B&H has ZE 50/2 in stock

Question for Wim

Shooting wide angle wide open ... What scenario is this necessary for you? When I shoot my 21 I pretty much always stop down because I am using a tripod and want optimal IQ across the frame which is rarely found wide open.

wimg wrote in post #9228072
Yep, indoors, but also outdoors.

Well, for me it depends on how serious it is and at what apertures. I like to shoot a fast lens in low light, and heavy vignetting is a no-no to me in that case, not because it isn't incorrigible in PP, but because you loose a fair amount of DR too, when you don't have a lot to start off with. Generally, strong optical vignetting is an indication, to some degree, of sharpness as well. Compare attached pictures.

Yes iv understood that your not a big fan of vignetting, again your statement that the 50L dosent suffer from any is ludicrous.

wimg wrote in post #9228072
I didn't want to put the story up another time, what is documented on this site in my own posts about my own 50L, that's all.... SNIP

No need to, its more then focus shift....

wimg wrote in post #9228072
As I said, yes, not only indoors, but also outdoors. Walked around with it taking some shots.

I dont judge nor do i evulate lenses on a test drive around the store.

wimg wrote in post #9228072
It is quite a difference in scale. It is immediately noticeable with the 28 at F/2. I've attached two images, 1 at F/2, the other at F/4. They are processed exactly the same, i.e., exposure correction exactly the same amount, and sized for web in eaxctly the same procedure and steps.

Nope its not, you want to belive it is, surely on a wa the vignetting is more noticble however the 50L shares the same fate.

wimg wrote in post #9228072
If I want a flat field lens, I'll get a short macro lens, not a fast WA or standard lens. I'd get a 28 for landscape, city scape, group portraits. And I'd get a fast 28 for low light too. This is where heavy vignetting is a problem, unless you only want to see the centre, or everything in the centre sharply, see my remarks higher up. Field curvature will be taken into account when framing and focusing, so no problem for me, certainly not with this lens.

So you shoot your landscapes with a short macro lens?, field curvature is less of a problem stopped down, still if your after critical performance across the frame it wont be your friend.

wimg wrote in post #9228072
No. But I do get worried because I would like to have a fast 100 which can compete with an L-lens. Just like I was looking for a fast 50, I'd really like a fast 100. And no, the EF 100 F/2 doesn't cut it for me. Not the same.

So your worried about the vignetting wide open of the 100/2 ?

What do you intend to shoot with it ?

wimg wrote in post #9228072
No, I have a CZ 50 F/1.4, as I indicated. It's also in my gear list.
With regard to performance wide open, IOW, at F/2.

I thought we where discussing the Zeiss ZE/ZF ?

wimg wrote in post #9228072
I want a 100 mm which is fast, and which is excellent at F/2, without noticeable vignetting. I am hoping the ZE 100 F/2 is the lens that delivers that.

I doubt it will...

wimg wrote in post #9228072
I get worried because personally, I think the other ZEs I mentioned here are not as good as people believe them to be, specifically when used wide open.

You worry because of what ?

Because your of a diffrent opinion ? That you gathered from shooting the lenses around the store ?

wimg wrote in post #9228072
They are good to excellent two stops down from wide open, but that is not what I am looking for in a fast lens.

Thats the nature of just about any prime lens with VERY few exceptions.

wimg wrote in post #9228072
To me it is F/2 and be there with a WA of 24 mm and longer lens up to 135 mm, F/2.8 with an UWA down to 20 mm, and F/4 if shorter. This is where they fall short, for me.

No argument about your preferences.

jetcode wrote in post #9228531
Question for Wim

Shooting wide angle wide open ... What scenario is this necessary for you? When I shoot my 21 I pretty much always stop down because I am using a tripod and want optimal IQ across the frame which is rarely found wide open.

Good question.

FC isnt a problem, but vignetting are ?

This dosent really add up logically for me.

Cause just as FC can either work for you or against you so can of course vignetting.

I want a reportage kind of style of WA(28mm/2 as was used as example) neither vignetting or FC will bother me, in fact it might just help me create depth in the scene.

However wanting optimal sharpness across the frame, it requires me to stop down the lens, thus the vignetting will be mitigated and so will FC (to some degree)

jetcode wrote in post #9228531
Question for Wim

Shooting wide angle wide open ... What scenario is this necessary for you? When I shoot my 21 I pretty much always stop down because I am using a tripod and want optimal IQ across the frame which is rarely found wide open.

I shoot indoors, low light, no flash a lot. I don't necessarily need wide open, but I am at F/2 a lot, and sometimes lower.

It is not always possible to use a flash.

Last Thursday, f.e., I was shooting at 3200 iso, F/1.6, 1/8 s to 1/80s.

I don't necessarily need a very fast UWA, but WA, yes. Shooting with the 24L currently, but I am always looking for the ultimate 28, if there is a chance of getting one, even though I am very happy with the 24 .
And all the banter on different forums on how good some lenses are, make me look at them, if and when I get a chance.

Kind regards, Wim

Wim, I enjoyed my 35L for that exact setting. Fast AF in low light. I shoot landscapes in broad daylight and the Zeiss and Leica offerings hold contrast amazingly well. In fact I watched a movie last night where I could see that the exposure and color were of the Zeiss school, very stable, controlled contrast, and gorgeous color.

MR do little wrote in post #9228585
Yes iv understood that your not a big fan of vignetting, again your statement that the 50L dosent suffer from any is ludicrous.

Please check what I wrote.

Forget it. Check the 50L thread, and see for yourself.

Fine with me. Neither do I.

??? Why do you really think I would go out of the way to test a lens, even if that is inside and outside a store? I am looking for a good piece of glass, that works for me, after having done a lot of homework. I don't want to believe anything, until I've seen it.
And do you actually own a 50L? Have you shot with one?

That's got nothing to do with this. I'll shoot landscapes with any lens, whatever is suitable, for my intended purpose.

So we should only use slow primes optimally corrected for zero FC?

Are you saying the ZE 18, 21 and 28 have no FC?

Not based on sample shots I've seen so far. Based on the performance of other ZE lenses I have handled myself, potentially yes.

Macro, landscapes, low light, portraits. And in neither of those do I want vignetting more than is absolutely unavoidable, i.e., at the limits of optical performance, unless I add it myself, deliberately.

That's a choice, BTW. It happens to be my choice.

The CZ has the exact same optical lens design. Coating is different, yes.

That's rather unfortunate.

Because I am really looking for a 28, and a 100, which are good to excellent from at least F/2, which render in a for me pleasing way. I think I did mention that.

No argument either. I am looking for those exceptions. Everything I read about Zeiss says they are the exceptions. Well, surprise. They aren't. At least not the ones I've handled so far.

Kind regards, Wim

jetcode wrote in post #9229295
Wim, I enjoyed my 35L for that exact setting. Fast AF in low light. I shoot landscapes in broad daylight and the Zeiss and Leica offerings hold contrast amazingly well. In fact I watched a movie last night where I could see that the exposure and color were of the Zeiss school, very stable, controlled contrast, and gorgeous color.

JC, with your last remark, do you mean the 35L?

Kind regards, Wim

Technically, one could argue about the 50L all day long. Personally, I think it produces some amazing images regardless - and it's why I own one.

Zeiss lenses have a different and unique look to them, and I'm not sure I'd compare them to Canon lenses directly. Different philosophies are behind both.

And comparing a super fast lens like an f/1.2 or f/1.4 to a slower lens like an f/2 or f/2.8 isn't fair either. Again, different lenses for different uses.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
Please check what I wrote.

wimg wrote in post #9227567
The 50L barely has any vignetting, in real life shots - so far never noticeable.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
Forget it. Check the 50L thread, and see for yourself.

No need to, anyone familar with FS, SA, knows it's treats.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
Fine with me. Neither do I.

Apparently you do, see qoute below.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
??? Why do you really think I would go out of the way to test a lens, even if that is inside and outside a store? I am looking for a good piece of glass, that works for me, after having done a lot of homework. I don't want to believe anything, until I've seen it.

In all a good attitude.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
And do you actually own a 50L? Have you shot with one?

Nope, and yes. Canon lenses dont fit either of my cameras, they do however fit my colleagues cameras.

And you would be just about the only person i know who owns one to claim there is no noticible vignetting at wider apertures.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
That's got nothing to do with this. I'll shoot landscapes with any lens, whatever is suitable, for my intended purpose.

Got nothing to do with what ?

I asked you a question if you prefer short macro lenses for landscapes, and apparently you do. My first choice wouldnt be a lens optimized for close distance shooting.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
So we should only use slow primes optimally corrected for zero FC?

Nope , my point was that there are more aspects to a lens then vignetting, if vignetting is an issue so would most likely the FC for most users.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
Are you saying the ZE 18, 21 and 28 have no FC?

You got it a bit wrong... this i was i actually said.

So no that was not at all what i said.

The 28/2 suffers from more pronounced FC as the 25/2,8 compared to both the 18/3,5 21/2,8.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
Not based on sample shots I've seen so far. Based on the performance of other ZE lenses I have handled myself, potentially yes.

Dosent make much sense, just as somone handling the 50L would worry about FS with the 100/2,8 L no rhyme or reason for it.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
Macro, landscapes, low light, portraits. And in neither of those do I want vignetting more than is absolutely unavoidable, i.e., at the limits of optical performance, unless I add it myself, deliberately.

All wich it will handle quite well, still you will get some vignetting and its not a apo design.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
That's a choice, BTW. It happens to be my choice.

Yes and no one can ever take that away from you... again you seem to be a bit selective since you own the 50L

wimg wrote in post #9229423
That's rather unfortunate.

I wouldnt sweat it.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
Because I am really looking for a 28, and a 100, which are good to excellent from at least F/2, which render in a for me pleasing way. I think I did mention that.

Keep looking.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
No argument either. I am looking for those exceptions.

They are far and few between good luck.

wimg wrote in post #9229423
Everything I read about Zeiss says they are the exceptions. Well, surprise. They aren't. At least not the ones I've handled so far.

I havent read many claiming that, you shouldnt belive everything you read, even toying with the lenses with the store clerk will give you a better impression.


Well thats about what im gonna contribute to this thread.

Enjoy.

MR do little wrote in post #9229588
No need to, anyone familar with FS, SA, knows it's treats.

Apparently you do, see qoute below.

In all a good attitude.

Nope, and yes. Canon lenses dont fit either of my cameras, they do however fit my colleagues cameras.

And you would be just about the only person i know who owns one to claim there is no noticible vignetting at wider apertures.

Let me state this differently, in that case: not noticeable enough in real life shots.

I'll use any lens for landscape shooting. Furthermore, landscapes don't necessarily have to be about everything in focus from front to back either. And generally speaking, most shorter macro lenses work very well at longer distances.

I guess I am not able to explain to you what I mean.

I am not worried about it not being an apo design. Not many lenses are, and true apo lenses generally are either not very fast, or extremely expensive, or both.

I have always been a bit selective.

However, if you find something that works well for you, and that is not only the 50L, it becomes the standard to which other stuff is measured.

I will.

Thanks.

even toying with the lenses with the store clerk
I haven't visited a single camera retailer over the last few years where they actually employed store clerks. Maybe I am lucky.
[QUOTE]will give you a better impression.
I guess I know that ...

[QUOTE]Well thats about what im gonna contribute to this thread.

Enjoy.
Thanks.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #9229432
JC, with your last remark, do you mean the 35L?

Kind regards, Wim

Yes I shot the 35L for 3 years and it is / was one of my favorites except for bright high contrast scenes.

jetcode wrote in post #9230272
Yes I shot the 35L for 3 years and it is / was one of my favorites except for bright high contrast scenes.

I thought you meant the 35L.

It is funny that I have heard quite a few remarks from people this last week that Canon L-glass and Nikon G ED glass is inspired by the rendering of Zeiss and Leica glass .

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #9230280
I thought you meant the 35L.

It is funny that I have heard quite a few remarks from people this last week that Canon L-glass and Nikon G ED glass is inspired by the rendering of Zeiss and Leica glass .

Kind regards, Wim

I sold my 35L for a Zeiss 35/2 and haven't looked back.

jetcode wrote in post #9230458
I sold my 35L for a Zeiss 35/2 and haven't looked back.

If it wasn't for the fact I just don't gel with the 35 mm FL, I would have tried a 35 F/2 as well.

Kind regards, Wim

While this FL doesnt interest me , what peaks my interest is the 100/2 in the EF mount , Im having a tough choice deciding between it & the Canon 100 2.8 IS , yes the price difference is huge , and perhaps the canon is a true 1:1 macro whereas the zeiss is not , but I love the way the zeiss images look.

A few queries , will the canon 1.4x extender work with the zeiss lens ? extension tubes would bring the lens to a 1:1 , right ?