DSLR Photography Forum

3 more shots with the above lens, which is ZE(Canon Eos fit).
Each shot is followed by a 100% crop...actually probably as useful as a chocolate fireguard seeing as there's not a corner one in there; yet if I told you that the edges and corners are going to be pretty close to what you see in Zone A, I'd not be stretching the truth.
I've included apertures of f2.8, f8 and f22: yes, I know: diffraction at small apertures and all that.
These were shot on full-frame: and what a relief to actually be able to use and trust the whole frame: I can start composing in camera again rather than guessing which bits I'd have cut off the when usng the Canon.
Something very cool and such a help(2 things): amount of "focus breathing" is far less than the Canon;
also, its closest focusing point is a mere 8 inches: so I can now include chunky big bits of foreground knowing that hyperfocal shooting makes a lot more sense. Thus, f22 is back once again folks: any losses due to diffraction-softening are largely cancelled by being able to use all the frame(the lens is sharp consistently into edges and corners) and being able to have more in focus at the bottom of the frame than with the Canon 16-35.
Autofocus isn't possible but on a lens which behaves as it should, it is miles easier manually focusing and relying on eyes. I use the AF confirm beep/light as a marker for hyperfocal shooting.
If one uses this lens primarily for architecture, one will be very upset, though in real-world landscapes and judicious placement of buildings, distortion appears less than at 21mm with my former 16-35 at 21mm.
Vignetting is a minger though! To be honest, I quite like it and it can be eliminated in software.
F5.6 is its absolute sharpest but it is joy not feeling restricted to shooting at apertures a lens can "manage".
f2.8 is a hoot: whacky vignetting but creditably sharp: and the close focusing distance doesn't half help.
When it boils down to it, I'm actually at a loss for words: I simply do not know WHY this lens is so good: yes, it's sharp...but heck, Canon lenses are sharp. It's miles more consistent across the frame...but that doesn't explain the immediate imagined perception that light itself has somehow changed its nature: yes, light has direction of course..but it seems to gather, move and flow with this lens..and I have no explanation for why this appears so.

Righto: all crops are unsharpened; there is no polarising filter used at all; most(all?) shots are uncropped from their full-farme aspect; all are handheld.

Firstly, barley field at f22, 1/50s



..and a 100% crop from bottom half...



Second: Ebley Milll at 1/100 s, f8:



..and a crop from centre-ish...



Finally, I've included the whole frame here at f2.8(1/800s): no correction at all, just so you can get an idea: this is a wild rose, with tiny flowerheads; I jammed the lens as far close as I could to retain focus..you can thus get an idea of bokeh.....



..and in the crop see that even at f2.8 sharpness is creditable and precise(and DoF pretty narrow..):

Looks pretty sweet, Zig. I am sure that it will serve you well.

I'm loving the barley field.

I've been reading some rangefinder-friendly websites that discuss some of the optics from leica and zeiss, and they'll occasionally mention 'sparkle' and if a lens is special enough that the photos can show 'magic'. Perhaps there's something to that?

Thanks for the write-up and the impressions; the enthusiasm carries through even if some of defies translation.

Ta boys; yes Matthew, I had 3 thoughts at once and tried to write them all down..

Pretty impressive Zig. you could almost use the lens as a macro. makes me want it toooo....

Congrats on the lens Zig. It sounds like you're a very happy camper.

I really love that barley field. Wow. Everything about it. Absolutely one of your best photos.

The sky is awesome, the detail in the foreground, the tree in the background, the decision to place the tree in the middle (horizontally) rather than off to the side, the choice of high-key tones, everything! It is seemingly such a simple shot, yet there is so much to see. The two subjects (tree in background and barely in foreground) are perfectly balanced and compliment each other rather than fighting each other, and everything in the rest of the frame (the sky and remainder of the barley field) provide a fantastic context and brings the two main elements together perfectly.
You've managed to strip the shot back to its cleanest, most efficient, simplest, and strongest form beautifully without removing anything that might add to it. Even the choice to remove colour from the shot is a great one I believe. I'm sure the strong colour of the barley would make it very tempting to retain the colour, but I think the colour version would not be as well balanced as this version. I suspect the barley and sky would be too overbearing, or the colours would be distracting in some way.

it wopuld be interesting to compare this lens to Samyang (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/533-sa...f28eosapsc). I know that there is a difference in focal length, but the Zeiss on full-size sensor would ha ve the same focal length as Samyang on APS-C

Thank you Adrian; I find I'm taking shots I'd not have bothered with had I still the 16-35(and this was never a slouch of a lens).
Pavel, that is fascinating; what a neat suggestion:
Though the Samyang has stop-down metering/view whereas the Zeiss ZE has fully operable TTL....and given it has an aperture ring whereas Zeiss have ditched theirs with this lens, I think these are perhaps superficial concerns. OK, the barrel distortion is like an unfurled longbow at the battle of Agincourt...but the Samyang has no pretentions to be high-end. Another difference is the close-focusing distance: 0.22m for the Zeiss, 0.28 for the Samyang(and the Canon 16-35mm f2.8L MkII)
Looking at the MTFs though(ugh...how I loathe "informed" comments by mtf-quoters!) things start to get interesting:
Perhaps no surprises in that both the Zeiss and Samyang are, in resolved lines terms, performing optimally at centre at f5.6. Interestingly also, at f11 both lenses exhibit best performance of edge relative to centre.
"Peripheral" stuff like vignetting, flare control and barrel distortion are perhaps the nature of the beast at these widths. Zeiss remarkably manages to correct these largely, resulting in a wee bit of a cupid's bow as the ends are brought back up..yet even more remarkably does so without any edge softening. Yes, I know the figures may say otherwise but my eyes don't.
However, to simply say "Zeiss wins" would be missing the point as well as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Samyang have begun to develop a talented underdog reputation...and I guess have been given more attention, like Voigtlander and a host of other pleasingly alternative-sounding marques, by the surge in lens-exploration fostered by the m4/3 phenomenon. The performance of this Samyang lens in particular, I'd agree, would warrant a second look. Coool.

I have a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. I like this lens- it is one of my sharpest, good color and contrast. Despite dropping it in a shallow river and not noticing for 20 minutes a year ore 2 ago (the lens is fine!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Getting another lens in the same range would be truly disloyal :/ . Otherwise, I would be tempted. The images you posted are truly superb. And not just on technical side. i agree with Adrian.

Pavel