Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Zeiss Twins (2x Distagon) ... pics added!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

Can you make me a contact on Flickr? I will do as well. Perhaps then it works...


You already are a contact.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
First of all, thanks Carsten for the very nice samples.
Reg. the lenses:

the 35/2
hmmm the chromatic aberration in picture two is really appalling. I mean that is a lot BAD. Not just a tolerable some.
The rest of the images show nice behaviour but hardly something that would convince me to buy this lens if I already had a 35mm Canon or Nikon prime. Let alone convince me to give up my 1.4/35 for this. Because the 2/35 pictures are nice but they completely lack that "sparkle" of the 1.4/35.

the 2/28
it looks much better than the 2/35 in the bokeh department and also in the close focus department. I don't see in these samples the "3D" that my Hollywood can produce, but it might be because of the light conditions. The field curvature is difficult to evaluate from a APS-C camera, but Zeiss itself has admitted that the issue exists, so that is pretty much an established knowledge. What remains to be seen is if this field curvature might be really negative or perhaps even positive for photography. I explain myself better: when shooting macros or reproducing documents, of course you don't want it. But when shooting dimensional subjects (a statue, a person etc), it might even prove to be a plus, if handled correctly.
That would require of course careful testing before saying anything definitive on the subject.

All in all I would say "no" to the 2/35 because such CA is not acceptable in a lens of this price in my opinion.

I would instead consider the 2/28 if I didn't have the Hollywood already.
But since I have the Hollywood, well I don't see the reason to change it, as it doesn't seem to me to lack anything compared to the more modern lens.

-


I am getting worried that Orio's words completely describe the situation.
I personally have 1.4/35 in my possession - I can not imagine better lens in 35 mm with this speed ..
Anyway - the Distagon 2/28 is a different story and it's on my list -- but I must wait a bit -- I suppose that the Glatzel's scheme is not going to be outperformed.

tf


PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:

I am getting worried that Orio's words completely describe the situation.
I personally have 1.4/35 in my possession - I can not imagine better lens in 35 mm with this speed ..
Anyway - the Distagon 2/28 is a different story and it's on my list -- but I must wait a bit -- I suppose that the Glatzel's scheme is not going to be outperformed.
tf


Well, I don't "make the pill golden" (I know it doesnìt make sense in English... but I don't know how to express the same concept in a more correct way) just because it's a Zeiss lens. If I see a bad thing I call it for what it is. I used to have a super shiny, *new* old stock out of the box Tele-Tessar 300, that was a pleasure to see and hold, but I returned it never the less, because the CA sucked.

I'm really sorry to have to say this because I think that the efforts of companies like Zeiss and Cosina-Voigtlaender to produce manual focus lenses in such a massive AF plastic era, really deserves support and gratitude from us who believe in this type of equipment.

Unfortunately, facts are facts. If the image quality is bad, we must call it for what it is.

I am afraid that the stardard of production at Cosina might not be as strict as it used to be at Kyocera. I bought many (really many) japanese made Contax lenses and all of them were great, with the aforementioned exception of the Tele-Tessar 300, but in that case I'd blame the optical scheme (too old for the exactness of digital 21MP cameras) ratherthan the making.

Instead, with these Cosina made lenses, I am under the impression that the QC might not be as severe as it should. Maybe Zeiss is requesting a volume of production that Cosina can not handle without cutting corners.

Carsten it would be interesting if you could ask Zeiss to send a second copy of the 2/35 to verify if what we see is due to a bad copy issue.
Based on what I read on the forums, there is a number of people who returned lenses to Cosina for calibration.
Maybe it is a bad copy what you have.
Which, in any case, would not make me feel safer, because if you got a bad copy for testing, anyone could get a bad copy for money...

P.S. would be interesting to see that 2/28 problematic picture.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
With a little luck, I can test these two lenses on a 5D.
Please, my friends have a little patience for a couple of days.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
P.S. would be interesting to see that 2/28 problematic picture.


Orio, I have to apologize. I was mixing up two pictures.
The picture I meant was also shot with the 2/35. I need to add this in my original text.

Here it is:


And a crop:


Last edited by LucisPictor on Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

Can you make me a contact on Flickr? I will do as well. Perhaps then it works...


You already are a contact.

Sorry, don't have a clue then.

Can you click those?

2/28
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucispictor-photo/4157500533/sizes/l/in/set-72157622933905096/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucispictor-photo/4157500903/sizes/l/in/set-72157622933905096/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucispictor-photo/4158252232/sizes/l/in/set-72157622809377137/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucispictor-photo/4158253644/sizes/l/in/set-72157622809377137/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucispictor-photo/4158253450/sizes/l/in/set-72157622809377137/


2/35
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucispictor-photo/4157485621/sizes/l/in/set-72157622809359689/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucispictor-photo/4158246852/sizes/l/in/set-72157622809359689/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucispictor-photo/4158247066/sizes/l/in/set-72157622809359689/


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

Orio, I have to apologize. I was mixing up two pictures.
The picture I meant was also shot with the 2/35. I need to ad this in my original text.


Ok so we can assume that at least the 2/28 is "clean".
This is some good news.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have told Zeiss about the distinct CAs. Let's see what they return.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

Can you make me a contact on Flickr? I will do as well. Perhaps then it works...


You already are a contact.

Sorry, don't have a clue then.

Can you click those?

2/28
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucispictor-photo/4157500533/sizes/l/in/set-72157622933905096/


This page is private.

Oops! You don't have permission to view this page.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Chris, I can open this page.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
here is a test of the ZE 35 with many 100% crops, user is impressed by lack of CA and super sharpness wide open
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=786705


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChrisLilley wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
ChrisLilley wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

Can you make me a contact on Flickr? I will do as well. Perhaps then it works...


You already are a contact.

Sorry, don't have a clue then.

Can you click those?

2/28
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucispictor-photo/4157500533/sizes/l/in/set-72157622933905096/


This page is private.

Oops! You don't have permission to view this page.


Can you please try again, Chris?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
here is a test of the ZE 35 with many 100% crops, user is impressed by lack of CA and super sharpness wide open
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=786705


So it seems that Zeiss has sent me a lemon. Confused
I will wait and see what they answer...


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
poilu wrote:
here is a test of the ZE 35 with many 100% crops, user is impressed by lack of CA and super sharpness wide open
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=786705


So it seems that Zeiss has sent me a lemon. Confused
I will wait and see what they answer...


I tend to agree with the above statement, since my 35ZF (not ZE) does not
show CA easily (I am not using Nikkon's NX2 which fixes CA somehow).

My Proof (pick ZFs) >> http://www.pbase.com/kkawakami/mylens_carlzeiss_new

OT: Among my ZFs, the most impressive lens is 28/2ZF to me. It has
not flat field, but the rest is superb.

I cannot join with you guys too much, am sick in my son's house in Calgary. I feinted and
fall on my head, so massive blood clot still in my head and cannot focus the both eyes
at the same time. To see the things properly I have to tilt my head 15 degree right. Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Koji wrote:
I feinted and fall on my head, so massive blood clot still in my head

sorry to learn that Crying or Very sad I wish you get fixed promptly


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wish all my best Koji to getting better soon.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All my best wishes, Koji !!
Please keep us informed !

Reg. the lens, Carsten you might have a "part-dog" lens but I have a hard time believeing that good exemplars are without CA. Lloyd Chambers' review clearly shows the CA in the images, although not as strong or bad as yours.
So I'm afraid that CA probably belongs to the lens - only maybe some exemplars have more of it than others due to questionable quality control.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
koji wrote:

I cannot join with you guys too much, am sick in my son's house in Calgary. I feinted and
fall on my head, so massive blood clot still in my head and cannot focus the both eyes
at the same time. To see the things properly I have to tilt my head 15 degree right. Very Happy

I'm sorry to hear that, Koji. Get well soon!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Focusing on the positive side of things, it looks like the new 2/28 can for once live up to the expectation of the previous "Hollywood" users - or otherwise said, be a viable alternative for those who can't find a used Hollywood.

All the reviews I read are very positive about this new lens, except for the field curvature factor - which however is a big problem only for macro and repro works (things which are not in the goal of this type of lens anyway), while for normal range and use (landscapes, ambiented portraits) it can be kept under control and maybe sometimes even used for an advantage - as long as the user is aware of it and know how to handle it.

About the 35mm lens, maybe those rumours about a revamped 1.4/35 could be true after all... perhaps Zeiss is aware of the problematic performance of the2/35 and wants to resort to an optical scheme that is a tried and true performer, although based on other rumours Glatzel's original 1.4/35 Distagon would be a very difficult lens to produce industrially (and this might be the reason why Zeiss chosen to make a brand new 2/35 instead of going for the remake of the 1.4/35 in the first place...)


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I contacted Lloyd Chambers (I am a subscriber of his Z lens reviews) about the CA in the 2/35, and he confirms that:

Quote:
There are at several kinds of chromatic errors, and the appearance can vary by sensor design, aperture, focus distance, whether in or out of focus, and contrast.


However he also states this:

Quote:
I don't know of a superior 35mm lens.


So his judgement on the lens remains positive, as evidently he thinks that the strenghts of the lens are sufficient to make it "top of the list".

Well, in my opinion the Contax 1.4/35 seems better, and also the Elmarit-R 35 seems better. But I am not a scientific reviewer, I am only an amateur photographer.

I also have no experience with contemporary AF 35mm lenses, so I can't make any comparison with them.

For those who may be interested in buying the 2/35 (or any other Z lens) I suggest to subscribe to Lloyd Chambers reviews. There is a money fee to pay, but the reviews are full of samples and very descriptive. He also updates the reviews with good frequency.

Damn I wish I could afford to get these Z lenses and compare them with my Contax lenses on the 5D Mark II. A head to head of the Contax 2/35 and 1.4/35 would be very interesting IMO. Comparing head to head Glatzel's Hollywood with the new Z 2/28 would be also cool.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
poilu wrote:
here is a test of the ZE 35 with many 100% crops, user is impressed by lack of CA and super sharpness wide open
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=786705


So it seems that Zeiss has sent me a lemon. Confused
I will wait and see what they answer...


I got the first reaction. They say that it shouldn't have these distinct CAs and asked me to send them some test shots (in comparison with the 28mm) which I will do tomorrow.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I read carefuly all your comments about contax glass and I have decided to buy the 35 ze.

35 ze will be my entrance to the beautiful world of modern Zeiss.

The problem is that in USA, there is no stock available.[adorama - b&h] Sad Sad

Friends of mine will visit USA and the cost will be only 600 euros for that diamond, if the item could be delivered in time. Rolling Eyes

By the way....customer reviews for the Nikon mount one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=472572&is=REG&si=rev#anchorToReadReviews


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have shot some very mean shots to see how the two lenses behave in real life situations on a fullframe cam:

Distagon 28 @f/2.0


Distagon 28 @f/5.6


Distagon 35 @f/2.0


Distagon 35 @f/5.6


Of course that's not really fair, because focus was on that wall in the center of the picture. So, you of course get a DoF effect at the edge.

But vignetting cannot be talked away.

What I find very nice, is the 3D effect in the f/2.0 pictures.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Carsten, will you post central and corner crops from these images?

More than by the vignetting, I am concerned about the optical quality of the image in the corners wide open. At this enlargement, it seems to be critical wide open, for both lenses.
OK it isn't perfect for the Contax lenses either, but not so problematic.

One nice additional test that you could make is to place yourself parallel to a wall or fence so that all that is inside the frame is approcimately at the same focal distance. Then shoot a series of shots at all apertures. This will let us see about field curvature and about corner performance as well.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Carsten, will you post central and corner crops from these images?


That wouldn't make any sense with these pictures, because the edges are out of focus wide open.

The other ideas are good. I think I will shoot a little in our guest bathroom. Wink

There's not much time left, I have to send the lenses back tomorrow morning, I'm afraid. Sad
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3