irrelevant if it doesn't offer enough DOF. i don't think i have ever taken a shot with either lens at f5.6 or wider. my 21 isn't as sharp as my 25 at the apertures and distances that matter to me and the few who post 100% crops on high resolution bodies of their shots with both under the same conditions i use only confirm what i see. i do almost all my landscape work with my D3X and the difference is there and consistently in favor of the 25 for absolute sharpness across the field.
Herb...
Z250SA wrote:
Herb, from what Iīve seen around, the opimal f/īs for the 21, as well as for several other Z* lenses are not the old landscape school f/8-16 but rather almost wide open to f/5.6 or f/6.3 at the most.
HerbChong wrote:
irrelevant if it doesn't offer enough DOF. i don't think i have ever taken a shot with either lens at f5.6 or wider. my 21 isn't as sharp as my 25 at the apertures and distances that matter to me and the few who post 100% crops on high resolution bodies of their shots with both under the same conditions i use only confirm what i see. i do almost all my landscape work with my D3X and the difference is there and consistently in favor of the 25 for absolute sharpness across the field.
Herb...
It would be very interesting to see unambiguous examples of that. Please do not use hyperfocal methods for these examples as the validity would then always be questioned.
what is the use of controlled test conditions that don't replicate how i need to use the lenses in the field? i don't doubt the MTF charts are true but if they aren't measured under any conditions that matter to me, they aren't all that useful. my landscape work almost always requires me to shoot at f11 with f8 only under extraordinary conditions. i always post process with sharpening tools that take into account diffraction. any other measurement conditions are pointless. my sharpening technique shows that the 21 requires slightly more sharpening to reach 10% overshoot on high contrast edges. this is one technique for measuring lens resolution. the more sharpening needed, the less sharp the lens. the 21 needs slightly more than the 25 when shot the way i need to.
Herb...
alundeb wrote:
It would be very interesting to see unambiguous examples of that. Please do not use hyperfocal methods for these examples as the validity would then always be questioned.
HerbChong wrote:
what is the use of controlled test conditions that don't replicate how i need to use the lenses in the field? i don't doubt the MTF charts are true but if they aren't measured under any conditions that matter to me, they aren't all that useful. my landscape work almost always requires me to shoot at f11 with f8 only under extraordinary conditions. i always post process with sharpening tools that take into account diffraction. any other measurement conditions are pointless. my sharpening technique shows that the 21 requires slightly more sharpening to reach 10% overshoot on high contrast edges. this is one technique for measuring lens resolution. the more sharpening needed, the less sharp the lens. the 21 needs slightly more than the 25 when shot the way i need to.
And you didn't answer the one thing I questioned. Using hyperfocal settings on the lens scale is not the best way to get optimum focus field in any controlled test or practical situation.
AhamB wrote
I like the close-ups that I have seen from the Z*21 more than those from the 25, btw.
I haven't seen that many of the 21 (any links at hand?)
The 25 has limitations for that use. Most things I tried more or less failed, here is an example:
@f2,8 some weird distortions
The Zeiss 21 is - for such a wide lens -fantastic for close ups and has great sharpness even wide open. It even has - again for such a wide lens - an astonishingly smooth bokeh.
Three examples I have by hand, all wide open, first two with the ZE-version, last one with the C/Y-version:
Cyra, these are typical examples of the swirly bokeh when you use the 25 near MFD. it doesn't go away when stopped down. I believe this must be the reason why Zeiss wants to redesign this lens, not the long distance performance, which is already outstanding.
if you don't think that the distance scale markings have any relationship to actual distance, i can't help you. as i said before, i set the lens to hyperfocal for f8 but actually shoot at f11 or f13. has it occured to you that maybe i have run the tests and know what distance settings to use for my D3x for different apertures? i don't care what the tests say if they don't match up with my thousands of images experience nor match up with my shooting conditions.
Herb...
alundeb wrote:
And you didn't answer the one thing I questioned. Using hyperfocal settings on the lens scale is not the best way to get optimum focus field in any controlled test or practical situation.
HerbChong wrote:
if you don't think that the distance scale markings have any relationship to actual distance, i can't help you. as i said before, i set the lens to hyperfocal for f8 but actually shoot at f11 or f13. has it occured to you that maybe i have run the tests and know what distance settings to use for my D3x for different apertures? i don't care what the tests say if they don't match up with my thousands of images experience nor match up with my shooting conditions.
Herb...
Using the f/8 hyperfocal setting on my ZE 21 and shooting at f/11would definitely not get me the optimal sharpness across the field for the range of subject distances representative in your ZF 25 examples.
HerbChong wrote:
irrelevant if it doesn't offer enough DOF. i don't think i have ever taken a shot with either lens at f5.6 or wider.
Not trying to start anything here, just wondering, how can you know if you havenīt tried even once? From my own point of view, how have you been able to avoid even one single test? Could you please show what kind of landscape images you are doing as you apparently need very large DOF.
By using the f/8 mark when shooting at f/11 is the best way to correct for too sloppy a CoC.
thank you Ulf. The first two are really working well, but the setup is much easier due to large object-background distance.
the last one is better comparable to my marguerittes, which are admittedly a bad setup for any lens, because there is no single focus plane.
I agree on the nice blur! Especially in the last one the transition from sharp to blurred areas is really good!
I need to do some more experimenting with the 25 though. From what I found out so far, it is better not to go right up to MFD (which is about 6 cm from the front lens!), since the DOF there is just to thin and overall sharpness very bad. I need to do another test run with a bit further away and maybe using f 3,2 or 4 and keeping the background further away or keep it a smooth surface like wood. A rose would be a better test object than those marguerittes for a lens with field curvature.
I'd love it if anyone could show some images shot with the 28. Apparently this is even sharper than either 25 or 21 across the frame. It also focusses rather close. Does anyone have a sample up real close? Is it any good for landscape and nature, or is it rather confined to it's primary use reportage and street?
Philber has some images of the 28, in the Z* thread I think. Nice closeup with the 21, btw, Philippe.
I have not seen a trace of the distorted focus transition in any of the 21 closeups I've seen so far (I think I would have noticed). I have seen it display field curvature though, which can spoil images a bit sometimes.
cyra wrote:
the 28. Apparently this is even sharper than either 25 or 21 across the frame.
I would not stretch the sharpness judgement further than "a few (1?) do say that the 25 (his) is sharper than the (his) 21". From my own images (21, 25 and 35) I would give the sharpness gold medal to the 21. But sharpness has several aspects, and anyone has an eyesight, definition and opinion of his own. Both the 25 and 35 do draw an increadibly sharp image. But at least to my eyes the 21mm images contain the most detail, corner to corner. All do have some slight sharpness issues in the outermost parts of their corners. They are no 100 Z*īs or 40mm Distagon IFīs.
thanks Herb for the pictures. A bit hard to judge on a small web-immage though. But I can see what you mean.
HerbChong wrote:
if you don't think that the distance scale markings have any relationship to actual distance, i can't help you. as i said before, i set the lens to hyperfocal for f8 but actually shoot at f11 or f13. has it occured to you that maybe i have run the tests and know what distance settings to use for my D3x for different apertures?
Herb, your use of the f8 setting for f11 and more is a very helpful method if things need to be quick and you don't want to fidle around with live view control. I found the same thing to be true, as I have elaborated earlier ("dont focus to close"). With the f8 setting your focus is actually a tad further away as with the f 11 setting, so you don't run into unsharp infinity because of to close focusing. I will try your method next time I am out, thanks for sharing it. I appreciate it since I was looking for some kind of fool proof setting, which started off this whole discussion on that issue.
alundeb wrote:
Using the f/8 hyperfocal setting on my ZE 21 and shooting at f/11would definitely not get me the optimal sharpness across the field for the range of subject distances representative in your ZF 25 examples.
it's a different lens. I am sure there will be a setting that works the same. Just a different one
I think this discussion should focus on in what way those lenses are different, and how to use them to their best effect.
I and other 25 users just learned something from Herb, and I am sure we can learn some on how to best use the 21 as well.
thanks for the close up with 21, Phillipe. I wouldn't close it down to 5,6 for that kind of thing, since the background is to strong in my opinion. You said I just have to ask, so if I can order things here, please try again at 2,8 to 4,0 . And the same with the 28 at 2,0 to 2,8 please and a landscape shot with the 28 closed down to be sharp across the frame with minimum apperture needed for this. And some wide open at HFD or adapted HFD, preferably some real nice setting on the Lofoten. I will wait patiently
Strong vignetting, loss of contrast and field curvature make it quite unusable for long focus distances though. I need to stop it down to f/8 to get corner to corner sharpness for landscape use (on my 5D). The ZF25 definitely is a lot better at f/2.8.
i knew this would be asked. why try something i am not interested in? if i am going to be shooting shallow DOF, i am not going to be using a wide lens. i would be using my 50/2, 85/1.4, or 100/2. that's what i have done in the past and what i will do in the future. as for choosing to use a certain DOF scale as marked on a lens vs what i actually shoot at, what else did you think it meant? i worked out a COC that represents my actual usable diffraction-corrected resolution for objects at infinity and it turns out to more or less matching shooting with the f8 range marks instead of the actual f11 markings. is this rocket science? no.
Herb...
Z250SA wrote:
Not trying to start anything here, just wondering, how can you know if you havenīt tried even once? From my own point of view, how have you been able to avoid even one single test? Could you please show what kind of landscape images you are doing as you apparently need very large DOF.
By using the f/8 mark when shooting at f/11 is the best way to correct for too sloppy a CoC.
cyra wrote:
it's a different lens. I am sure there will be a setting that works the same. Just a different one
No, there is not one setting that works for all those distances, even if the f8 setting works for some of them. Just as with the 25.
I think this discussion should focus on in what way those lenses are different, and how to use them to their best effect.
Exactly. Lenses with field curvature used for maximized DoF need tuning of focus and aperture in each case to get the best results. Is it rocket science? No.
all those distances for traditional landscapes, which is almost all that i use the 25 and 21 for, means shooting at one aperture and including infinity. for 80% of my shooting with these lenses, there might as well not be an aperture or focus ring. telling me how deficient or superior these lenses are at other settings doesn't matter to me very much. at the distances and settings i use, the 25 is sharper across the field than the 21. it is repeatably so in a couple of thousand shots with the 25 and a few hundred with the 21. i have always qualified the conditions where this is true and i haven't yet seen concrete evidence from anyone to the contrary under the same conditions. the difference isn't large but it is there and is pretty easy to quantify with tools built into Photoshop. we're talking about a 5% difference in resolution in favor of the 25 when comparing images captured on my D3x.
Herb...
alundeb wrote:
No, there is not one setting that works for all those distances, even if the f8 setting works for some of them. Just as with the 25.
. And the same with the 28 at 2,0 to 2,8 please