Let's be clear that we are not mixing up the Contax 25mm and the ZF 25mm. The ZF 25mm is much improved over the Contax 25mm, particularly in of sharpenss -- wide open sharpness and corner/edge sharpness. The ZF 25mm is, in fact, a lovely lens and a real bargain in the ZF line-up. I know that diglloyd found some CA in the corners, but I've never found CA to be an issue with my copy of the ZF 25mm. I has a wonderful rendering style with great color. Color and rendering, if should be said, was the strong point of the Contax 25mm. Users of the Contax 25mm did care too much about corner sharpness becuase it really had a lovely look.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Let's be clear that we are not mixing up the Contax 25mm and the ZF 25mm. The ZF 25mm is much improved over the Contax 25mm, particularly in of sharpenss -- wide open sharpness and corner/edge sharpness. The ZF 25mm is, in fact, a lovely lens and a real bargain in the ZF line-up. I know that diglloyd found some CA in the corners, but I've never found CA to be an issue with my copy of the ZF 25mm
I for one will wait it out for the upcoming ZF.2 25/2 that reportedly deals with the extreme field curvature, lack of CRC and CA of the Z* 25/2.8.
j.liam wrote:
I for one will wait it out for the upcoming ZF.2 25/2 that reportedly deals with the extreme field curvature, lack of CRC and CA of the Z* 25/2.8.
You say, "reportedly". Where is this report and where does it come from?
While, it would make sense to address these issues, none of them are serious or "extreme" problems with the actual use of the lens. A redesign along these lines would certainly increase the cost by at least 50%, bringing it into the price range of the 21/2.8 (and I wonder if it will also have the less desirable distortion characteristics of the 21/2.8) Now, an argument can be made (and I have made it before) that Zeiss mis-read its potential market with its initial ZF line of lenses. Rather than modest updates of existing more-traditional lenses (50/1.4 and 85/1.4 at reasonable prices, the market really wanted exceptional lenses and were willing to pay for them (21/2.8, 100/2). Perhaps the initial 25/2.8 was a an optimal compromise to meet a modest price point -- and it is quite successful at meeting that description (it produces lovely images no matter how it is used, whether or not it is technically perfect). Zeiss has figured out it can effectively charge quite a bit more so the 25/2.8 regardless of how successful it is at meeting its design goals, and despite that it sells briskly, a re-design to justify selling the lens at a much higher price point. So along with a 35/1.4 (which will sell for much more than the existing exceptional, but modest, 35/2) we are getting a higher-priced, higher spec lens. This is the lens that Zeiss should have initially made, but that should take anything away from the first ZF 25/2.8. When the "new" ZF 25/2.8 (if that is what it will be -- they would be smarter to produce a class-leading 25/1.4, IMHO) comes out, the "old" ZF 25/2.8 will do brisk second hand business. With the new one selling for $1600+, the old one that is only slightly less good, will sell all day long at $700-800 and, as they are now, its many owners will be very happy with the images it produces and happy that they saved $800.
You neatly put both sides of the case, Lotusm50 ,thanks.
Both points of view are correct too. CZ can open new markets for themselves with a focus on competitively priced lenses that offer excellent value for money for Canikon while not neglecting their high end offerings. There is room for both the 21mm Distagon/ 100MP type of lens and the other lenses they *should* be making for the burgeoning APS-C market, as we have discussed previously.
They made a poor fist of the only ZA Sony lens for APS-C, the costly and underwhelming 16-80mm. And in this case I agree about a fast 24mm, due to the recent entries by Canikon at elevated price points.
The Hollywood is well liked by some, but fails to impress with its MTF chart, especially at f2, another reason to get the 28/2.8. Gotta be suspicious of that name also.
helimat wrote:
One more question, how does the Hollywood version of the C/Y 28mm compare to the f/2.8 version, besides being faster? Were there compromises in IQ made in order to get to f/2?
Having had the 28/2AE and 28/2.8MM at the same time I found the Hollywood to be better in every regard. Wide open it has some loss of contrast but at every comparable f-stop it's marginally better. Besides the extra half stop the main advantage is when focusing at close objects. Even when focusing at infinity the objects close to the lens are sharper than the 2.8. And if you use it for video it's pretty remarkable too. Of course this could all be attribute to variation in copies too though.
Now to put a purely speculative spin on the ZF 25mm issue. Zeiss could very well be preparing a ZF 25/1.4. If you remember it was long rumoured that Sony would be producing a Zeiss 24mm f1.4 lens. However, Sony (apparently) backed down from that specification and developed the more modest 24mm f2.0. What happened to Zeiss' prospective 24/1.4 design? Merely floating around Oberkochen looking for a home? Now, a few months before Sony went public with the excitement stifling announcement of the ZA 24/2.0 instead of the widely anticipated 24/1.4, Zeiss announced that they were "completely reworking and optimizing" the ZF 25/2.8. Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not. ;-)
I believe that that is what they are doing. They already have 2 50mm Z*, the "twin" 85 and 100MP, the existing 35mm will continue alongside the newer and more expensive f:1.4. So it stands to reason that the expensive and superlative 21 would be "twinned" with a cheaper 25, as it already is on the wider side with the cheaper 18. That would give a cheaper range of 18-25-35-50-85, and a more expensive one of 21-35-50-100. Of course this theory leaves the 28 in limbo...
Lotusm50 wrote:
While, it would make sense to address these issues, none of them are serious or "extreme" problems with the actual use of the lens.
I only had the ZF 25/2.8 for a short while, but I would consider the field curvature to be extreme for real close-ups (close to MFD). It can be used creatively, but it can also be very distracting with some subjects. Everything outside the center gets progressively smeared. This is what I see with my Contax 28/2.8 too. CRC would be nice to have.
@ersatz: Did your Hollywood display the same blue fringing as the Z* does?
I like John Black's (pebbleplace.com) review of the Hollywood and ZE 28/2. The ZE seems to be an improvement in most regards (except the CA perhaps?).
Lotusm50 wrote:
Now to put a purely speculative spin on the ZF 25mm issue. Zeiss could very well be preparing a ZF 25/1.4. If you remember it was long rumoured that Sony would be producing a Zeiss 24mm f1.4 lens. However, Sony (apparently) backed down from that specification and developed the more modest 24mm f2.0. What happened to Zeiss' prospective 24/1.4 design? Merely floating around Oberkochen looking for a home? Now, a few months before Sony went public with the excitement stifling announcement of the ZA 24/2.0 instead of the widely anticipated 24/1.4, Zeiss announced that they were "completely reworking and optimizing" the ZF 25/2.8. Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not. ;-)
...Show more →
Interesting perspective. One would also hope that any new 25 (f/2 or 1.4) would in fact reflect that FL instead of the 25.8 of the latest Z*. The difference in FOV between that and the 28 isn't dramatic enough to warrant the extra expense unless it were a faster f/1.4.
j.liam wrote:
Interesting perspective. One would also hope that any new 25 (f/2 or 1.4) would in fact reflect that FL instead of the 25.8 of the latest Z*. The difference in FOV between that and the 28 isn't dramatic enough to warrant the extra expense unless it were a faster f/1.4.
According to Zeiss, the difference is 2.8 mm. Still not dramatic, but close enough to the 3-mm difference between the nominal focal lengths.
I never considered the Contax 2.8/25, will never consider the Z* 2.8/25, but the oncoming Z* 25 will be tempting.
Toothwalker wrote:
According to Zeiss, the difference is 2.8 mm. Still not dramatic, but close enough to the 3-mm difference between the nominal focal lengths.
I never considered the Contax 2.8/25, will never consider the Z* 2.8/25, but the oncoming Z* 25 will be tempting.
Actually, 2.2 mm difference. Even less meaningful.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Now to put a purely speculative spin on the ZF 25mm issue. Zeiss could very well be preparing a ZF 25/1.4. If you remember it was long rumoured that Sony would be producing a Zeiss 24mm f1.4 lens. However, Sony (apparently) backed down from that specification and developed the more modest 24mm f2.0. What happened to Zeiss' prospective 24/1.4 design? Merely floating around Oberkochen looking for a home? Now, a few months before Sony went public with the excitement stifling announcement of the ZA 24/2.0 instead of the widely anticipated 24/1.4, Zeiss announced that they were "completely reworking and optimizing" the ZF 25/2.8. Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not. ;-)
Well, my memory is not great but I never recall that a Sony Zeiss ZA 24/25 1.4 was a given and widely expected. Seems like between everyone that was eagerly anticipating the wide angle Zeiss AF for Sony, half of us wanted a smaller, better performing F2 (which I believe we got though it's really not that small!) while many others dreamed of the 1.4. So, it may be that the 24 1.4 AF Zeiss for sony was never even developed and is the product of wishful hoping. Given the size of the Sony ZA 24 2, I can only imagine how huge a 1.4 version with similar performance by F2 would be, not to mention it would have to sell for at least 3K for such performance (my guess given the Zeiss tax and extremely small market). I think Sony made the right decision here myself.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Well, my memory is not great but I never recall that a Sony Zeiss ZA 24/25 1.4 was a given and widely expected. Seems like between everyone that was eagerly anticipating the wide angle Zeiss AF for Sony, half of us wanted a smaller, better performing F2 (which I believe we got though it's really not that small!) while many others dreamed of the 1.4. So, it may be that the 24 1.4 AF Zeiss for sony was never even developed and is the product of wishful hoping. Given the size of the Sony ZA 24 2, I can only imagine how huge a 1.4 version with similar performance by F2 would be, not to mention it would have to sell for at least 3K for such performance (my guess given the Zeiss tax and extremely small market). I think Sony made the right decision here myself....Show more →
In size matters, you can have a look at the Canon 24/1.4 both FD and EF to see how big such a fast wide lens can get. I am not that curious of this promised Zeiss prime since it will be out of my financial reach anyway.
....ooohhhh!....now a Zeiss 25/1.4 would be of interest!
One option for sure for the photographer that doesn't mind fully manual lens operation - the used Zeiss ZF's is a buyers market and a real bargain - new - presumably newer coatings - great build - and IQ as good or slightly better that the Contax counterpart - Nikonians have their favored barrel spin direction - can easily be used on Nikon or Canon.
However I'm still and may always be a fan of the Contax Classic line-up.
With the Nikkor 24/1.4 (a superb hunk of glass by all accounts, its AF issues notwithstanding) selling for US$2000, a Z* 25/1.4 selling for >3K, at the threshold of Leica prices, better be damned magical to draw enough buyers.
slungu wrote:
In size matters, you can have a look at the Canon 24/1.4 both FD and EF to see how big such a fast wide lens can get. I am not that curious of this promised Zeiss prime since it will be out of my financial reach anyway.
The Zeiss would hopefully not have the optical/performance compromises of the Canon so would need to be much larger/heavier. Heck, just look at the size/ weight of the current Sony Zeiss ZA 24 F2 compared to the Canon and Nikon 24 1.4's and then imagine the ZA being 1.4. It would be extremely huge and heavy. It's not a small thing to go from F2 to 1.4 and retain the same optical quality of the slower lens without incurring either exponential gains in cost/ size / weight OR making compromises. It looks like Nikon did a fairly decent job of this.
AhamB wrote:
I only had the ZF 25/2.8 for a short while, but I would consider the field curvature to be extreme for real close-ups (close to MFD). It can be used creatively,
But that was actually Zeiss' intention. Zeiss explicitly suggested using the close focus ability of the ZF 25/2.8 for "artistic" purposes. The intention was not to create a flat field, technical, wide angle macro lens (which would be exceptionally expensive) but one that would give unique, attractive imaging up close that can be used creatively. Used in this way, the lens really does not disappoint. Most of my use of the ZF 25 is in this capacity.
AhamB wrote:
but it can also be very distracting with some subjects. Everything outside the center gets progressively smeared. This is what I see with my Contax 28/2.8 too. CRC would be nice to have.
The key words in your statement, "with some subjects". Not all lenses are appropriate for all situations. Don't photograph a brick wall up close with the ZF 25! However, a field of flowers up close, even using the lens wide open, will give you elements of detail and sharpness all the way to the edges and corners. Anticipate where it will be sharp and manipulate it as a creative element. "CRC" (I assume you mean "close range correction"), might be nice but unless you're doing copy work isn't really necessary with this lens (it is still sharp), and would have increased the cost of the lens by 50-100% (and could have introduced other issues). It's also not clear to me why anyone would want to photograph a flat subject with a wide angle close-focus lens (the very rare instance, perhaps, when you couldn't back up further to use a 50mm macro?). As I suggested earlier, Zeiss probably didn't feel they had a market for a heavily corrected lens like that. Instead, they gave us a modestly priced, gem of lens with lovely rendition and a creative close focus capability thrown in as a bonus.
slungu wrote:
In size matters, you can have a look at the Canon 24/1.4 both FD and EF to see how big such a fast wide lens can get. I am not that curious of this promised Zeiss prime since it will be out of my financial reach anyway.
I think Zeiss' original market assessment for the ZF is consistent with your thought, and produced as set of lenses, like the 25/2.8 with an optimal and sometimes interesting set of imaging characterisitcs and specifications at reasonable cost. The market has since shown them that they underestimated what they could charge and what the market wanted to see from the company.
