Anyone tried the Zeiss 21mm/2.8 Distagon or Tokina 17-35mm?

[BornNearDaBayou]

I have the Canon 17-40L for Wide shooting. It's not too bad. Been using it for several (many) years now. I know it's limits.

The Zeiss is supposedly amazing...but MF and fixed focal length has me scratching my head. Is it worth $1,800?

Also, the new Tokina gets no coverage. I know the 16-28 is awesome, but I need to use filters. Any response greatly appreciated

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You can compare images at the digital picture and form your own opinion. To me, the 17-40mm L looks better than the Tokina, and resale value will be better too.

You already know the Zeiss is much better, but you can decide if its worth the difference in price to you.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=778&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

 

[Axilrod]

I played with the 21mm and have been considering buying it for a few months, gotta get rid of the 16-35mm first. I think it's an absolutely incredible lens. Build quality is amazing, ridiculously sharp edge to edge, excellent contrast and color rendition. I think its awesome, I dont know anything about the Tokina but I doubt it could be any better than the Zeiss.

It's not really a fair comparison, it's a $700 zoom vs. an $1800 prime so its pretty clear that the Zeiss is going to be better.