Of chief importance is fine detail, as it is the most critical on high resolution sensors. Due to some scaling issue I don\'t know if overlaying Zeiss\' own MTF graphs is a great idea.
The C-Sonnar was designed to be soft, that\'s why I left it out.
I gave the edge to the 25mm Biogon because of the superiority at f/5.6 even though they tied at f/2.8. Zeiss themselves say at f/4.0 it is the highest resolving lens they have ever produced.
Please explain how the consistently slightly higher fine detail of the 35mm Biogon makes it inferior to the 35mm Distagon. I would propose a tie if the 35mm Biogon didn\'t once again smash the 35mm Distagon at f/5.6.
If those other comparisons are a tie then so are the 50/2 comparisons.
35mm ZM = 35mm ZF
50mm ZM = 50mm ZF
85mm ZM = 100mm ZF (I\'ll give you this one cos I\'m a nice guy)
___________________
___1_____|____1____ and 4 ties. Using your rationale and ignoring stopped down results.
What else is of interest is the variation in distortion, with the exception of the 50MP and 100MP the ZM series walks all over the ZF\'s. As someone who shoots a lot of horizons that is the exact reason the 21ZF never appealed to me.
At the end of the day both systems are fantastic and what I\'m trying to accomplish is to debunk your statement that the ZF line is sharper than the ZM\'s, even wide open that isn\'t the case, if anything, as a whole they\'re even, and stopped down the ZM\'s win.
