A Tale of 6 24's (well, 4x24 and 2x25)

[Stuart Richardson]

The only problem with the Olypmus zooms is they fit over a half frame sensor.

 

[charlesphoto]

I picked up my 24 elmarit back when they were probably the least popular of the M lenses. I paid $1225 for a mint copy with the finder. I also got around the same time a 35 lux asph for $1350 and a 28 cron for about the same (maybe even less). No way would I pay today what Leica lenses cost. If I was getting into the M system now I would have Zeiss lenses all the way.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Have you ever used the 25mm biogon Charles? Because it seems like most people who have used both rate it as the equal (though not a twin) of the 24mm elmarit. Sean Reid has a good comparison of them and the differences are very minor...mostly related to contrast...the Zeiss has a little more as well as a bit more edge to edge resolution but less center resolution. But the differences are quite small. Both of them are extraordinarily good. At the price you paid, I would probably have gone for the elmarit, but when I got the biogon it was 800 something dollars new (I was in Japan at the time and the currency exchange was better), and the 24mm is 3000 or so now, right? Even then it was above 2000.

 

[Robert Campbell]

As for the perfect car...The whole thing cost a little less than a Mamiya AF645II with a ZD back . . . . . . . . . .

And you went for the car?? Going soft in the head?! :ROTFL::ROTFL:

PS to the Admin: where is the similey for winding Jono up?

 

[woodyspedden]

This meshes well with my general experience. I have yet to see a better 25mm lens than the biogon for the M camera. Admittedly, I have not used the 24mm elmarit, which is supposed to be very similar. I do have the 24-70 for the Nikon, but where the Zeiss shows practically no distortion at all and extreme sharpness across the frame, the Nikon has a good bit of distortion and only decent sharpness in the extreme edges. Don't get me wrong, it is still very very good, but still far from the 25mm Biogon. The only wide angle lenses that I have used that come close are other other Leica, Mamiya and Zeiss primes -- the Mamiya 43mm being the best wide angle of any maker that I have used, followed by the 25mm biogon, 50mm FE distagon, then in the almost as good category, the 19mm Leica R, 18mm ZM, 21mm biogon, 40mm Schneider, trailed by a number of others.

My experience with the Mamiya 43 mirrors yours Stuart. In fact the entire 7II system is proof that at rational prices (note I did not say cheap!!) you can have a true state of the art system. When I feel the need to shoot film this is the rig I reach for. Never been disappointed. When the results are not good I look at the eye peering into the viewfinder.

Woody

 

[Arne Hvaring]

Hi Jono, interesting test. I can certainly confirm the results re the 25 mm Biogon, a stellar performer. I wonder if the rather disappointing performance of your new Distagon is due to poor resolution per se or the effect of a fairly strong curvature of field. It might perhaps perform better on 3D subjects than a flat wall. I seem to remember that Lloyd Chambers made some comments in that direction in his blog some months ago.

 

[Steen]

You are right, Arne, here's the link.
Scroll down ~25 % of the page, or make a search for: ZF 25

http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2007-11-blog.html

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono, interesting test. I can certainly confirm the results re the 25 mm Biogon, a stellar performer. I wonder if the rather disappointing performance of your new Distagon is due to poor resolution per se or the effect of a fairly strong curvature of field. It might perhaps perform better on 3D subjects than a flat wall. I seem to remember that Lloyd Chambers made some comments in that direction in his blog some months ago.

Hi Arne
Well, you certainly are right about the curvature of field, I'm not put off the lens, but shooting wide open with 3D subjects it's quite difficult to work out where it WOULD be in focus. The field of focus is 'concave' (in that the centre point is focused further away than the edges). But, wide open you can't really get decent focus at the corners either way.

Mind you, personally I'm unlikely to be using this lens wide open, and it's pretty acceptable by f8. For me it's a 'travelling light' landscape lens, and also for the kind of shot with a large depth of field and some very close focus, so I can't really imagine when I'd both want it wide open AND want sharp corners.

I think the point here was that I although I wouldn't have expected perfection, I would have expected it to be quite a lot better than the Nikon zooms, whereas, in terms of edge and corner sharpnes, it's quite a lot worse.

 

[jonoslack]

The only problem with the Olypmus zooms is they fit over a half frame sensor.

No - I disagree, the problem with the 4/3 system is that they don't seem to have access to a decent sensor (for high ISO).

The Canon 40D seems to be pretty much state of the art with respect to low noise on a cropped sensor:
40D sensor: 14.8mm high, 4/3 sensor 13.5m high, so, 1.3mm difference

THAT size difference is not the difference between good high ISO and bad.

I'm not sure that either Kodak or Panasonic have ever made a decent high ISO sensor, IMHO that's what 4/3 needs.

 

[Steen]

Still the limit is the image circle of the optics.
A full 35mm optic has an image circle with a diameter of ~43mm.
A 4/3 optic has half the size image circle with a diameter of ~22mm.
The max sensor area of a 4/3 sensor is about half the size of a full 24x36mm sensor.
Personally I believe that at the end this limit is going to be a serious problem for the 4/3 system in general.
I even believe that at some point the DSLRs will grow out of the 24x36mm format.
Let's see in ... about five years from now

 

[jonoslack]

Still the limit is the image circle of the optics.
A full 35mm optic has an image circle with a diameter of ~43mm.
A 4/3 optic has half the size image circle with a diameter of ~22mm.
The max sensor area of a 4/3 sensor is about half the size of a full 24x36mm sensor.
Personally I believe that at the end this limit is going to be a serious problem for the 4/3 system in general.
I even believe that at some point the DSLRs will grow out of the 24x36mm format.
Let's see in ... about five years from now

HI Steen
Actually, with the reduction of size of lenses (which you get by reducing the image circle) you increase the lpm resolution (if this wasn't the case those little GRD's would be impossible). Just look at mtf charts of some of the good 4/3 lenses.

The reason the 4/3 lenses produce such good edge to edge sharpness wide open is that despite the small image circle and sensor, the lens mouth is between the nikon and canon size - which makes telecentricity (i.e. parallel light) a real possibility - as I understand it this is also why Olympus have stuck to f2 as a widest aperture for 4/3 lenses; because this is the widest aperture you can have and still have true telecentricity (Leica and Sigma have been ignoring the rules with their f1.4 lenses, which don't quite conform).

Olympus say that the better lenses can easily manage a 20mp 4/3 sensor (which is probably more than is desirable anyway).

I quite agree with you that 35mm will also run out of lenses (although at a higher pixel count).

The thing with 35mm (and APS-C) is that there is an inevitable compromise with corner sharpness because of the legacy mount, this is what Olympus have overcome - at the cost of a smaller sensor.

Sure, smaller is smaller, and less is less - but I really like the fact that you can have 3 excellent, fast, weathersealed zooms to take you all the way from 14-400mm (equivalent), most of which are between f2.8 and f3.5, which you can happily shoot wide open.

The point here is that (for edge quality at f2.8) the £550 12-60 (24-120) Zuiko clearly outperforms a new Nikon lens with a shorter range, which costs twice as much, weighs twice as much and isn't weathersealed!

 

[Steen]

(...) The reason the 4/3 lenses produce such good edge to edge sharpness wide open is that despite the small image circle and sensor, the lens mouth is between the nikon and canon size - (...)

Jono, of course you have a very important point there, and I surely believe we will in fact see completely new DSLR mounts dedicated for digital image capturing in the next five to ten years. As a matter of fact I was surprised that Sony didn't make a completely new mount from scratch when they entered the DSLR arena. It was a historic chance. Now they are probably stuck with the Alpha mount for many years ?

Of course there is also another unpredictable factor in play as we may at some point see some more sensors with stacked photosites a la Foveon ? That might change the game quite a bit.

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, of course you have a very important point there, and I surely believe we will in fact see completely new DSLR mounts dedicated for digital image capturing in the next five to ten years. As a matter of fact I was surprised that Sony didn't make a completely new mount from scratch when they entered the DSLR arena. It was a historic chance. Now they are probably stuck with the Alpha mount for many years ?

I think they were trying to make sure of keeping hold of the Minolta faithful (there is, after all, a lot of good minolta glass around). Ironically, it becomes clearer and clearer that good old glass is not very suitable for modern digital sensors (witness the fact that the new nikkor zooms often perform better than the old primes).

Of course there is also another unpredictable factor in play as we may at some point see some more sensors with stacked photosites a la Foveon ? That might change the game quite a bit.

Well, perhaps - if so, the removal of the 'bayer blur' would also tend to make 4/3 more attractive . . . suddently you aren't talking about a 20mp limit, but a '60'.

Of course, everything is a compromise - if you want ultimate image quality, then an 8X10 sensor would be a fine thing . . . but you would sacrifice a little in terms of portability. Ultimate portability suggests a GX100 . . . but then you lose too much in terms of image quality and features.

My feeling is that new sensor developments will tend to work in favour of 4/3 rather than the opposite. Let's face it, if you can produce a fine quality A1 sized print from a camera, for most purposes, that IS enough (and you can already produce a fine A2 sized print from a 4/3 sensor).

When I bought the D3 I thought I would probably get rid of my 4/3 gear, after a few weeks I was sure of it, after doing these lens tests I'm certain that I won't get rid of it.

 

[neils]

I'd like to hear more of what Charles has to say about his new Zeiss lenses. 25 so so? 35 in another league? Tell us more, post something when you are able.

Neil

 

[charlesphoto]

I'd like to hear more of what Charles has to say about his new Zeiss lenses. 25 so so? 35 in another league? Tell us more, post something when you are able.

Neil

I actually haven't shot much with the 25 but have quite a bit with the 35. The weather has been AWFUL here in Seattle. I will try and start a new thread and post some examples of the 35 though which I've been doing some studio and performance work with.

I have a feeling the 25 may go by by and put the $ towards a 24-70. But I need to do some more real world shooting first before I do that. I also also have a Nikon 24 AFD prime I can compare it to.

The build quality is superb, and the Zeisses make one feel as if they aren't using a Japanese camera anymore.

 

[charlesphoto]

Have you ever used the 25mm biogon Charles? Because it seems like most people who have used both rate it as the equal (though not a twin) of the 24mm elmarit. Sean Reid has a good comparison of them and the differences are very minor...mostly related to contrast...the Zeiss has a little more as well as a bit more edge to edge resolution but less center resolution. But the differences are quite small. Both of them are extraordinarily good. At the price you paid, I would probably have gone for the elmarit, but when I got the biogon it was 800 something dollars new (I was in Japan at the time and the currency exchange was better), and the 24mm is 3000 or so now, right? Even then it was above 2000.

Oh, don't tempt me! I could sell my 24, get the Biogon, and still see a profit!
I have the 18 Distagon and think it is a superb lens. Considering how top notch the manufacture is on the Zeiss lenses is I'm not really sure where Leica gets off charging the prices they do. I'm happy I got my lenses long before the M8 was even announced (or dreamed of for that matter).