, det kan vara det bästa du gjort! /Anders
It is very likely that I'm going to try it.
A nice chat with Philippe over an example with CA provided some more insight. The example confirms what he says, and the 28 is a lens you have to take precautions before you can generally recommend.
As far as I understand CA, the problem with the 28 is not lateral red/green CA, which I found only very slightly worse than with the 21, but the purple fringing around highlights. It will be wise to avoid situations where this may occur with that lens.
p.2 #13 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
denoir wrote:
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.
A metric like LoCA wide open? ;-)
But, I would also point out that the MP50 is a little better in the center than the MP100, but the MP100 is better in the corners.
denoir wrote:
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.
By the same token, it's really not particularly fair to compare the MP100 to 50mm and 35mm lenses either. I have all 3 of these lenses and they are all at the same level, IMHO.
p.2 #14 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
Lotusm50 wrote:
A metric like LoCA wide open? ;-)
But, I would also point out that the MP50 is a little better in the center than the MP100, but the MP100 is better in the corners.
Well, not LoCA, or at least not visible LoCA. Like everything else it gets magnified with a longer FL. The 50/2 is far from LoCA free but the 35/2 has definitely less. On the other hand it has loads of CA.
By the same token, it's really not particularly fair to compare the MP100 to 50mm and 35mm lenses either. I have all 3 of these lenses and they are all at the same level, IMHO.
No, it's not fair to compare different focal lengths, but especially so for UWAs which are fairly extreme lens designs. Anyway, I have them all as well and I could not agree less. In my opinion - and I'm far from alone in having that opinion - the 50 MP & 35/2 are both very good lenses that will be forgotten in a decade or so. The 100 MP on the other hand is really something special and belongs to the handful of 'legendary' Zeiss glass that people will still admire 50 years from now.
The 35/2 is optically the worst of the lot with CA towards the edges and it isn't über-sharp in the center. It does have a unique rendering style though. The 50 MP is like a mini 100 MP and shares many of its qualities but suffers from being a 50 mm lens - the bokeh can be really bad. You mentioned corner sharpness, and it's true that the extreme corners do not become sharp until about f/5.6. I'm not too bothered about that aspect though.
Now there is of course a strong subjective component to these things. I'm not going to say that you are wrong when you say that they are all equal. I'll just say that it is a minority opinion. The 21 & 100 MP are the best Zeiss lenses today if you go either by general consensus, reputable reviews (for example Lloyd Chambers') or what Zeiss says and the price they set.
p.2 #15 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
denoir wrote:
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.2 #16 · 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
I guess it's subjective but I don't agree with your opinion... Yes I've used both (own the ZE, was actually thinking about the 125 because of all the reviews, but skipped it because I liked the 100 MP ZE more).
p.2 #17 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
denoir wrote:
Well, not LoCA, or at least not visible LoCA. Like everything else it gets magnified with a longer FL. The 50/2 is far from LoCA free but the 35/2 has definitely less. On the other hand it has loads of CA.
No, it's not fair to compare different focal lengths, but especially so for UWAs which are fairly extreme lens designs. Anyway, I have them all as well and I could not agree less. In my opinion - and I'm far from alone in having that opinion - the 50 MP & 35/2 are both very good lenses that will be forgotten in a decade or so. The 100 MP on the other hand is really something special and belongs to the handful of 'legendary' Zeiss glass that people will still admire 50 years from now.
The 35/2 is optically the worst of the lot with CA towards the edges and it isn't über-sharp in the center. It does have a unique rendering style though. The 50 MP is like a mini 100 MP and shares many of its qualities but suffers from being a 50 mm lens - the bokeh can be really bad. You mentioned corner sharpness, and it's true that the extreme corners do not become sharp until about f/5.6. I'm not too bothered about that aspect though.
Now there is of course a strong subjective component to these things. I'm not going to say that you are wrong when you say that they are all equal. I'll just say that it is a minority opinion. The 21 & 100 MP are the best Zeiss lenses today if you go either by general consensus, reputable reviews (for example Lloyd Chambers') or what Zeiss says and the price they set. ...Show more →
Yeah, I'm not really keen on the 35/2 at all. Waiting to see how the 35/1.4 turns out. The 50MP ZE, is probably the best 50 I've ever used/seen, and I think it'll be with me for a long time. Some people don't like 50's though..
p.2 #18 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
From what I've seen, I think the Z* 28/2 is great. I think its philber who stated it but its rendering is just not "matter of fact" sort of rendering (or just as you see). I think it has an interesting soft character in color rendering and contrast. Here are some good examples I found off of Flickr of the ZE28/2 paired with a 5DMKII...
Its a lens thats wedged between a legendary wide angle and a near perfect 35mm, other than subjective aspects that its faulted for being wedged in such a place seems to be the only bad thing about it. Of course, if you need a 28mm lens then a 21mm or 35mm won't cut it.
p.2 #19 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
If landscapes are the intended subject of the Z* 28/2, it's worth considering the
Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 instead, especially if funds are tight. Stopped down to its
money apertures, the $300 Contax version performs very well.
p.2 #20 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
So, I had a chance to test-drive the 21/2.8 briefly today, and do a (rather unfair, I know ) comparison to my 16-35/2.8. The Zeiss lens of course beat the zoom handily in most respects, sharper, better corners, less CA, great build and I love the smooth focusing. One thing that surprised me a bit though was the bokeh that was rather harsh in a couple of pictures. Is that a known characteristic of this lens?
I like Zeiss because of things that can NOT be read in figures, and other people might prefer the Voigtländer for the exact same reason; it fits their taste.
