p.3 #1 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
FretNoMore wrote:
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 know a number of people will disagree with me on this but from all the pictures i've seen this is characteristic of pretty much all Z* lenses. the same optical choices that give the zeiss look seem to result in a harsh somewhat busy bokeh. this type of bokeh can be very desirable in some situations and quite obnoxious in others.
p.3 #2 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
I realize it's a matter of taste, and I am more partial to smooth bokeh rather than busy.
I think it can be very distracting with such "interesting" bokeh.
p.3 #3 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
FretNoMore wrote:
I realize it's a matter of taste, and I am more partial to smooth bokeh rather than busy.
I think it can be very distracting with such "interesting" bokeh.
Of the Zeiss lenses I own, all of them can give smooth bokeh as well as harsh. It's more a function of the conditions (focus distance and distance to background) than a given character of the lens.
p.3 #4 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
Makten wrote:
Of the Zeiss lenses I own, all of them can give smooth bokeh as well as harsh. It's more a function of the conditions (focus distance and distance to background) than a given character of the lens.
true, any lens can give a smooth bokeh and any lens can give a harsh bokeh if you compose the shot for that type of bokeh. if you take the same shot with a zeiss lens and a canon (or leica) lens the zeiss lens will typically have more contrast (and maybe microcontrast) in the bokeh just as it has more contrast and better saturation in the in focus regions.
p.3 #6 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
trumpet_guy wrote:
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.
Does anyone have both Z* 28/2 and C/Y 28/2.8? Are there huge difference optically? Ive been thinking of getting 28mm lens for dual usage, landscape lens for 5D and walkaround lens for cropper.
p.3 #7 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
FretNoMore wrote:
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 don't know if I would call it harsh (i.e. it doesn't suffer from longitudinal CA) but it can be characterized as very lively or flamboyant. I know that a lot of people are of the opinion that only smooth syrupy bokeh is good, but I personally really like what the 21 does with it. On the other hand the 21 isn't exactly the first lens you would think of when doing closeups...
p.3 #8 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
Yes, definitely a matter of taste ... there's no right or wrong here. That is similar to what I saw in my pictures, and I personally don't like that look. Maybe I wouldn't take this kind of picture with this lens but rather use it for its other strengths, for subjects like landscapes, architecture etc where OOF bokeh isn't a big part of the scene.
p.3 #9 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
Does anyone have both Z* 28/2 and C/Y 28/2.8? Are there huge difference optically? Ive been thinking of getting 28mm lens for dual usage, landscape lens for 5D and walkaround lens for cropper.
Hopefully someone who owns both can chime in but from what I've read the C/Y 28/2.8 is more renowned for its ability stopped down and at Infinity instead of closeup. The 28/2 is the complete opposite (even John Black of Pebbleplace has found this), the Z*28/2 seems to be best at closeup and mid distances. With that said, the Landscape shots I've seen with it (albeit large websized) show that it definitely does have that 3D look when stopped down. Like in these shots...
p.3 #10 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
bluetsunami wrote:
Hopefully someone who owns both can chime in but from what I've read the C/Y 28/2.8 is more renowned for its ability stopped down and at Infinity instead of closeup. The 28/2 is the complete opposite (even John Black of Pebbleplace has found this), the Z*28/2 seems to be best at closeup and mid distances. With that said, the Landscape shots I've seen with it (albeit large websized) show that it definitely does have that 3D look when stopped down. Like in these shots...
*Not my photos
**The effect is more prominent when viewed larger
I do not own the 28/2, but you are correct about the C/Y 28/2.8 in that it
really starts to give excellent performance toward infinity distance, stopped down
to f/8 and f/11. It is decent up close, but, it really sings at infinity focus.
For better up-close performance, I think the inexpensive Nikon 28/2.8 Ai-S does well.
p.3 #11 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
cogitech wrote:
+1
Definitely a personal taste. Voigtlander 125mm color is too saturated (i.e., candy like) for me. I had Zeiss 100mm MP but gave up because of its CA. I love Zeiss 85mm 1.2 50th Anniversary though.
p.3 #12 · So, which of the Zeiss for Canon lenses are great?
I have yet to see an unusable image from the not-so-many I have shot with the CY Distagon 28/2.8, and some have been revelatory. Loads of 3D, giant central resolution (see the MTF chart), and excellent corners given f8 aperture. This seems to be another of the 'gentle DOF loss' CY lenses, so not much need for f11. Mine is good from 5m to infinity, and works very well for intimate landscape shots, say 5-15 metres FD.
Just took a look at the MTF chart of the ZF28/2, wow, I am wondering why Zeiss/Cosina need their lenses to be so heavy! 530 grams for a simple 28mm is 200 grams too much!
If anything the CY lens is perhaps better but given different max aperture and stopped down aperture reporting (f4 vs f5.6) it is not too conclusive. I would expect poor corners (all sagittal lines really fall off the cliff) and maybe CA in the newer lens at the reported apertures. A big curvature hump also near the frame edge. But that is just MTF.
A great lens for APS-C is the CY, a light, small and supersharp 42mm eq. The ZF wil outweight many cameras (!) but you do get a stop more VF brightness, not insignificant in tunnel vision VF land.
) 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?