Tonika 16-28 vs Canon 17-40 or Carl Zeiss 21mm f2.8 for canon 5d3

[andyhayes]

Hi all,

First time poster here on Canon Rumors (been a canon fan for years and I can't believe I have only just come across this site) anyways....I'm in the market for a super wide lens which will bring me brilliant sharpness, contrast and coloured images. I'm looking for a super wide lens (i've got a 35L as my wide lens).

I've been sniffing around and have come across these lenses.

The Tonika 16-28mm -- can get for 650 Pounds

Pro's
Fast 2.8
Decent IQ - the same as the 16-35mmL but not as good as Nikons version unfortunately

Con's
Can be a bit soft in the corners at lower apertures

The canon 17-40L -- can get for 500 pounds

Pro's
Decent enough IQ - obviously not as good as the Nikkor 16-35mm

Con's
Slow f4 aperture (But doesnt really matter for a super wide since you want everything in focus)

Carl Zeiss 21mm f2.8 -- can get for 1140 pounds

Pro's
Super sharp image, edge to edge even at f2.8
Brilliant colours, contrast and saturation.
Built like a tank

Con's
THE PRICE!!!!

If you are in my position, owning a 5D3 and looking for a special lens that will never disapoint, and will deliver the sharpest results out of all your lenses. Would you flag considering the Canon and Tonkina and go straight for the Carl Zeiss....Or is the difference between the lenses not worth the extra money??

Suggestions will be hugely appreciated.

[Nate]

Hey!

I also have a 5D3 and I use a 17-40 which I like. The IQ is not as good as the 16-35 even at f8. I dont know about the CZ 21, but I would consider or the 17 TS-E with a 1.4 TC or a 24 TS-E. The IQ beats all of them. The corners are miles better. And would I also consider because you can control the prospective.

I dont know what do you shoot, but at super wide to wide is very nice to be able to control the prospective.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If you mean the Tokina 16-28mm lens, its good for what you pay, assuming you are lucky enough to get one that is put togather properly, and that seems to be a big if.
There is a carefully done review of each at photozone.com on both FF and on crop bodies.

[iaind]

I shoot with a 5DII and old 17-35 2.8L or 24 TSE. Both can be found for iro £500 used.
If money is no object go for 16-35II or TSE 17 or even 8-15 fisheye

[Ruben Fernandez]

Go with the Zeiss. it is sharpness what you definitely want when shooting video and specially when you have a low optical by pass filter such as the 5DM3. Plus, you the focus will be accurate for a focus puller everytime (while AF lenses are innacurate when pulling manual focusing) Also, you can cine mod it and use it with great results this way. And, If you choose the zf.2 version (nikon) you have a lens that can potentially work on practically any camera system in the world not just Canon. Just keep in mind it focus the "wrong" way around. I don't mind this one bit, but it is good to know. Or you can get the ZE version but keep in mind you will have to control exposure on the camera not the lens (I prefer controlling exposure on the lens).

[LostArk]

How about the Canon 24mm f/1.4? Sharper than the Zeiss corner-to-corner at all apertures and has AF, plus 1.4 can be fun. Tokina doesn't accept filters and like the 16-35 is big and heavy. The 17-40 has good enough IQ and is small and light. It's a winner in my book.

[risc32]

the other thing about the ziess is that is has a bit of complex distortion, and heavy corner shading at 2.8. also I noticed you didn't mention that it's manual focus only as a "con".  probably very nice working manual focus ring, but for me that's still a con.

[dr croubie]

I'm certainly of the opinion, save up, save up, save up, get the Zeiss.

It's related to the C/Y 21mm Distagon, the 35mm Contax 645 Distagon, the 40mm Hasselblad Distagon. All of them are outstanding examples of Retrofocus wide-angles.

Surely, a zoom is more 'versatile', but once you start seeing the resolution and 'zeiss-look' from any of these lenses, you may as well just get out the instant glue and permanently attach it to your camera...

[Bruce Photography]

Hey!

I also have a 5D3 and I use a 17-40 which I like. The IQ is not as good as the 16-35 even at f8. I dont know about the CZ 21, but I would consider or the 17 TS-E with a 1.4 TC or a 24 TS-E. The IQ beats all of them. The corners are miles better. And would I also consider because you can control the prospective.

I dont know what do you shoot, but at super wide to wide is very nice to be able to control the prospective.

I would agree that the 17 and 24 TS-E Canon lenses should be considered.  I think the world of these lenses when I shoot Canon and I rarely use anything else for Landscapes.  However for a wild idea, I also shoot the Nikon 14-24 and really love that lens.  I sometimes use the 14-24 with a Novoflex adapter.  I have found where to put the adjustable ring on the Novoflex to approximate F11 so I can shoot with some cosistency between Canon bodies and my D800 Nikon.  Just a thought for you.

[akclimber]

I own a 5D3 and 24 TSE MK II and Nikon mount Zeiss 21 f/2.8 F2 (that I use on a D800E and the 5D3 via adapter).  The 24 TSE MK II and the Zeiss are both extraordinary lenses.  Over tho, I prefer the Canon 24 TSE MK II.  The image quality stopped down a bit is every bit as wonderful as the Zeiss (microcontrast included) plus you have the movements as a bonus.  The 24 TSE MK II is a very large reason why I'm not going all in with Nikon.  I highly recommend you consider it of the price doesn't scare you off.  Upsides to the Zeiss include wildly sharp corners and the fact it's faster than the Canon as well as a bit better wide open but really, if you don't need f/2.8 or the 21mm, there's little reason to chose the Zeiss over the Canon 24 TSE MK II.  Also, once you get used to having tilt-shift, it's hard not have it

As an aside, I have also owned the Canon 24 TSE MK I and it doesn't come close to either the MK II or Zeiss.

Good luck!

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

I own a 5D3 and 24 TSE MK II and Nikon mount Zeiss 21 f/2.8 F2 (that I use on a D800E and the 5D3 via adapter).  The 24 TSE MK II and the Zeiss are both extraordinary lenses.  Over tho, I prefer the Canon 24 TSE MK II.  The image quality stopped down a bit is every bit as wonderful as the Zeiss (microcontrast included) plus you have the movements as a bonus.  The 24 TSE MK II is a very large reason why I'm not going all in with Nikon.  I highly recommend you consider it of the price doesn't scare you off.  Upsides to the Zeiss include wildly sharp corners and the fact it's faster than the Canon as well as a bit better wide open but really, if you don't need f/2.8 or the 21mm, there's little reason to chose the Zeiss over the Canon 24 TSE MK II.  Also, once you get used to having tilt-shift, it's hard not have it

As an aside, I have also owned the Canon 24 TSE MK I and it doesn't come close to either the MK II or Zeiss.

Good luck!

I totally agree with ak's statement.  I have the same 5D3 w/ 24TSE II and Zeiss 35, 50 f1.4, 50 f2.0, 85 and 100
 lenses. Zeiss are incredibly sharp, have a great deal of micro contrast and are a joy to use.  Not much cheaper than the 24TSE II but still worth the $ IMO.  The Zeiss 21 is probably not as sharp as the 25mm Zeiss however it depends on where you read the reviews.

My advise, rent some of these lenses first and see if you like them.

Happy Shooting

[risc32]

i'm sure there are variable at play here that have to be considered but since we are talking about the ziess 21mm f2.8 i for one would look pretty hard at the canon 24mm 1.4. is photozone biased? look at the resolution charts for the ziess and canon next to each other. they are full of praise for the ziess, and call the canon's performance a rollercoaster. well, i don't know what numbers they are looking at because their numbers show canon is better than the ziess everywhere, then drops off as the aperture is opened to amounts the ziess can't even reach. perhaps canon shouldn't have permitted this lens to open wider than f2.8, then it would have gotten better press. add autofocus, weather seals, and a 77mm filter size and it's really looking good. 

[wickidwombat]

I went with the voigtlander 20mm 3.5 color Skopar sl2 it's much cheaper than the ziess not as good but damn sharp and I like its compact pancake form top build quality and electronic aperture control I also have the 16-35 mk2 but the voigtlander is so small and easy to carry around when traveling light I am really happy with it well worth trying out

[dr croubie]

is photozone biased? look at the resolution charts for the ziess and canon next to each other. they are full of praise for the ziess, and call the canon's performance a rollercoaster.

There's more to the 'look' than the simple MTF resolution numbers. There's 'microcontrast' which a lot of people here have mentioned already. Normal contrast, colour, saturation, they all add up with 'mtf resolution' to get to the sum total of 'percieved sharpness'

Read Bryan's review at TDP:
" And the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens is indeed that good - I'm impressed. If the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens is not the best wide angle lens available, it is definitely a very close contender to the ultimate wide angle lens."

Or quote Ken:
"It is the highest-performance 21mm SLR lens I've ever evaluated."

I could google another few examples, but you get the idea. According to a lot of people that have used it, it's the 'ultimate' wide-angle lens.
Now, price/performance is another matter, not many of us are immune to taking that into account (except saudi oil sheiks). But if you've got the cash, you'll never be disappointed...

[risc32]

while i understand that there is more to something than set of numbers from a lone test. that is the empirical data that they use to test lenses, and they don't jive. you left out that TDP had to get his lens replaced due to it not operating properly, and that while i love ken, he is careful of exactly what words he uses. when he says it's the highest performing 21mm slr lens, he mean JUST that. not 24mm not 25mm, not 22. not zoom, not any other of thing.  I don't disagree of it's performance. I've never used one, but clearly it's awesome. I'm just telling you what i've read and seen. does it not have complex distortion? bye the numbers at photo zone, isn't it beaten by the canon? Doesn't it have high corner shading?  i think so.