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.
Jan 08, 2011 at 10:49 AM
Previous versions of Lotusm50's message #9199014 « Contax 25mm vs 28mm »
