1. Are you sure your Zeiss 21 works up to spec Tim?
2. Have you tried the Nikkor 17-35mm (zoom!!!) at the 21-28mm range at f5.6-8 in comparison to the Zeiss and allowing for its field curvature?
3. I would expect you to contribute (both you and "gazwas") to a thread I started http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-f...l-survive.html to the best of your thoughts... Thanks.
"I know from MTF charts that this lens has some sub-field weakness at mid-apertures and generally more sagital than tangential. I don't believe that my body has notable misalignments of mount or sensor (I have my reasons and I have about an 85% certainty of this) but I do suspect a very minor misalignment of an element or group in my copy of the lens. Not enough to fuss over, certainly not firmly diagnosed, but I have my suspicions... however, odd effects, when inconsistent, tend to be multi-factorial and can take a long time to track down."
I can't add more really - but Lloyd Chambers has also had subtly odd and inconsistent results with his and I think in fact from other reviews I've read that mine is within norms, though it might be possible after a lot of returning or repairing to get a slightly better one.
I don't have the 17-35 and I must say that with my experience of Nikon zooms I can't be bothered to get one, find that it doesn't work as expected, and then have the embarrassment of a return or the annoyance of a fruitless argument with Nikon 'service'!
I look at files from the Canon 17 & 24mm TS-E lenses and weep.
If only Canon made a body that took full advantage of them...
I'd literally go out and buy a D800E tomorrow if there was a lens of around 20mm that took advantage of the camera.
I'm even considering buying a 5D111 just to use the TS-E lenses. I'm that desperate.
There's the 24mm Samyang perspective control coming up, I have a request in for a review copy so I'll let you know.
But let's take a step back here: the files I posted higher up this thread from D800/Zeiss 21 and IQ180/Schneider 35XL are, in a 36" print, impossible to choose between for detail and clarity. So unless you need to print larger than that or crop a fair bit, even teh compromised Zeiss 21mm F2.8 is pretty good!
There again I might even go with the 5D.
Sheesh, this stuff is never easy!
If you wanted rid of it, why not simply offer it directly at a price you'd have been happy to accept?
I think this differs a bit in the US, where the GetDPI For Sale board and similar are effectively operating in a private community of people known to each other and with a level of trust on both sides. But there are far fewer opportunities to sell in this manner in Europe... sadly.
But I am open to offers!
I'm jumping in a bit late on this thread as I'm in the middle of moving from Malaysia to Switzerland.
Tim, I have some reservations about your conclusions about your torture test.
The 35XL, for all its vaunted reputation, simply does not have the resolving power to match the IQ180. I had one, and have tested several others and my view is that it does not come close to the res my 23HR or 40HR deliver. Good, but not great is how I would describe it. Hence, your test is in my view not producing the best file the IQ180 is capable of.
However, taking on board your other considerations, I think your general thoughts on the right gear for you are fair enough. For me, I have decided that 35mm platform is useless, and am selling all my gear and will shoot almost exclusively IQ180/Alpa STC/ Rodenstock glass. I have a DF system, but it only gets used occasionally, usually when I need longer lenses for people shots.
BTW, I can assure you that Phase does not have any instructions to its dealers re: pricing on used gear. That's a decision individual dealers make. Of course as a commercial decision, it doesn't make sense to devalue the market. Best you sell privately. It takes a little effort, but I have sold my P25, P65+ and Aptus 12 this way.
Good luck with the journey!
"In the end, it's all about the pictures"
There is no market without a buyer. The only thing you have if you over-value your stock is an inflated balance sheet that will come back and bite you hard one day. This stuff doesn't appreciate.
Little advice to the potential sellers of expensive equipment (Tashley and others) from buyers perspective ( I was looking for DMF solution for a year and finally bought IQ160 on these forums) - you should be prepared to fly over to the buyer. I know it can take 2-3 days of your time, but, we are talking of 20000 - 25000 $ that you are collecting. Just because you don't want to spend 2-3 days on the road it could stay unsold for 6-12 moths.
Tashley, don't sell it on Ebay. There are many honest potential buyers on these forums, I'm sure.
That point about being willing to travel is really important. Hey guys, I will travel to anywhere in the EU to deliver this system and no reasonable offer will be refused!
did you ever try the Contax CY version of the 21f2.8 lens? I compared it at a dealer with the ZE version and it easily outperformed it reg. corner sharpness. I only can show sample pics* by 5D2, so only 6.4um resolution instead of the 4.8um resolution of a D800 but I think still one can see the quality. I think the CY lenses also can be adapted via Leitax on Nikon bodies.
Two files for download:
*Distortion corrected with Alpa lens corrector plugin for PS.
On the iQ180 I recommend for that angle of view the Contax 645 35f3.5 Distagon. Pls check the following link. Tack sharp corner to corner at f11. Of course no LCC required. Shot with monopod at 1/45s.
Here is the file for your evaluation:
(160 MB ... might take some minutes for upload to the dropbox)
Regarding printing large why not consider it for your own pleasure and not for selling purpose ?
I foolishly thinks that making some kind of art starts by indulging yourself
Regarding wide angle lenses quality not matching the D800 sensor quality, we can also say that the D800 shouldn't be recommended for wide angle shots because its sensor doesn't match the wide angle lenses market standards.
Pixels density is too high, current wide angle lenses cannot cope with it.
This is the main justification for using the IQ and its big sensor.
Rodenstock lenses are supposed to match the IQ backs expectations.
T/S is available. There is no need to software correct perspective and then software correct objects proportions and then add some software sharpness to try masking those destructive operations.
And expensive lenses with low production volumes do offer high and consistant level of quality control.
And there is no mirror slap ruining your sharpness with copal shutters and tech cams.
This is all logic and consistent.
(I'm mainly speaking about my needs (architecture).
I think you're adding contradiction to the equation when trying to get high quality IQ wide angle shots from a dslr system and won't find a solution.
How should Nikon/lenses producers for dslr offer all that in the wide angle range and at such a good level that it will satisfy medium format users ?
I also own the same camera combinations as you, though I am Alpa based for MF. I also have a 9900 so I usually print either 36 inches in the long direction or 40 inches. With my latest print test comparing the 800e (50mm Zeiss Planar f2) against the IQ180 (Schneider 100mm digitar) I found that at 40 inches there was an advantage with the IQ180 but it took an experienced person to see the difference and then it was only on certain highly detailed portions of the image. I printed some crops on Epson Enhanced Matt paper and took them to my local camera dealer to see if anyone could tell the difference. Almost everyone found them to be identical.
I hear everything you are saying - especially regarding wides for either system. I have become so disappointed with wides that I won't go wider than my 50mm Zeiss on the 800e or 60mm Schneider Digitar on my Alpa. That's it for me! If I need wider then I'll do a 2 or 3 shot pano. Much better results than soft edges on wides. Even my 35mm Zeiss f2 is somewhat disappointing compared to the 50mm Zeiss. It isn't so much the edges but more the micro contrast and micro detail that the 50mm extracts. I am, now, begin very picky..... I hope Zeiss had me in mind when they decided to manufacture their new lens line.
1 Member(s) liked this post
In case it's of interest, I am going to be using the Zeiss 15mm with a D800E in the hope that this wholly new design might do the D800E's sensor justice. Time will tell!
My Tumblr1 Member(s) liked this post
Samyang 24mm F3.5 TILT SHIFT LENS FOR CANON SYTS24-C B&H Photo
How about this Tim,
http://www.keithlaban.co.uk1 Member(s) liked this post
I'm sure they'll get the resolution right, but they have never really cracked the banding and DR issues. I really like Canon, shot them for years right back the the early digitals, and their build, design and QC is great. But Nikon were always good at spotting the gaps...
If anyone is interested the following is a link to comparisons between the Nikon 14-24, Zeiss 15mm and the Samyang 14.
Interesting! I must admit (having ordered the Zeiss 15mm), I am a little disconcerted to see it being beaten in edge resolution by the 14-24. I knew the zoom was good, but I had hoped the new prime would at least equal it in this respect. However, for me, the killer issue is flare. I have already had one shot spoilt by the 14-24's tendency to pick up flare due to its bulbous front element. I am hoping upon hope that the Zeiss (with its flatter front element and good, built-in hood) does not have this problem.
Ed, yes, the Zeiss was a little sharper in the centre but the edges were surprisingly poor. The Samyang was a non-starter for my applications; the distortion was just too extreme and complex.
Having decided to dismiss the Nikon and Samyang 24mm T/S lenses because they just aren't wide enough I'm now veering towards the Nikon zoom, which, it has to be said, is a mile from where I thought I'd be.
I should add that I'm aware that the Nikon 14-24 has focus shift issues but as I would be using it on a tripod with live-view it is essentially a non-issue.
I see where you're coming from. But watch for that flare. I read about it before trying the lens but had no idea it was so susceptible. Sounds like something easily avoided with care, but with such a wide angle of view, that is far from the case...
A bit of an issue I had with the Zeiss is if one crops the sides, then they are approaching 16/17mm and although the Zeiss 18mm may not have quite the acuity, when price/performance is taken into consieration, it's a viable option.
Nothing reveals more than long term use of a lens to get to know it's strenghts and weaknesses and as long as my experiences have been with the 14-24, I only had just a very brief encounter with the Zeiss 15mm.
None of these results are surprising from what others have observed.
*** I forgot to add that I've shot the Sammy 14mm, and although in most instances, distortion can be fairly easily corrected, I've so far opted to stay with the 14-24...although I am using it less for my uses and might reconsider.
Last edited by D&A; 19th February 2013 at 05:29.
The Samyang has pretty good flare characteristics. Take a look at these four shots, the first three shots as a series to show what happens at various angles to the sun.
and one to show how a very bright, blown source affects a dark scene (shadows pumped up to 100 in LR):
All files uncorrected for distortion.
Tim, am I interpreting this incorrectly? That last shot (the interior), was shot with the Samyang without any distortion correction applied? If so, I'm surprised by the straight lines towards the sides/edges knowing how this lens generally performs with such scenes.
Last edited by D&A; 19th February 2013 at 06:11.
I rarely bother to correct: when it needs it, it's obvious...
The other reason I've dismissed the Samyang is that most of the time it would be way too wide with a rendition of perspective that is just too extreme.
The 14-24 would allow the option to use it on the odd occasion at the wider focal lengths but would also deliver far more versatility.