Review: Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm

LOALTD said:
"The Zeiss resolves strongly throughout the frame, and that resolution is further boosted by a quality that I rarely see equalled by non-Zeiss lenses, and that is microcontrast. When I use that term I refer not only to the global contrast of any particular image but also to the unique quality of strong contrast in the fine details. It aids the appearance of resolution because images do not have any of the “haze” that makes them appear softer. This really helps images from Zeiss lenses like this one have a nice three dimensional quality. Head to head comparisons consistently show that Zeiss lenses have better contrast than just about any of their competitors (including the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8), which simply means that details resolve more crisply."

Can we see some of these head to head comparisons?

I've heard many people throw around the term "micro contrast", but I've never seen anyone back it up with actual examples.

Matt Granger does just that with the Zeiss 15 vs. the Nikon 14-24mm here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toqo-_q2WPg&spfreload=10

I compare the microcontrast with the Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/135mm vs. the Canon 135L (the results are amazing, by the way.): http://dustinabbott.net/2014/07/zeiss-apo-sonnar-t-2135mm-ze-review-2/
 
Upvote 0
Mr Bean said:
Great review Dustin. As an owner of one of these beauties, they can also make for interesting portraits.
5D3 @ 1/25 f3.5 and real close :)

378A9571_Ray_BW.jpg

I like this - quirky and fun. WA distortion is fun to play with in creative ways - you just have to have subjects that don't take themselves too seriously. Knowing the lens as I do I would say that you were VERY close for this picture!
 
Upvote 0
The Flasher said:
TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
The Flasher said:
I'd hesitate to drop this kind of coin on this focal length - I find the 15mm is often not wide enough. At a similar price point, the rumored 11-24/4 I could justify.

Ok that's my only excuse, in reality, I'm drooling over this lens.

That's interesting, because I have a 14mm lens and I can't imagine wanting a wider focal length than that. I have a 12mm crop sensor lens (about 19mm equiv), and it is actually a very nice landscape focal length. Composition would become really difficult at 11mm, and you would literally have to watch out for your feet getting into all your photos.

For architecture 14mm often falls short. This image is with the 14mm 2.8 II, leaving out part of the house on left, glass railing and beach cabana plus environment on right. 11mm may be a bit extreme, but a rectilinear 12mm would have captured everything I wanted. It sounds like we're splitting hairs over a mm or two, but at those widths 1mm makes a difference between getting an architectural feature in the shot or cropping it out. Also, it's not always a case of having your back up against a wall, but using focal width to push features apart, opening ceiling/floor details etc.

Cheers.

Now that's a great example of the "blue" hour.
 
Upvote 0