16-35 f/4L IS or Zeiss T* 18mm f/3.5

[niels123]

Recently, I invested in the Lee 100mm filter system and I'd like to go wider with these grads than what I currently can do. I have the Zeiss15, which is incompatible with 100mm filters. Bigger filters are not an option for me, I want to stick to 100mm only. The next lens is my Zeiss21 which I love!

There's reviews which say that the quality difference between Zeiss18 and Zeiss21 is neglectable and some say that the Zeiss21 is visibly better than the Zeiss18.

From what I've found (limited information) my conclusion is that the difference between Zeiss18 and Canon 16-35 f/4L IS is very small. However, my experience with zeiss lenses is that colors "pop" more and images have more microcontrast. There is a noticable difference between Zeiss 100MP and Canon 100L IS macro for example. I have both the Otus85 and the Canon 85 1.2, and the 85 1.2 is blown away completely by the Otus...

I find it hard to believe that a relatively inexpensive (compared te Zeiss) Canon *zoom*lens is better or equal than the Zeiss 18 :

So, what is your experience and/or advice?

Zeiss 18 or Canon 16-35 f/4?

Please make me unconfused
Niels

 

[tron]

Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS by all means. The zoom at 16mm looks a little better than the 18mm.

Check www.photozone.de

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/877-canon_1635_4is?start=1

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/506-zeiss18f35eosff?start=1

In addition it has IS and covers 20, 24,28 and 35mm (not to mention it's 2mm wider)

P.S Since I do not have the 18mm Zeiss I do not believe that I made you "unconfused".
P.S2 I do love the Zeiss 21mm too (especially its corners and hard stop to infinity) but I do not use it much lately since I have many WA lenses and I mostly use TS-E 17 for churches/buildings/temples and 14 2.8 II for astro...

 

[Zeidora]

How much do you like build quality? How often do you use manual focus?

I've found build quality on Canon AF lenses rather lamentable. Zeiss is in a different league entirely. If you like MF, you know that MF on an AF lens is a pain, while it is a joy with a MF lens.

The 18 mm is an older design, AFIK. That explains why some of the optical metrics are not significantly better (distortion), or even a bit worse (lateral color).

Never had an 18, but also have the 16F-distagon, 15, 21, and 100 MP. I think if I wanted something wider than 21 that adds to my lens arsenal and is Lee/100 compatible, I'd rather look at the TSE 17.

 

[pwp]

...I've found build quality on Canon AF lenses rather lamentable....

Seriously? You may be referring to entry level EF-S kit lenses which have a valid place in the market at very reasonable prices for what they deliver. Ask busy working professionals what they think about build quality and durability of Canon AF lenses, L lenses in particular. In daily use with high demand working lives that will frequently exceed a decade or more, Canon L lenses keep delivering the goods. The Zeiss may have a perceived "street cred" advantage, but perceptions and practical working realities are frequently far removed from each other.

OP, read up on the 16-35 f/4is. Read reliable reviews. The Zeiss may have its attributes for certain photographers but as a modern, very well received lens the 16-35 f/4is is very hard to beat. Great optics, reliable AF, IS, zoom flexibility. It's the lens that will deliver more good photographs for you. And ultimately, isn't that what it's all about?

-pw

 

[slclick]

I'd go with the Canon. I've had the Z 18 and it is the weakest link in their wide angle lineup. Mustache distortion, vignetting. Now the color and contrast rendition is far superior to Canon, almost any Canon lens. But for $1395 you really should get more for your money and the 16-35 f/4 is a great value.

 

[Zeidora]

...I've found build quality on Canon AF lenses rather lamentable....

Seriously? You may be referring to entry level EF-S kit lenses which have a valid place in the market at very reasonable prices for what they deliver. Ask busy working professionals what they think about build quality and durability of Canon AF lenses, L lenses in particular. In daily use with high demand working lives that will frequently exceed a decade or more, Canon L lenses keep delivering the goods. The Zeiss may have a perceived "street cred" advantage, but perceptions and practical working realities are frequently far removed from each other.

I only have two Canon AF lenses, both L-type: 180 macro and 300/2.8 IS. The 180 in particular has the hyper infinity focus problem, MF focus is not sufficiently fine for a macro lens, AF is well-know to be sluggish, and the plastic hood is a pain to put on. No comparison to butter smooth all metal Zeisses, with clean bayonet fittings for hood, and rock solid infinity focus. In only have the 180 as a lens of last resort, it is not my first choice. 100 MP ZE is my workhorse lens.

300/2.8 is a bit better, but MF focus has some play, not much, but there is some. Same hyper infinity focus problem. Not as pronounced as the 180M, but it's there. Don't use it much anyway.

The MPE 65 is the best of the bunch, but not AF, of course. TSEs are also MF, so there is hope. Have not used any of the TSEs. Different beast altogether, also different price category. Rather use LF for front-rear tilt-shift-swing-rise/fall.

Maybe you have not used any Zeiss lenses. It may open your eyes how lenses can work. Reviews only go so far.

OP seems to appreciate well-built lenses, that is why I contrast trade-offs. Mass appeal is one thing, quality a completely different one. Professional photography is a bang-for-buck deal, and for this Canon lenses are the best bang-for-buck. OP seems to have a different inclination, like myself.

 

[nc0b]

I recently sold my Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 and purchased the a Canon 16-35mm f/4. At f4 the Canon has drastically less vignetting. If you shoot at f/8, the difference is much less. The build quality of the Zeiss is fantastic, but I didn't use it often enough to keep it in my kit. I shoot a 6D and a 5DS R is on its way. I am hoping the wide-angle zoom range will make it useful more often, but time will tell. When traveling a 24-105mm is on the 6D, while the 5DS R will replace a 60D with either the new UWA or my set of longer lenses. I am also anxious to see how the 5DS R does with f/8 AF with my Canon 1.4X TC III and the 100-400mm II, and possibly a 400mm f/5.6. Will the TC provide a net gain, or will cropping a 50 mp image work just as well. That is all to be determined.

 

[NWPhil]

what about sending the 15 to Zeiss and get the hood removed? not cheap, but cheaper than the 18 or 16-35.
I have all, and the 15 is obviously wider than 16...and better for low light conditions. Not that the canon 16-35 is bad - quite the contrary.
Some people see it, others not, but Zeiss renders colosr differently along with bokeh....if that's important for you and your style.
If the 100mm Lee system would work on the Zeiss, I would say it would be a better choice.
Tse-17 is another league, and impractical shifting to 11mm if there is any movement involved

 

[niels123]

Wow! Thanks for all the replies ;D

I can indeed send my 15 to Zeiss to have the hood removed. However, without the hood it only works with the special Lee 150mm system and even than, you can only use *one* filter without serious vignetting. The use of two gradient filters, or one gradient filter and a polarizer is not possible. In addition: polarisers and filters for the 150mm system are ridiculously expensive and you can easily end up spending 800 to a 1000 $ for having the hood removed + 2 gradient filters + polarizer.

I do love the buid quality of the Zeiss lenses and I love the color and look they deliver. Also the manual focus is a joy to use. However, from what I read is that the Canon 16-35 f/4L is (nearly) as sharp and that there is no practical diffrence in sharpness between the to. I have a lot of experience with Zeiss manual focus and comparing it to a typical canon or sigma AF lens is night and day. However, if I would get the 16-35, I'd only use it with MF on a tripod with magnified live view. In that case, MF with the 16-35 is not a problem I suppose. I've done it with sigma and canon lenses as well and although it does lack the Zeiss feel, it works (and that's what counts in the end).

Of course, the extra focal lengths, the image stabilisation and autofocus are a welcome addition in street photography or indoor settings (I do think however, that f/4 is nearly not fast enough for my needs indoor). I have the Sigma 35art for indoor 'stuff' and I shoot a lot at f/1.4 to f/2 - 1/60s handheld - iso800-iso3200 on my 5D III. In my opinion, iso3200 is already quite noisy in my 5D III and iso6400 is too much (also the lack of dynamic range).

I find it difficult to decide because I'm not sure about what the Zeiss18 will give me in image quality. Are the colors of the zeiss18 and the "3D-rendering" the same as the other Zeiss lenses? I'm going to sell my 35art and get back the 35L II from canon. If I already had the lens, my question would be: how do the Zeiss18 and Canon35L II compare in terms of look (ignore sharpness and vignetting)?

I don't have that lens so I wonder: is the look (colors and depth perception) of the 16-35 f/4L similar to for example the 24-105 f/4L (which I have) and significantly different from the Zeiss 18? In other words: if I were to print the same photographed scene from the Zeiss18 and from the 16-35 f/4L @18mm on 16x24" (40x60cm), is there a big difference in color / rendering (not sharpness!)? I'm confident that sharpness for both lenses is fenominal and more than sufficient. Comparing sharpness between the to would be pixelpeeping, which I don't care about.

The 17-TSE was suggested by some members here, and it's a lovely lens it is beyond my budget. Both the Z18 and Canon 16-35 are a lot cheaper. For me, the price difference between Z18 and Canon 16-35 is about $250 USD.

Confused

 

[krisbell]

Cant speak for the Zeiss but I can say the Canon 16-35mm f4 is a superb lens that I cant fault. If you arent achieving razor sharp images with this lens then the fault is definitely with the photographer. I have a Canon 300mm f2.8 II, widely regarded as the sharpest lens Canon has ever produced, and this lens is comparable.

 

[niels123]

Cant speak for the Zeiss but I can say the Canon 16-35mm f4 is a superb lens that I cant fault. If you arent achieving razor sharp images with this lens then the fault is definitely with the photographer. I have a Canon 300mm f2.8 II, widely regarded as the sharpest lens Canon has ever produced, and this lens is comparable.

How much backslash (movement) is in the focus ring? E.g. How loose is it? How easy is it to achieve absolute perfect manual focus with a still subject and the camera on a tripod and magnified live view? How much can you rotate the focus ring from closest focus to infinity? (All) Zeiss lenses focus beyond infinity to accomodate for slight production variations in the flang distance. Therefore, the best focus for infinity is a tiny bit before infinity focus is reached on the lens. How is this with the 16-35?

 

[Hector1970]

I can't fault the 16-35mm F4 IS L.
I wouldn't swap it for the Zeiss.
Zoom is very hand in this range.
The Canon is sharp and has nice colour rendition.
I still have the 17-40mm but the 16-35mm is much better all round.
I've found no issue with the build quality.
It's survived some tough weather (cold, wet and heat)

It would be on my highly recommended list along side the 70-200mm F2.8 II L and Canon 100mm L
No regrets about these 3 lens.
All the others have some question mark about them eg: 11-24mm - lovely lens, unusual viewpoint, very heavy , I don't feel inclined to bring it, the bulbous front makes me worry about damaging it. No proper filter solution (almost with the Lee option but not @11mm).