Craig
_ _ _
Opinions diverge at the question whether the Fujinons or the Touits are better: Petapixel for example would go for the XF lenses, while Tom Grill says that the Zeiss are better. Now, I know that Rico Pfirstinger is working on a comparison which should be posted in the next days on Fujirumors. Maybe nobody can say the final word here, but I’m very curious about Rico’s findings! But now, read the reviews and download the samples: be prepared for the next X-pert corner.
_ _ _
1) Craig just posted his full size samples here. He wrote me that “I’m not a wide-angle shooter (since I shoot mostly people), but this lens is really tempting. It handles fantastically, and is a sheer joy to use and renders beautifully.”
“It is truly amazing just how little distortion there is for such a wide lens.”
2) There is a new report on the Zeiss 32mm f/1.8 in DCWatch here (translated version).
3) thephoblographer posted his 12mm review here. From the conclusions:
“The Zeiss 12mm f2.8 earns the highest marks for nearly everything in our eyes. […] The user of this lens may be the typical Zeiss customer: the higher end that appreciates better build quality and image quality for the money. When they purchase this lens, they’ll be rewarded with fast autofocusing and excellent image quality on top of the already mentioned stellar construction. […] The only thing holding us back from giving this lens an Editor’s Choice is the fact that we really wish that it had a depth of field focusing scale and I personally wish that the rubber rings were returned to metal or some sort of plastic.
4) You can read the conclusions of petapixel for the 12mm here “The Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 Feels Un-Zeiss-Like. Don’t Touit:“ ()
“I’d love to say the Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2.8 should be purchased for your Fuji without question, but I can’t. […] But at $1,250, with the issues it has — most annoyingly is the aperture control ring — I can’t see to it to plunk down that much cash. For the Sony, where the aperture ring is a non-issue, I suspect it’s the same game: not sharp wide open, feels toy like and is a little too pricey for most when many other options are available.
At this point for the Zeiss, I’m paying an extra few hundred bucks for a lens with blue logo, no depth of field scale and a wonky aperture ring.”
5) Seems that Tom Grill doesn’t agree with petapixel and would choose the Zeiss over the Fuji lenses. But read his review (and download high-res samples) here. From the conclusions:
“These are truly professional grade optics with exception resolution across the image plane, and no noticeable distortion. Truth is the Fuji lenses are really very good, but the bottom line is that the Zeiss lenses are better. […] My opinion is that the Zeiss Touit lenses improve the Fuji X-Pro1 camera to an image level that is commensurate with the top pro cameras out there, and I mean even the full frame models. If you can afford to go the extra few hundred dollars to upgrade to theses lenses, I think you will find they are well worth the price.”
Zeiss Touit 32mm in stock status check: USA: Adorama / BHphoto / AmazonUS / Uniquephoto / Pictureline / Europe: AmazonDE / ebayUK / PCHstore Brussel
Zeiss Touit 12mm in stock status check: USA: Adorama / BHphoto / AmazonUS / Uniquephoto / Pictureline / Europe: AmazonDE / ebayUK / PCHstore Brussel
image courtesy: aboutphography
21 Responses
The author from aboutphotography is a zeiss wank.
In his review he states:
“The first practical test I put the lenses through is my brick wall test. It was right after performing this test that I realized I was witnessing something special with these lenses.”
It’s a brick wall. That isn’t using your lens, that’s taking pictures of a non-moving object.
An effective 18mm lens without barrel distortion? Whoopty-f**king-do.
Further, if you look at all his real world usage pictures, he’s at f/5.6 or f/8 on every one of them.
My coffee mug can make sharp pictures stopped down to f/8. Why pay $1250 to the ZeissGods to have the pleasure of shooting at f/8?
Chavy, You said it in more colorful language then I could..
But, you hit the nail on the head on every point.. Whenever I hear some “expert” say the first way he tests a lens is to point it at a brick wall, I immediately lose interest. Yeah, I get it.. he’s checking for distortion etc etc…
I have a 10 year old Tamron 18-55mm zoom lens that is without barrel distortion.. I agree with you.. no big deal at all..
But silly me…why am I sitting here wasting time tapping into this comment section… Literally, the delivery man just came to drop off my new XF55-200 lens! For those interested I live in Japan and paid:
JPY 58,000
USD: 562.75
Euro: 429.35
Yeah, a brick wall “test” is a definitive sign of the brain FUBAR. Shooting fast primes at f/8 makes it FUBAR squared.
Back on topic: I’d love to see a bokeh comparison someday. Not just “this is a silly plant, look at this creamy whateverness behind it”, but real comparison: camera mounted on a tripod, here’s the bokeh from Fujinon, here’s one from Zeiss. Wide frackin’ open!
My personal observation: sometimes Fujinons give an incredibly weird bokeh when backlit. I mean, weird beyond diagnosis, Aliens stuff, satanic bats, you name it. Still trying to figure out ways to predict that behavior.
“The first practical test I put the lenses through is my brick wall test. It was right after performing this test that I realized I was witnessing something special with these lenses.”
He might refer to the strong digital distortion correction and the slightly bizarre behavior that these lenses are actually sharper at f/4 than at f/8. 🙂
Or maybe fact that any pointy objects (like your fingernails) leaves ugly marks on those rubber-made aperture and focus rings? 🙂
Chavy, are you English? I wasn’t sure if the W word had made its way into the American vocab? And Chavy is one of ours too…good lad.. :0)
There is a simple rule of thumb: if review has referral links to amazon/b&h/adorama you shouldn’t treat their opinion on products being reviewed seriously even though they might be sincere.
I don’t see any independent and objective reviews like photozone in the list so it’s too early to say anything conclusive about 12mm and 32mm.
Who’s more independent to you:
1) Magazine or website dependent on Add money of the companies that manufacture the products they review
or
2) Some Photographer who does it for fun and a little money he gets from links to online-stores ?
You choose. Of course the downside is, you never now how companies try to bribe photographers, while you know exactly how they bribe magazines. 😉
I meant ad-money.
All the reviewers I’ve seen in the second category are not capable of writing anything substantially negative beyond minor annoyances: Steve Huff, Ken Rockwell and company. Whatever they review at the moment is the best thing she/he has ever seen.
This happens because the only way for them to get profit is for you to buy the item by following referral link. You won’t follow the link if the review says that item is a overpriced piece of junk.
Income from Ads make reviewer a bit more neutral because the text of the review doesn’t really influence their income. They can write both negative and positive review and it won’t influence amount of ad views they’ll get from this article.
Did you read the petapixel review. Starts out with the usual fluff on zeiss and japan but quickly it gets bad for Zeiss & Co. They say it’s sharp beyond 3.2 but they’re not wasting time in front of a wall. They said it’s not great wide open and the fstop adjustment ring makes it practically useless. Theyr’e also stating its toy like and they wouldn’t buy it over the fuji 14mm. Half the comments attached say they won’t buy. Compared to the other reviews it’s easily the most ludicrous of them. There is no way the lens is that bad.
That review is a cute exception to the general pattern and it does sound very believable to me. I would definitely feel the same way if I saw holes inside of my $1250 lens and aperture ring would be too easy to knock off. IMO it doesn’t say that the lens is outright bad, just that it might not be worth it’s price.
Really? You can’t trust Thom Hogan (bythom.com) or Mike Johnston (http://theonlinephotographer.com)? Here’s a simple rule of thumb: don’t trust simple rules of thumbs.
Again, I don’t mean to say that all of such reviews are insincere and only try to lure you into buying the product. Of course there are numerous exceptions but they are just that, exceptions.
This “rule” just expresses my personal feeling and personal experience with glaring reviews. I’ve bought overhyped products a few times and now I’m much more careful and try to look at things with my own eyes and only rely on bare facts that are presented by reviewers (e.g. numbers of various metrics, raw sample images etc) and my own experiences rather than personal subjective judgement of other people.
Feel free to disagree. That’s the point of what I’m saying, thinking with your own head. 😉
Well, I can certainly agree on that. But It’s still nice we get so many different reviews. If you filter it cafully you can probably get a well enough estimate of the acutal quality.
Tom Grill’s “conclusion” (sic): “Truth is the Fuji lenses are really very good, but the bottom line is that the Zeiss lenses are better.” I mean, what kind of assessment is that? Can this guy string two words together at all? How reliable can such an “assessment” be?
Let’s wait until professional photography magazines publish serious in-lab and on-the-street tests.
What about http://www.dslrmagazine.com/pruebas/pruebas-de-campo/objetivos-carl-zeiss-touit-para-csc-muestras.html ? Raw files included.
Also promising – http://photo.yodobashi.com/gear/carlzeiss/touit/index_e.html
The conclusion is that they are only marginally better, but considerably more expensive then the fujinon lenses. Any self respecting reviewer should recommend the fujinon lenses. If the touit lenses were a bit faster you could justify the price, but in this case zeiss just cant compete with fuji’s own lineup. The fujinons are in a league of their own.
Looking forward to the new bokehking the 56 F1.2!
I have started shooting samples at 6.30 AM today, and it’s not looking that great for Zeiss, so far. There’s quite a lot to take into account, of course, but since both Touits rely on digital distortion correction (the Fujinons 14mm and 35mm don’t)… oh well.
Please give us more info. How bad is the distortion if turn the correction off? (e.g. it’s possible to do this in capture one)
I’ve looked through the RAW images given by dslrmagazine.com and yes, the distortion is pretty bad. In Capture One it’s set to 100%, the same value as 18mm f/2.
This means that corners won’t be as sharp as Fujinons, even stopped down. But we’ll have to wait for photozone to confirm this.
That’s a huge letdown for $900 and $1250 lens. Such a shame.
Setting any cases of bias aside, the sole fact that opinions are so divided should indicate we are dealing with same or very similar class of craftsmanship when it comes to both Zeiss and Fuji lenses. I would not doubt that Zeiss is on top of the game but some people have yet to realize this company is not alone up there. We can safely say that times when blue logo or red dot was guaranteeing unbeatable quality are gone.