Remember when you subscribe to make sure you use a valid email, or I will
have no way to contact you. Some subscribers have PayPal accounts with a dead email address from whenever. I can always
be contacted, but this delays your subscription until then.
The following message could not be delivered to *******@yahoo.com at host
yahoo.com (67.195.168.230) because the message content was rejected.
554 delivery error: dd This user doesn't have a yahoo.com account
Zeiss ZE 28/2 and 35/2 Distagons
for Canon EOS PERMALINK
I haven’t forgotten about the Zeiss ZE 28/2 Distagon and ZE
35/2 Distagon for Canon EOS.
I have shot both on the Canon EOS 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III, and samples are in my work queue for addition to Guide
to Zeiss ZF/ZE Lenses. They two Distagons match either camera very nicely in terms of ergonomics, but I particularly
like the heft and feel on the 5D Mark II. Don’t expect perfection on full-frame, but I can’t say I know of anything
better in that range.
Leica M9 and off-center
color PERMALINK
I shot some reference images showing off-center color shifts with the Leica M9, already explored
for the Zeiss ZM 21/4.5 Biogon in my Leica M9 review. Coming soon.
Miner’s Outhouse
(click for larger view)
Leica M9 + Zeiss ZM 21/4.5 Biogon @ f/8
Off-center color shift is an issue with all focal lengths on the M9, even 90mm and this is why Leica programs in
settings for Leica lenses into the M9. With Leica lenses, or ones that are reasonably similar to Leica lenses
(eg the lovely and value-priced Zeiss
ZM 35/2 Biogon), you’re in reasonably good shape— you can manually choose the specific lens (for non-coded or
non-Leica lenses) or set it to Auto for 6-bit coded Leica lenses. But even that is not perfect, because even Leica
lenses vary from sample to sample.
The wonderful variety of lenses in M-mount (or 39mm screw mount with M adapter) means that this issue is just not
going away. I feel that Leica has a lot of homework to≠ do here to carry on the M tradition: non-Leica
lenses deserve better support than just “closest Leica equivalent”, which doesn’t work well at all for
some lenses.
For example, I have some Voigtlander M-compatible lenses coming courtesy of Stephen
Gandy at CameraQuest. I will be shooting them this weekend for notes in my M9
review. With about 13 Voigtlander lenses and the same number of Zeiss
ZM lenses and many others, Leica M users deserve more extensive lens support in their US$7K M9. It’s fair that
Leica can’t do this all at once, but a camera system deserves that sort of commitment.
All that said, I’ve developed as an experiment a layer mask for Photoshop which can largely eliminate the color
cast issue even with the 21/4.5 Biogon. Not perfect, because the shift varies slightly with the lighting and aperture,
but really much better than without. Black and white shooters can pretty much ignore the whole affair. I also have
the Zeiss ZM 18/4 and 21/2.8 which I’ll be evaluating.
You can read another person’s analysis here,
though it’s way too nerdy for even me to want to wade through.
Why I review equipment PERMALINK
Finding solid information free of pandering and legitimizers can be just about impossible with any kind of gear
today. When I’m interested in gear, I want to know how it really works before I buy— that’s why I started this blog
and my reviews a short (and long) three years ago, in December 2005 (reviews
started earlier that year).
My “reviews” are not so much reviews (almost a pejorative these days), as much as “how to use” and “what to watch
out for” — all sorts of goodies that take me a lot of hard work to ferret out— distilled down for subscribers and
the public at large, to whom I’m grateful for supporting my efforts. Thank
you. And as the holiday season approaches, I am also grateful when my links are
used, at no cost to yourself.
Unsolicited reader comments on my M9 review in DAP:
I just wanted to add my thanks to the that provided by the others who have applauded your M9 Review.
Quite frankly it's the only review on the internet I've encountered thus far that deserves the title "Review" --if
we want to be truly honest with ourselves regarding what constitutes a review. I value tremendously the insight you
applied, and the fact that, as a reviewer you were both capable and honest. — Jonathan G
That info you posted today on the M9 was extremely helpful! I'm amazed how quickly you were able to
post it...thanks for telling it like it is. — Jeff K
Just wanted to drop you a note saying "Thank you" for the most balanced, thorough and detailed
review of the M9 I've read anywhere on the web. It is amazing the number of fine points you've unearthed that haven't
even been mentioned, let alone covered in even a single review on the web! I am happy to be a subscriber! — Ram V
Holy bejesus... I haven't even made my way past page 3 and my eyeballs are seared... You have to realize
that you counter a mountain of crap on other sites, forums, etc. — Dan M
Thank you so much for your comprehensive review of the M9 !
None of issues it has was mentioned on other sites, which are all too enthusiastic about this camera.
— Rainer M
I found your M-9 review excellent, nobody anywhere has really reported the stuff your report gave...I
like lots about the M-9 concept and Leica, but the reviews for Leica usually fall into 2 categories: the toadies,
and the ignorant; your review is a new category it is honest, insightful and useful all at the same time. — John M
Thank you for your complete review and keep up the good work. — Peter V
Zeiss ZF.2 18mm and 21mm lenses in
hand PERMALINK
As reported here a few days ago, Carl Zeiss has introduced new ZF.2 versions
of its outstanding ZF optics. The ZF, ZF.2 and ZE (Canon) lenses are all optically identical, varying only
in physical build (ZE lenses for Canon EOS focus in the opposite direction of ZF/ZF.2 and are slightly heavier and
bulkier).
Read all about ZF/ZE in my Guide to Zeiss ZF/ZE Lenses, and should
you buy them or any photo equipment, I thank you for using my links at
no cost to yourself.
Briefly noted in the Zeiss press release is an all-new 25mm Distagon, coming next year. If Zeiss can make it perform
like the 21/2.8 Distagon, then it will be high on my acquisition list. Though I do like very much the existing ZF
25/2.8 Distagon for its unusual rendering qualities at close range, and it might become a “cult” lens, sought-after
once Zeiss stops manufacturing it.
On loan from Zeiss and in my hands are the new ZF.2 18mm and 21mm lenses. The revised versions are at first glance
identical to the ZF models. I have briefly put them through their paces, and here is my report—
Electronic contacts on Zeiss ZF.2 lens for Nikon
Aperture control behaves just like it does with any modern Nikon lens: the camera controls the lens aperture electronically
in 1/2 stop or 1/3 stop increments (depending on how you configure the camera). Since the camera can electronically
control the aperture, shutter priority exposure mode is now available, as well as all all program modes that control
the shutter speed.
Since the ZF.2 lenses are now “CPU” lenses, the camera knows that the ZF 21.2 is a 21mm lens, and that information
is recorded in the EXIF data within the image. No more need for the “Non CPU lens data” setting in the camera; it’s
ignored for CPU lenses.
One side effect is that you’ll get an “FEE” error until you lock the aperture ring at the minimum aperture eg f/22
(sames as with Nikon lenses). You must comply; the aperture is no longer controlled by the aperture ring on modern
Nikon bodies. A small release button releases the ring for use on older Nikon bodies and/or when used on Canon with
an adapter.
But Zeiss has done this the right way, as Voigtlander did with its lenses (see reviews):
although the aperture is now controlled electronically, use of a lens adapter still allows use on Canon EOS, because
the aperture ring still regulates the lens diaphragm. This attention to detail increases the versatility of the ZF/ZF.2
line, in contrast to Nikon’s “G” lenses, which have no aperture ring. Kudos to Zeiss for recognizing this: I shoot
Zeiss ZF on Canon EOS frequently using a lens adapter. Regarding
Nikon’s electronic “G” lenses: there is at least one electronic adapter, but I am not prepared to recommend it, as
I have not used it.
Cosmetically, there are three physical differences that distinguish ZF.2 from ZF:
- On the front of the lens, the engraving reads ZF.2 instead of ZF;
- The engraved aperture numbers on the aperture ring remain the same, except that the minimum aperture (eg f/22)
is now orange, in traditional Nikon style;
- There are electronic contacts on the rear of the lens; these and other electronic parts are what make ZF.2 “CPU”
lenses.
The new ZF.2 line will be priced significantly higher (23%), but how this falls out in terms of street pricing remains
to be seen.
Some readers have written to express their displeasure that Zeiss has devalued their existing ZF lenses by making
improved versions (“why didn’t they wait until they could do it right the first time”). I disagree with this: legal
issues can be thorny, and Zeiss is not a deep pockets company, just being sued (and winning) can still be very costly.
The ZF line appeared in June 2007, and I’m glad they weren’t delayed until now! I don’t fault Zeiss for improving
its products, though I do wish they would consider an upgrade program.
The bottom line is that there is little practical difference between ZF and ZF.2 for making images; the aperture
ring works well, always has, and always will. Yes, I would prefer electronic control on my Nikons, and I do like the
auto-EXIF information recorded in the file with no setting required, but those are not issues that would make me rush
out and upgrade.
According to Zeiss:
The ZF.2 lenses adhere to the Nikon AI-P standard and deliver the same functionality. According
to Nikon, AI-P NIKKOR lenses provide all functions supported except auto-focus and 3D Color Matrix Metering II.
Follow
on Twitter
