The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Zeiss 12mm Touit for Fuji

Dale Allyn

New member
Kit, I've not seen the f/2.5 around lately. I recognize that it is an attractive lens for some, and now there are fewer available on the used market. I could live with f/2.5 for most of my needs as well. Like you, I value the compactness of it. But since it's been discontinued I figured I should try the f/1.8. The greater brightness should contribute to the manual focus experience.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Cameraquest.com still has the 75/2.5 listed for sale and available. $689. It is screw mount of course, so you also need the SM to M adapter.

Gary
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Cameraquest.com still has the 75/2.5 listed for sale and available. $689. It is screw mount of course, so you also need the SM to M adapter.

Gary
Thanks, Gary. I had missed that. I'm leaning towards the f/1.8, but I admit I do like the size of the f/2.5. I don't think I want to mess screw-mount either, preferring the M-mount (more salable, etc.).
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
Dale, the tiny (mm or so think) and light (think grams) LTM–Leica M adapter should give you no cause for any concern; my CV 12/5.6 uses one and once it's screwed on, you'll forget about it. And I have not found that using this mount affects saleability for me. The tiny adapter can be marked to bing up Leica framelines too, as I understand it.

Interestingly today, my version of the 12/5.6 is more expensive than the M-mount version, but the reverse is true for the 15.

Anyhow, on reflection, I am finding these days that ergonomic considerations are tending to trump all others for me, now that IQ is simply good enough for the things I do. Using the X-E1 around the house this last week with the pancake and a number of OM and CV lenses has been so much fun and I love both the feeling of the camera in the hand, and the sheer brilliance of the MF aids (as mentioned, I use focus peaking combined with focus magnification).
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Hi Kit, Thanks for your input on mount. I was just re-thinking my earlier comment and perhaps softening on my idea that screw mount would be less desirable.

I like the idea of f/1.8 for some types of things that I do, but there is a serious difference in size b/n it and the f/2.5. The size and weight of the latter is very attractive.

I need to get an understanding of just how soft either of these lenses are wide open, or nearly so. I'm not looking for an exclusive-use portrait lens, and know that I will be looking for detail and sharpness for some of what I like to do – including out to the corners when stopped down. Some say the two are similar, while others suggest the f/2.5 is not as soft wide open as the f/1.8. I've not seen any side-by-comparisons. I'm not a pixel peeper, but I don't like "mushy" or soft images with non-portraits (or even portraits). It's apparent that stopped down the lenses perform pretty well. At least the APS-C sensor is just using the center of the glass. ;)

The other characteristics I'm looking at are CA and Longitudinal CA. I'm under the impression (perhaps wrongly so) that the f/2.5 suffers from more fringing and CA.

So far, many samples I've seen (e.g. on flickr or other fora) have not been particularly helpful for evaluation purposes. The portrait that Gary linked (in the Sony thread) does show more than most others I've found.
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
Dale, did you follow up on that thread I posted above; you will need to become a member to see the pics, and there are a few there.

Or Sean's site (pay site) will provide an exhaustive (and exhausting) comparison and analysis and from memory, the subscription is $35 or thereabouts—could be worth subscribing just for this.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Kit, yes I did follow your link and the others within that thread (as well as a number of other search results). I had first forgotten to register to see the images on the link you provided (I had a ton of windows and tabs open), so had to go back to it. I like the 75 f/2.5 samples there. I've been wondering if the f/1.8 would lack a bit of contrast "punch" for me, and it appears the f/2.5 may deliver a bit more there. Still, CA is a potential issue.

I'll probably follow your suggestion and subscribe to Sean's site to read his review. And/or I'll just order the f/1.8 form B&H and give it a whirl. I may be leaning now towards the f/2.5 though, if I can shoot it wide open much of the time. The f/1.8 I'd probably shoot stopped down a bit much of the time anyway.
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
All good thinking, Dale, and we'll all be interested in your findings, I am sure. I shot a lot or portraits commercially over many years, and most people really are not enamoured of the 'single eye in focus' approach, I believe. When shooting FF, I used to use ƒ2.8–4 pretty much exclusively. If the 2.5 is sharp enough wide open, that would give a similar OOF area effect, I suspect. And with min. focussing distance being 1m, no problem in getting a bit closer and using that relationship to improve the bokeh.

Also, see HERE; nice assessment and he says CA is not a problem. And page 3 has a bunch of examples shot WO and at ƒ6.7.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Right, Kit. I, too, shoot (and have shot) a lot of portrait-type images in the f/2.8-4 range. Of course, all of the spacial geometry applies, so each situation is different (distance to subject, distance from subject to background, focal length, sensor size…).

Thanks for the additional link and information. I'll certainly check that out. Frankly, a nice way to go would be to just buy both and sell whichever one (or both) doesn't do the trick… but then I might be tempted to keep both. Best to go slow. :D

EDIT: Kit, I had read the Photozone info in my earlier searches. There's a post regarding the 75 on a Canon body as well there. Thanks!
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
Dale, I would add that you may want to have a look at an older Leica 90mm Elmarit like I am using for portraits. At f/5.6 it is both forgiving and still has that excellent micro contrast. Not real expensive either.
 

Dale Allyn

New member
Thanks, Chuck. I've been looking at just such options. If I was looking for a pure (or mostly) portrait lens, used at normal portrait distances, I'd be a little less hesitant of lens which were a little less contrasty, or even subtly soft – if the character is there. But I'm looking for this lens to do some "street duty" where I shoot people and other scenes in Asia and I need/want a fair bit of contrast wide open (or nearly so). I'm not necessarily looking for razor thin DoF, but need the background separation while shooting a bit more distant.

I appreciate the input provided by you and Kit (and Gary), as it's helping me think about what I really want this lens to do. If Fuji had the perfect 75-90mm prime I'd start with that, but since I'm looking at 3rd-party options, manual focus, etc. I'm considering all of these options.
 
Top