Zeiss 15mm f2.8 ZF2/ZE

[Athiril]

Originally Posted by redhairkid

Is Zeiss glass really THAT much better than the equivalent (and cheaper) Canon or Nikon glass? I know they make some pretty sweet lenses for cinema cameras but have never really understood why someone would want to restrict themselves to an expensive MF lens on a DSLR. Are we paying for the quality or the name? Its a serious question and I've probably missed some crucial factors which justify the price.

Last reviews I saw, Canon and Nikon UWA primes sucked major arse, were terrible.

Apart from the 17mm TS-E iirc.

[Dropbear]

Read a review of the Zeiss 85mm yesterday after reading this thread.

The summary was - extremely well built, but optically ordinary. The word " soft" was used many times. He used two samples.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

[^catalyst]

Originally Posted by Dropbear

Read a review of the Zeiss 85mm yesterday after reading this thread.

The summary was - extremely well built, but optically ordinary. The word " soft" was used many times. He used two samples.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

I'll always side with Lloyd!

http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-85f1_4.html

[ElBeasto]

Originally Posted by Dropbear

Read a review of the Zeiss 85mm yesterday after reading this thread.

The summary was - extremely well built, but optically ordinary. The word " soft" was used many times. He used two samples.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

I wonder about the objectivity of that site, apparently everything is shite except for Canon gear...

[WRC]

I can't talk to the nikon or eos 85mm lenses but the m mount 85 is plenty sharp.

[redhairkid]

Originally Posted by Athiril

Last reviews I saw, Canon and Nikon UWA primes sucked major arse, were terrible.

Apart from the 17mm TS-E iirc.

Funny you say that. I read on Vincent Laforet's blog this morning about his short writeup of the 15mm Zeiss and he compared it to the 14mm L. The Zeiss is much sharper according to his sample shots. Never shot with the 14mm L but have used the Nikon 14-24mm on a DX body and thought it was bloody sharp! Don't know how it compares to the Zeiss. Vincent's writeup is here for anyone interested.

[lothloriel]

Originally Posted by ElBeasto

I wonder about the objectivity of that site, apparently everything is shite except for Canon gear...

are you sure about that: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=1&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0

The zeiss completely and utterly destroys any similar lens.

If only i was cashed up

As a side note, I find it very odd the lens has a permanently attached hood. so if you want to use filters, either you'd have to do some weird filter fiddling, or very carefully cut the hood off to make proper use of the filter thread.

[chilloutbuddy]

I honestly dont understand the comments on AF for such a wide lens. Even at f2.8 you set focus to 3m permanently and you have a dof from 1.4m to infinity.

You cant miss it.