Poll: what is your preference? 24-70 II @28mm or Zeiss 2/28 ZF

sonics wrote:

Fog Maker wrote:

You mentioned character. Fact is that something that seems to be lacking in the mk II version.

That the old version has better bokeh I think is widely acknowledged

(I also have written before how much I prefer the older design, but that is besides the point here)

but it also seem to render the images better as far as colour is concerned. The 16-35 II (even the 17-40), the 70 -200 IS II plus many of the primes has the classic Canon colours (contrast etc)

while the new one seem more related to, say, the 17- 55 2.8

- sharp but lifeless

The latter is of course hard to validate... But that how I see it

(mind you, I don't own the mk II)

So I guess you tried the MK II for several days to know this?

I wouldn't say the MKII it is lifeless but more that is has no own Idendity.

The hired MKII lens also had a slight decentering issue. The zeiss is just perfect. The build is perfect only the manual focus can be a pain in the 2m-infinity range.

I also have a contax zeiss 28mm f/2.8 distagon. (Use it on my 5D). Great lens with very much it's own character.

Foggie, Sonics,

Above, in my conclusion, I characterized the 24-70 II as contrasty and the Zeiss as more evenly toned, based on the standard PPing I normally use, and for the images posted for that particular commentary. The 24-70 II is generally sharper at the edges and corners and the Zeiss wins the distant infinity areas. Some areas within the images produce inconclusive results IMO.

Given the subtle differences after PPing at the sizing I currently care the most about, the 24-70 II wins my preference only when factors other than IQ are considered (bearing in mind there was no competition intended for the Zeiss 2/28 vs the 24-70 II in the first place, the fact is, I accidentally had the 24-70 II dialed into 28mm which subsequently propagated this comparison during image review back at the hacienda).

OTOH, the fact that the 24-70 II can stand toe to toe with good primes for landscape applications is illuminating to say the least. I disagree that the original had more character - for landscaping.

I had no clue the original 24-70 produced more pleasing bokeh than the 24-70 II. That benefit has zero impact upon my style of photography though I am not trying to minimize such characteristics that are important to others. I just wouldn't know how to set up an even-handed bokeh comparison. I know that for the original set of ZF lenses, most any Canon model could generally produce more pleasing bokeh than the corresponding Zeiss, made on a casual basis (perhaps a bokeh virtuoso could draw decent bokeh from the Zeiss).

Focusing the Zeiss with Live View is next to focusing with AF for ease of use IMO. Even easier, for VF use, if your adapter is properly machined to produce infinity focus at the infinity mark, turning your focus ring to infinity (because there is a physical stop at infinity on Zeiss lenses for those who do not know this) should produce perfectly focused shots of infinity without ever having to look in the VF.