Your inquiry to Carl Zeiss...

[ramonjsantiago]

I thought I'd share this note that I sent to Carl-Zeiss with you because I found it amusing;

Subject: Question about Vario-Sonnar T* 2,8-22/24-70 ZA

Comment:
Could you make one of these in the Canon EF mount? The Canon equivalent is really crappy.

---

Dear XXX,

Thank you for your inquiry to Carl Zeiss.

The market for such zoom lenses is highly competitive. Then there are two things the customers expect when they think about purchasing it : auto focus and affordable price. This is why we only make the optical design for Sony ZA lenses in a sort of cooperation with Sony. It is not possible for us just to switch the mount from Sony to Canon and maybe later on to Nikon.
Unfortunately you can`t expect a product like this from Carl Zeiss in the near future.


Hoping to be of service to you we kindly ask you to contact us again should you need further assistance.

Sincerely,
XXX

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Carl Zeiss AG
Geschäftsbereich Photoobjektive / Camera Lens Division
Internationaler Vertrieb / International Sales
Kundenservice/ Customer Support

---

Please note that I own the; EF 14mmf/2.8L II USM, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM , and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. These three are truly excellent lenses and worthy of the L designation.
I also own the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. These, IMHO should not be L lenses. Their IQ, Vignetting, and Distortion are not what I would expect from a professional lens.

What prompted me in making the original request is that I am looking for one lens as a replacement for those last two listed above, and that the, yet to be released, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, looks like it will have equally poor IQ.

I've tested out the Zeiss lens on a friend's camera and that has clearly superior IQ.

 

[branden]

What are you taking photos of with the 24-70mm f/2.8L? I find it difficult to imagine what sort of image quality issues you had with that lens.

 

[EYEONE]

What are you taking photos of with the 24-70mm f/2.8L? I find it difficult to imagine what sort of image quality issues you had with that lens.

I agree. It's a weather sealed, metal barreled, constant aperture zoom lens with very excellent IQ in my opinion. Very worthy of the "L" I love this lens.

And even hinting that the 24-70L II will have issues is not right at all.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Please note that I own the; EF 14mmf/2.8L II USM, EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM , and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. These three are truly excellent lenses and worthy of the L designation.
I also own the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, and EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. These, IMHO should not be L lenses. Their IQ, Vignetting, and Distortion are not what I would expect from a professional lens.

I'm not sure these comparisons are valid. First off, you're comparing two primes and what is arguably the best zoom lens Canon has ever made with two general purpose zoom lenses. The 24-105mm, in particular, is a 4.4x zoom lens with a wide angle end, and thus will certainly have substantial barrel distortion. The 14mm f/2.8L II has close to 3 stops of vignetting wide open - that's just as bad as the 24-70mm (and worse than the 24-105mm). Even Canon's 'best' zoom (70-200 II) has ~1.3 stops of vignetting wide open at the long end, and that's enough to be easily noticeable in my shots.

FWIW, for the Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 compared to the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L:

• Distortion - about the same for both lenses
• Vignetting - ~1/3 stop worse on Zeiss at 24mm (even down to f/8)
• Focus shift - not a good thing, and the Canon lens has it while the Zeiss doesn't
• Sharpness - the corners of the Zeiss lens are softer relative to the center than the Canon (empirically comparing MTF values in lw/ph is not possible because different sensors are used, however, the lw/ph relative to the max possible for the sensor format is similar for both lenses)
• Chromatic aberration - worse on the Zeiss lens
• Bokeh - better on the Canon lens
• Build quality - about the same for both lenses (unlike Zeiss-made lenses which are all metal, Sony uses plastics in the barrel, as does Canon)
• Flare resistance - Canon's reverse zoom means the hood protects from flare at all focal lengths; the traditional deisgn of the Zeiss lens (hood mounted to extending portion of lens) means the hood is only effective at the wide end, and useless at the long end

Overall, I don't think it's fair to say that the Zeiss lens is clearly superior.

I do agree that the 24-105mm is far from the sharpest lens in the Canon lineup - but that's not it's selling point. It's a kit lens for a reason - the convenient focal length, primarily.

 

[LFG530]

Wow they really have great support and classy answers for clients... I wish canon would even answer to mail recommandations - _ - . Even if it's snobish I can't help it, I <3 zeiss.

 

[Admin US West]

FWIW, for the Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8 compared to the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L:

• Distortion - about the same for both lenses
• Vignetting - ~1/3 stop worse on Zeiss at 24mm (even down to f/8)
• Focus shift - not a good thing, and the Canon lens has it while the Zeiss doesn't
• Sharpness - the corners of the Zeiss lens are softer relative to the center than the Canon (empirically comparing MTF values in lw/ph is not possible because different sensors are used, however, the lw/ph relative to the max possible for the sensor format is similar for both lenses)
• Chromatic aberration - worse on the Zeiss lens
• Bokeh - better on the Canon lens
• Build quality - about the same for both lenses (unlike Zeiss-made lenses which are all metal, Sony uses plastics in the barrel, as does Canon)
• Flare resistance - Canon's reverse zoom means the hood protects from flare at all focal lengths; the traditional deisgn of the Zeiss lens (hood mounted to extending portion of lens) means the hood is only effective at the wide end, and useless at the long end

Overall, I don't think it's fair to say that the Zeiss lens is clearly superior.

Agreed 100%