Herb, the CV 21 is pretty good on the 5N. It has a little color shift at the edges but not nearly as bad as it did on the 5. For technical things, using it at 5.6 or 8 is probably best. In casual use I have no problem using it "wide open" at f4 It never does get critically sharp at the edges. For that, in a similar focal length, the ZM 18 looks like the ticket and of course comes with the Zeiss micro contrast but at the expense of size, weight, and quite a bit more money....Show more →
Jacob, thank you for your information and the very nice images of the CV21.
Herb
philber wrote:
So now that the 24 has written itself off, I need to rethink my lineup.As I was thinking of geeting a Summicron R 35 to plug that gap, maybe I need to switch things around, get a Leica 24 R and a ZM 35 f:2.0, which Luka (denoir) says is superb.
incidently, the leica R 24 is a rebadged rokkor, so if you go that route you might want to just buy the rokkor version and save a few hundred $$$. also, while i love the lens i suspect it may not be your cup of tea - less biting contrast, weaker corners, and probably more CA than your leica R 60 macro.
Thanks Philber for conducting the test and sharing with us the information.
What you found is what you found. And very interesting.
I have planned a little test for tomorrow, comparing the Zeiss ZM Biogon 25mm f/2.8
and the Sony Zeiss 24mm f/1.8.
It will probably be my first post on my new blog but I will share it here with you guys as well.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Man, the kit zoom does a great job.
Damn, it's better than Zeiss 24! It actually has a bit more contrast and same or less CA.
Quite unbelievable. I guess if you are not shooting wide open, the Zeiss doesn't
bring you anything. What's really sad, it's hard to tell a free kit zoom from
an expensive prime Zeiss lens.
I think honestly because of the lack of an obvious 24mm choice, you should go
ZM18, something 21 and then 28. Your Contax 28 is great and if you can live
with the focussing, you're set. Try to pick the best 21 for you, either CV or ZM (or ZF/ZK).
snowboarder wrote:
Damn, it's better than Zeiss 24! It actually has a bit more contrast and same or less CA.
Quite unbelievable. I guess if you are not shooting wide open, the Zeiss doesn't
bring you anything. What's really sad, it's hard to tell a free kit zoom from
an expensive prime Zeiss lens.
I think honestly because of the lack of an obvious 24mm choice, you should go
ZM18, something 21 and then 28. Your Contax 28 is great and if you can live
with the focussing, you're set. Try to pick the best 21 for you, either CV or ZM (or ZF/ZK).
Please guys take care. The Zeiss ZM 21 is a very fine lens but not on the Nex 5n.
In this combination this lens is only useable at f/8, but for the rest it remains a very poor performer with very weak corners.
Herb
Philippe, I like that disclaimer... Thank you for the comparison!
Snowboarder, to my eyes the kit is not better than the Zeiss. From other comparisons I have seen it can, sometimes, be as good but then it is worse in all other cases. Here is, for example, a totally un-scientific comparison by a DPR forum poster which despite everything still tells us something: Click.
Yes, I'm also a bit disappointed by the Zeiss E-mount 24/1.8.
I ran some more tests with another copy today of the ZA, a 24 Elmar ASPH, my Contax G 28 and 45, a Leica 35 f:2.5 and the kit zoom. More of the same, so it is not a bad copy. Also, for those who asked, I shot f:5.6 all the time, which I thought was the sweet spot for most lenses.
Andrew, CV or ZM 21 won't work so well on 5N and even less so on NEX 7. Dr Nasse's paper avaiable on Zeiss' site explains that symmetrical design, like Biogon will be tricky. The ZM 18 is a Distagon, because of a part-symmetrical only design, which explains why it works so well.
BTW, this latest Leica Elmar 24 is a gem. I may spring for it, as it is my favorite FL, and spending for the Summilux 24 sounds really stupid for "only" one lens out of some 6 on "only" my secondary camera...
philber wrote:
Am I being just a tiny bit defensive here? :-))))
Yes,but perfectly understandable these days around here... (8-)
Looking at this pictures I get a feeling that properly sharpened and PPed, we would have a VERY hard time telling apart prints made with them...
Tomorrow I will get a 5n, and intend to make a few comparison prints using the kit lens and some Contax C/Y I have, the 28,50 and 85, let's see what I'll get...
philber wrote:
(...)
Also, for those who asked, I shot f:5.6 all the time, which I thought was the sweet spot for most lenses.
Yes it is, and it is very much like "f/8 and be there" for a FF camera. ...for us it means there will be very little difference between the lenses. Then, of course, the actually existing differences will be important for some while insignificant, I guess, for most users.
I'm right now trying to evaluate a handful of 35mm lenses and checking the f/5.6 images doesn't give a lot of information.
vallejo wrote:
Yes,but perfectly understandable these days around here... (8-)
Looking at this pictures I get a feeling that properly sharpened and PPed, we would have a VERY hard time telling apart prints made with them...
Tomorrow I will get a 5n, and intend to make a few comparison prints using the kit lens and some Contax C/Y I have, the 28,50 and 85, let's see what I'll get...
+1 I have to say from this particular test, my conclusion isn't that the CZ 24/1.8 has done poorly, but that the kit lens has done quite well against 3 much more highly regarded lenses (Philippe, as you mentioned, the kit may not fare as well in other shots). As far as these 4 photos go, I see very little to separate them.
philber wrote:
BTW, this latest Leica Elmar 24 is a gem. I may spring for it, as it is my favorite FL, and spending for the Summilux 24 sounds really stupid for "only" one lens out of some 6 on "only" my secondary camera...
Philippe, thanks for the comparison. The Elmar 24 is stopped down to f/5.6 in my opinion the best wide angle lens available. Sharpness and contrast is for example clearly better compared to the Summicron 28mm. On my Nex5 the corner sharpness was also better compared to the Zeiss 25ZM. Since this difference was not visible on the M9 this probably means that the 24 Elmar is a more telecentric design, which should also be helpful on the 5N and 7.
And you can get this lens used for good prices (compared to other Leica lenses). Some recent auctions on Ebay ended at 1300€-1500€ for a NM lens with warranty. The only other Leica wide angle lens that is in the same league is the new Super-Elmar 21mm, but if you prefer the 24mm focal length, the Elmar 24 is highly recommended.
It never does get critically sharp at the edges. For that, in a similar focal length, the ZM 18 looks like the ticket and of course comes with the Zeiss micro contrast but at the expense of size, weight, and quite a
Thank you for the comparison!
