flashinm wrote:
Sebboh, outstanding bird shots. That's a somewhat tame bird I assume?
On a side note I picked up a FL 55 f1.2 today thanks to your lovely shots and my impending NEX purchase. Now I just have to decide on what camera to buy.
thanks!
yes, the eagle was hit by a car and is missing half of one wing now.
I haven't seen too many photos taken with the CV 75/2.5 (although I know Charlie has one) and was doing my monthly photo purge and ran across a few people photos I'd taken with that lens. Also, in another thread someone was asking about good portrait lenses on the NEX. The main attraction of this lens to me is the very compact size. This one is wide open.
the lens is indespensible to me--probably the single best value in any RF lens I can think of. I somehow had the idea for a while it was overmatched at infinity by my tele-elmarit 90. But in august I had it up in the mountains and it blew me away.
Jeff Kott wrote:
I haven't seen too many photos taken with the CV 75/2.5 (although I know Charlie has one) and was doing my monthly photo purge and ran across a few people photos I'd taken with that lens. Also, in another thread someone was asking about good portrait lenses on the NEX. The main attraction of this lens to me is the very compact size. This one is wide open.
i've always thought this looked interesting, any idea how it compares to the pentax pancake 70/2.4?
Jochen, be careful. I haven't seen a lot of ZM 25 pics on 5N, and the excellent Zeiss paper by H. Nasse spells out why it might not be a marriage made in heaven.
That said, I now have had a ZA 24 for 36 hours, and I have yet to get a shot I like out of it, so I understand your position. Hopefully I can get to the bottom of the matter today with some controlled comparisons.
philber wrote:
That said, I now have had a ZA 24 for 36 hours, and I have yet to get a shot I like out of it, so I understand your position. Hopefully I can get to the bottom of the matter today with some controlled comparisons.
i eagerly await info on this. the existence of this lens is really the only thing keeping me from going the uhoh route and getting a leica.
jochen - i've seen many wonderful images with the zm 25/2.8 on the NEX even if it does have some color shift on the old bodies.
sebboh wrote:
here's a shot with the contax g 45 wide open from this evening:
haha, I was just on that hill last week. It's a hell of a climb up 17th and then those damn stairs! I almost couldn't find my way down it was so dark. Took some photos but didn't have my NEX with me.
Philippe, thanks for the warning and I do appreciate you opinions.
Here's the story:
I looked at a lot of photos made with the ZM25. You recognise that "zeisslook" straight away. Punchy (micro)contrast/colors and depth. The same goes for the contax g 28mm, but I prefer a real focusring.
Switching to photos made with the new 24/1.8 is a dissapointment as they seem to lack that look. Stopped down it seems to be hardly distinguishable from the kit lens (I'm not talking pixel peeping here, but the general look), not so with the ZM25/G28.
Many of the shots I saw were taken with the older NEX-5 and indeed show the purple color cast.
I looked at the full size images and the resolution is still good enough for me in the corners.
So the cast might be the only problem and while annoying,that's correctable with cornerfix.
philber wrote:
Jochen, be careful. I haven't seen a lot of ZM 25 pics on 5N, and the excellent Zeiss paper by H. Nasse spells out why it might not be a marriage made in heaven.
That said, I now have had a ZA 24 for 36 hours, and I have yet to get a shot I like out of it, so I understand your position. Hopefully I can get to the bottom of the matter today with some controlled comparisons.
Really? D*mn
After deciding between a 550D or NEX5N, I switched from a 5D to a 550D 2 months ago.
I decided to go the canon route because of the lack of good native lenses and the sometimes strange behaviour of RF glass on the NEX.
Yes,the canon is smaller, lighter,... but it just OK. I'm not loving it or taking it out more often. (Which was my main goal). After a week of using the 550D, I was back looking at this thread and had high hopes on the 24 (and 50)....
I'll be waiting for the overload of reviews on the 24 and 50. Steve Huff seemed to be excited about them.
After deciding between a 550D or NEX5N, I switched from a 5D to a 550D 2 months ago.
I decided to go the canon route because of the lack of good native lenses and the sometimes strange behaviour of RF glass on the NEX.
Yes,the canon is smaller, lighter,... but it just OK. I'm not loving it or taking it out more often. (Which was my main goal). After a week of using the 550D, I was back looking at this thread and had high hopes on the 24 (and 50)....
I'll be waiting for the overload of reviews on the 24 and 50. Steve Huff seemed to be excited about them. ...Show more →
It's a personal thing Dawud. You might really like the lens , because everyone has different preferences/taste.
philber wrote:
I have had a ZA 24 for 36 hours, and I have yet to get a shot I like out of it, so I understand your position. Hopefully I can get to the bottom of the matter today with some controlled comparisons.
Please post an update, it will be interesting...
I'm not surprised unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have a "unique" factor.
I honestly feel you should start looking for a Leica R 28 ver2.
You seem to like the 60 macro, I'm positive you will absolutely love the 28 ver2.
Very small and one of the most unique and beautiful lenses I've seen.
Sharp wide open, no CA whatsoever, but most of all, the most unique look,
very hard to describe.
Well, talk about humble pie... remember the guy who wrote that he'd sold his soul to Zeiss? I never thought I would find a Zeiss lens that I didn't like. Tried 7 ZE lenses, bought 7. Bought 3 Contax C/Y, and 4 Contax G. I really looked forward to the ZA 24mm f:1.8, which would be the stone that killed 3 birds: my favorite focal length, my fast lens for dark places, my AF lens for "social" occasions.
I did a non-scientific test (3 series of shots) with 5 lenses: kit zoom, ZA 24, C/Y 25, Contax G 28, Leica Elmarit 28mm pre-Asph
The results are the same across the 3 test shots, even though one is a very close up, one a semi-distant building and one stretching to infinty. And I didn't have to do wide open shots to check extreme corners, either.
The ZA is clearly the least good, to my taste, of all except the kit zoom, and closer to the kit zoom than to the 3 alt lenses. If I had to give an equivalent, I once tried a converted Contax N 24-85 plastic zoom, and I thought: nice colours, very pleasant to use, nothing wrong at all with the IQ, but I want more out of a lens than this. The ZA is the same to my eye, except for the nice colours. The fact that it underexposes compared to the others doesn't help. Overall, if I were really cheeky, I would borrow the Sony 30mm macro, which comfortably outperforms the kit zoom, and I am not sure the Zeiss would win the comparison.
After all it isn't exactly cheap, considering it is a prime for "only" APS-C... What can have gone through Zeiss' mind? I am in mourning.
Sounds like the best thing about the 24 1.8 is that we're that much closer to the next new lens coming out (Kind of joking, I wasn't going to buy it anyways.)
philber wrote:
Well, talk about humble pie... remember the guy who wrote that he'd sold his soul to Zeiss? I never thought I would find a Zeiss lens that I didn't like. Tried 7 ZE lenses, bought 7. Bought 3 Contax C/Y, and 4 Contax G. I really looked forward to the ZA 24mm f:1.8, which would be the stone that killed 3 birds: my favorite focal length, my fast lens for dark places, my AF lens for "social" occasions.
I did a non-scientific test (3 series of shots) with 5 lenses: kit zoom, ZA 24, C/Y 25, Contax G 28, Leica Elmarit 28mm pre-Asph
The results are the same across the 3 test shots, even though one is a very close up, one a semi-distant building and one stretching to infinty. And I didn't have to do wide open shots to check extreme corners, either.
The ZA is clearly the least good, to my taste, of all except the kit zoom, and closer to the kit zoom than to the 3 alt lenses. If I had to give an equivalent, I once tried a converted Contax N 24-85 plastic zoom, and I thought: nice colours, very pleasant to use, nothing wrong at all with the IQ, but I want more out of a lens than this. The ZA is the same to my eye, except for the nice colours. The fact that it underexposes compared to the others doesn't help. Overall, if I were really cheeky, I would borrow the Sony 30mm macro, which comfortably outperforms the kit zoom, and I am not sure the Zeiss would win the comparison.
After all it isn't exactly cheap, considering it is a prime for "only" APS-C... What can have gone through Zeiss' mind? I am in mourning....Show more →
Thanks for you thoughts Philippe. For me it confirms what I'm also seeing.
I had the same high hopes for the 24/1.8, for the same reasons.
Can you return it or are you going to keep it anyway?
philber wrote:
The results are the same across the 3 test shots, even though one is a very close up, one a semi-distant building and one stretching to infinty. And I didn't have to do wide open shots to check extreme corners, either.
The ZA is clearly the least good, to my taste, of all except the kit zoom, and closer to the kit zoom than to the 3 alt lenses.
Could you post the shots? You didn't really explain what the problem is... also, did you just bash the Contax N 24-85? What was wrong with it compared to other zooms?
sebboh wrote:
i've always thought this looked interesting, any idea how it compares to the pentax pancake 70/2.4?
Hi Derek,
As far as the Pentax 70, I have had both the 70/2.4 and 77/1.8 for several years and the two lenses rendering is as similar as two different lenses can be. I've decided to get a Pentax to NEX adapter so I can see how the 77 (which has an aperture ring) works as a portrait lens on the NEX. Here's an image from the 77 (but on my K5) taken under similar lighting as the CV 75/2.5 image I posted above. I'll post some 77 shots on my NEX soon after I get my adapter.
these are n5 of course--maybe it's even better now.
(Kind of joking, I wasn't going to buy it anyways.)