EF 24-70 F/2.8 II or Zeiss 21mm Distagon

[ray5]

Hi,
I have some tours planned for the summer. I missed the sale on the Canon 24-70 ver II a few months ago($600 off)  which I planned to upgrade to from my version 1. Since then I have read some amazing things about the Zeiss as well seen some outstanding pictures from both. I do mainly landscape and portraits. I have the 70-200mm F2.8 II which I tend to use exclusively for portraits. I do this for pleasure and not a living. I like the flexibility of the zoom, auto focus of the Canon but have only heard rave reviews of the Zeiss particularly for landscape photography. I have not used a MF lens before and am not sure how steep the learning curve is. What would you recommend? I shoot with a Canon 5D III. Thanks

[yorgasor]

I have the 5DIII, the Zeiss 21mm and the 24-70mm II.  When I go hiking or otherwise off for landscape photography, I only take the Zeiss 21mm and the 70-200mm F2.8 II.  I have little use for the 24-70mm range in landscape (the 24mm end is good, but 21mm is usually better).  Generally, I either want to see all of everything, or I want to see things far away up close.

The Zeiss lens itself is fantastic.  In most cases, I just set the focus to infinity (it has a hard stop which is pretty much on in the summer for infinity, in the winter I roll the focus back just a tad back to get proper infinity).  It's a nice, durable lens with great optics.  If you specifically need to focus closer, you can use live view to get precise focus if you need it.  For landscape, it just means you're a little more methodical, but you're rarely in a hurry in these situations.  It has such a wide depth of field though, if you need to, you can just focus close enough by quickly eyeballing the scene.

Since you already have the 24-70mm I, I think you'd get more bang for your buck adding the Zeiss, instead of upgrading to the 24-70mm II.  Here are some shots from my trip to Utah a couple months ago:

Deadhorse Canyon 2 by yorgasor, on Flickr

Deadhorse Canyon 1 by yorgasor, on Flickr

Bowtie Arch by yorgasor, on Flickr

[ray5]

Those are some awesome images! Thanks

[wickidwombat]

I would say get the 24-70II and consider the voigtlander 20mm f3.5 color skoparII its a fantastic little 20mm lens and much cheaper than the zeiss and smaller and lighter too

[Canon1]

Can't speak to the Zeiss, but my 24-70ii is one of my favorite lenses of all time. It is rare to find a lens that is so sharp at all focal lengths and apertures.

[Menace]

If you are new to MF, try renting a Zeiss lens if possible where you are.

Otherwise, if you have a prime, just flick it on to MF mode and shoot it like that for a whole week and see how you like it

[ray5]

Very Good suggestions.
Here is what I filtered.

Zeiss:
-Outstanding Construction
-3D effect on pictures?
-One of the best in Landscape, thereby a specialty lens
-MF: Tried on my canon as suggested, no issues
-Expensive

Canon 24-70 version I
- I already have it
- Versatile
-Good range to have in a pinch
-AF is handy

Canon 24-70 version II
- Improvement over the first
-Expensive
-Again versatile

I had initially thought of selling the 24-70 and buying the Zeiss or version II. Now I am thinking that I should keep it, get the Zeiss purely for landscapes, I could always sell  the Canon later on. Though, since I do this purely for personal enjoyment and not commercial, should I just stay with the combo I have and resist GAS? With getting any of the lenses, filters etc it's not going to be cheap. Thoughts?
Thanks
Ray