Zeiss Distagon 15 f/2.8 ZE Official

5

5D Freak

Guest
kennykodak said:
i am totally happy with my Canon 14L II. no complaints.
With the samples on The Digital Picture
Canon 14L II vs Nikon 14-24:
Distortion - Nikon distorts heavily - the canon wins by a big margin here
CA - Similar (slight edge to Canon)
Corner sharpness - Canon wins
I would buy the Canon at the more expesive price point for 14mm

The Ziess seams on par with the 14II in most reaspects. The 17tse kicks ass in all aspects. Ziess can hold filters - a big plus for landscape work.

Why do so many people glorify the Nikon 14-24 over Canon and Zeiss offerings. Price maybe, but thats all
 
C

contrastny

Guest
5D Freak said:
kennykodak said:
i am totally happy with my Canon 14L II. no complaints.
The Ziess seams on par with the 14II in most reaspects. The 17tse kicks ass in all aspects. Ziess can hold filters - a big plus for landscape work.

Why do so many people glorify the Nikon 14-24 over Canon and Zeiss offerings. Price maybe, but thats all
It can hold round filters, but how can it hold slot filters with the built in lens hood? It looks like an amazing lens, but I wish it could hold ND grads in a LEE filter holder or similar.
 

telephonic

EOS T7i
Jan 27, 2011
57
0
I give this lens a "wow" for its price. Have to bear ramen for all my life to get hold of this lens, I think. ::)
 

Gcon

EOS 80D
Aug 12, 2010
126
0
contrastny said:
It takes screw in filters, but with the built in lens hood it doesn't look like you can use ND grads, etc.
That's what I was thinking. I actually got mildly excited about this lens before I realised the metal hood can't be detached (unlike the plastic hood of the 8-15mm L fisheye).

I'll make do with the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, until which time that Canon updates their wide-angle offerings sometime in the next 12-18 months.
 
Z

zyx1989

Guest
in my opinion : if this lens can't Autofocus, it wouldn't stack up against EF14L II (or I) no matter HOW GOOD the optical quality might be
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,075
364
I know I am not comparing apples to apples and that 2mm difference is a big deal in wide angles but
for someone who does not need exactly that and has no infinite money the Canon TS-E 17mm L is a much
better choice. Of course your mileage may vary.

Actually I do have the Zeiss 21mm lens and I am very happy with its quality (even at the edges...)
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,341
23
jonrista.com
Sounds like a beautiful lens (as expected from Zeiss.) I'm rather curious about the built-in, non-removable lens hood though. I'd love to get a lens like that (especially with low distortion) for my landscape photography, but not being able to remove the lens hood really kills it for that purpose. It entirely eliminates the use of any ND/GND filtration!

Does that sound like an odd move on Zeiss' part to anyone else?
 

DJL329

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2010
574
17
jrista said:
Sounds like a beautiful lens (as expected from Zeiss.) I'm rather curious about the built-in, non-removable lens hood though. I'd love to get a lens like that (especially with low distortion) for my landscape photography, but not being able to remove the lens hood really kills it for that purpose. It entirely eliminates the use of any ND/GND filtration!

Does that sound like an odd move on Zeiss' part to anyone else?
The one it's based on, ZM mount, also has a built-in hood, so it really shouldn't be a surprise. That one takes 72mm filters, but it costs $4,600!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/361526-REG/Zeiss_1457_856_15mm_f_2_8_ZM_Lens.html

This one also takes screw-in filters, albeit 95mm ones, so I don't see why it couldn't take ND/GND filters.
 
W

woofmeow

Guest
I'm completely lost now with this announcement.
I love wide angle, and used tokina 11-16 on crop.
And i love zeiss. They now have 3 ultra-wides: 21, 18, 15.
Now i'm moving to full frame, and was considering tokina's replace (i miss it so much).
21mm seems to be an outstanding lens, but not as wide as i would like.
18mm is a sweet spot focal length to me, but appears to have unpleasant color errors in rendition.
And a new 15mm is lovely but costs.. and it may be bit too wide for me.
Maybe it is time to go 100mm macro instead and explore :)
 
Jul 19, 2011
7
0
diliff said:
The question in my mind is this: Given it'll be manual focus, why not just get the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 with an EF adapter, and have the extra flexibility of the zoom? From what I can see, it's the best ultrawide in existence, prime or zoom. I suppose only thing that the Zeiss has in its favour is lower weight and the ability to accept filters. But apart from that, why would I want it, if it isn't significantly better?
The Nikon, while an excellent lens isn't all roses. The distortion at 14mm is extreme; not really acceptable for architecture (it isn't so bad at longer FLs though, but if you want 14/15mm you're SOL with the Nikkor). A prime like the 14L II does much better, the Zeiss should be even better.

The Nikon also suffers from pretty heavy flare, while the Zeiss should be pretty flare resistant given the performance of it's 18/21/25mm brothers.

The Nikon is the best UWA zoom in existence in terms of resolution, but primes like the 14L, 17TS-E or the new Zeiss still have advantages in their specific focal lengths. Of course, the Nikkor is cheaper than any of the three aforementioned lenses, so that's a nice perk.
 

jrista

EOL
Dec 3, 2011
5,341
23
jonrista.com
DJL329 said:
jrista said:
Sounds like a beautiful lens (as expected from Zeiss.) I'm rather curious about the built-in, non-removable lens hood though. I'd love to get a lens like that (especially with low distortion) for my landscape photography, but not being able to remove the lens hood really kills it for that purpose. It entirely eliminates the use of any ND/GND filtration!

Does that sound like an odd move on Zeiss' part to anyone else?
The one it's based on, ZM mount, also has a built-in hood, so it really shouldn't be a surprise. That one takes 72mm filters, but it costs $4,600!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/361526-REG/Zeiss_1457_856_15mm_f_2_8_ZM_Lens.html

This one also takes screw-in filters, albeit 95mm ones, so I don't see why it couldn't take ND/GND filters.
Well, I've never seen a circular screw-in GND. I use the Lee Filter system, which uses 4x6" slideable GND filters. No way that would work on this lens.
 

psolberg

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 8, 2012
619
17
herbert said:
Image comparisons are available on The Digital Picture:

Samyang 14mm @f2.8 vs Canon 14mm @f2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=769&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=454&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Nikon 14mm @f2.8 vs Canon 14mm @ f2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=628&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=454&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
(The Nikon is so bad it has me confused. Must be an old lens.)

Nikon 14-24mm @ f2.8 vs Canon 14mm @ f2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=615&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=454&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Zeiss 15mm @ f2.8 vs Canon 14mm @ f2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=794&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=454&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The Nikon 14mm is bad.
The Nikon zoom is better.
The Samyang is good.
The Canon is good but lots of vignetting.
The Zeiss is better (has less distortion and CA).

Zeiss = $2950
Canon = $2199
Nikon 14-24mm = $1997
Nikon 14mm = $1529
Samyang = $399

Only the Zeiss supports filters.

The Samyang seems like a great way to start in the wide angle world.

The comparisons actually surprised me. There is a lot of talk about how Nikon is better at wide angle. These images do not show that to my eye.

I also looked at f8 and the results are similar but less pronounced.
try these:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_17mm/nikon1424_17mm1.html

the canon 14mm is simply not a contender in any way, so let's skip it. I wouldn't consider shooting with that lens. I expec the zeiss to be better than the legendary 14-24 nikkor but two things:
1) the nikon wins from 15-24mm all the time.
2) for the price, is it THAT much better?

as far as filter goes, agreed that the zeiss has a more elegant solution. But given the massive popularity of the 14-24 among landscape photographers, plenty or big square filter adapters exist from various companies including Lee filters and modded cokin-xpro holders.

So if I had unlimited founds, I'd opt for the zeiss for sure.

The Nikon, while an excellent lens isn't all roses. The distortion at 14mm is extreme; not really acceptable for architecture (it isn't so bad at longer FLs though, but if you want 14/15mm you're SOL with the Nikkor). A prime like the 14L II does much better, the Zeiss should be even better.

The Nikon also suffers from pretty heavy flare, while the Zeiss should be pretty flare resistant given the performance of it's 18/21/25mm brothers.

The Nikon is the best UWA zoom in existence in terms of resolution, but primes like the 14L, 17TS-E or the new Zeiss still have advantages in their specific focal lengths. Of course, the Nikkor is cheaper than any of the three aforementioned lenses, so that's a nice perk.
sorry but the IQ of the 14mm canon prime is too low to justify its cost. distortion can be corrected in post. optical issues and loss of resolution cannot always. and then there is the price. the fact the nikon zoom lens beats the prime lens speaks volumes how the 14mm prime lens is way overpriced for what you actually get.

for architecture, I wouldn't use either one since you want a tilt shift lens to control perspective. 14mm lenses for artchitecture blow due to perspective distortion. I can't speak for flare without seeing the zeiss, but you can't use a completely different optical formula as reference.

With the samples on The Digital Picture
Canon 14L II vs Nikon 14-24:
Distortion - Nikon distorts heavily - the canon wins by a big margin here
CA - Similar (slight edge to Canon)
Corner sharpness - Canon wins
I would buy the Canon at the more expesive price point for 14mm
hmmm http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon14l2_nikon1424/nikon1424_canon14l2_a.html
the canon never struck me as anything special. it must be good for charts though it seems. IMO the 14-24 remains the best of them all except maybe until this zeiss beauty. If I shot landscapes using manual focus, it would be my top choice. But MF is simply not something I can use when doing a people session with limited time already even using AF.