Canon 1.4/24L or Carl Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35

  • Thread starter Thread starter onimusha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
O

onimusha

Guest
#1
Hello Folks,
I was thinking about to get one of these Lenses for my 5dMKIII. I want to use them mainly for "milky way" and "aurora borealis" shots and Landscape photography. This means the lenses can get very cold. Sometimes it can get down to minus 20C and more. I wont use them during snowfall of course. Does anyone have experience with these lenses in "extreme" conditions? Has anyone an advice which one would fit more my needs? Beside the mentioned filed of interests i do also a lot of nightshots (timelapse). That's why im going also for the f1.4.
 
#2
canon 24 from 1.4 to 2.8 is quite soft and pretty useless.
I'd consider also the zeiss 21 2.8 which is an amazing lens and is a clear overall winner. Never tried the zeiss 35.
Also i dont have any experience regarding usage in freezing conditions
 
Upvote 0
#3
hi there!! let me point out a few things here:
1. if you want to take photos in -20 degrees you should have a heating machine to avoid moisture and freezing.
2. i have seen excellent time-lapse videos and the guys were using the ef 14mm f/2.8, therefore you don't have to go to far with the apperture when doing time-lapse.

all of the above are only personal views and suggestions

p.s. -20 degrees will freeze your camera too!!
 
Upvote 0
#4
I concur for the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (I have one and used for astrophotography) but I believe that the original dilemma should be between the same (or almost the same) focal length lenses like Canon 24mm 1.4L II and Zeiss 25mm f/2.0 (no 1.4 version yet) or between Canon 35mm 1.4L and Zeiss 35mm 1.4.

My experience with the Zeiss is that apart from its sharpness it is very easy to focus at infinity in contrast to the Canon lenses. However Canon lenses being autofocus are more versatile for other kinds of photography.
 
Upvote 0
#5
The large aperture of the 24L would help and is a much better choice for astrophotography than any 35mm. 35mm is wide but just not quite wide enough. Honestly after shooting with the Zeiss 21mm this past weekend I'm absolutely in love with the lens, it's built like a brick and is amazingly sharp. Absolutely the best wide angle lens I've ever used. But the 24 1.4 is definitely a solid lens as well.
 
Upvote 0
#6
-20C can do strange things your camera - you'll need to slowly heat/cool your gear to avoid internal condensation - weather sealing helps. Also, at -20C battery life will go way down, doing long time lapses can be problematic when the battery temp is so low. Keep the camera gear cold the entire time if you can (ie, in trunk/pickup truck bed, in cargo rack on top of car, etc.) - that way you can start taking photos as soon as you hop out of the car. I sometimes bring my camera with while backpacking/mountaineering - I'm a huge fan of weather-sealing, as it's just one less to worry about. That said, Ziess makes some really great glass, so the improvement in IQ might be worth it if you are willing to be extra careful while transitioning temperature zones - but I'd probably recommend getting something wider than 35mm.

The Canon 1.4/24LII is a pretty solid choice - I've rented one a few times for national park trips, overall it worked well, although I do agree with tron that focusing to infinity with the Canon in next to zero light can be tricky.

dpreview.com has a truly excellent article written by Ben Hattenbach on the subject of capturing aurora, if you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8217618174/auroral-photography-a-guide-to-capturing-the-northern-lights
 
Upvote 0
#9
Thanks for all your opinions and answers. I didn't know the link from dpreview.
Thanks Dianoda for that one.
I was reading also in other forums about the infinity focus "issue" with the 24L lense. But ofc the 24L is a solid lense.
About the 35mm --> i have decided to go for less mm. You were right.

I'm a little bit worried about the f2.8 in regards to the milky way shots and northern lights as written in the dpreview:
"All else being equal, your exposure will be inversely proportional to the square of your aperture, meaning that a lens at f 2.8 will need four times as long to capture an image as at f 1.4"
Is a f2.8 still sufficient to get proper shots without too much noise in the picture?

"canon 24 from 1.4 to 2.8 is quite soft and pretty useless."
@Rambarra: Never heard that but if it's true then this lense is nothing for me :-)

@tron: "Zeiss 25mm f/2.0"
Do you have experience with this one? Has anyone else experience with the mentioned lense in milky way shot or nothern lights? Can someone recommend this?

As for now i think my choice would be between the Zeiss f2.8/21 and Zeiss f2.0/25 if Rambarra is right.
Anyone has experience with the Zeiss f2.0/25?

I would also highly appreciate if someone can send me a link or pictures (nothern lights or milky way) he made with one of these lenses.
 
Upvote 0
#11
Get the Zeiss 15/2.8. If you buy the 21 you can justify neither the 15 nor the 25 later... ;) like me... But aurora boreal is and huge landscape would go well with either. Pros say the 25 is less sharp in the corners but better corrected and more contrasty than the 21 - is three years or more younger. The 25 is more like 35/1.4 from micro contrast than the 21 and both should be easier to MF on a 5D3 than the 35/1.4. Which is my favourite lens...
Good luck in the cold and dark!
 
Upvote 0
#13
onimusha said:
Is a f2.8 still sufficient to get proper shots without too much noise in the picture?
Click to expand...
I use the astrotrac which rotates the camera slowly to compensate for the earth rotation so I can use
longer exposures than without it. So 2.8 is not a problem.
Unfortunately I have no experience with aurora (too far away, too cold)

onimusha said:
"canon 24 from 1.4 to 2.8 is quite soft and pretty useless."
Click to expand...
The 24mm 1.4 II is said to be a very good lens (apart from extreme vignetting). I suggest you check http://www.photozone.de/

onimusha said:
@tron: "Zeiss 25mm f/2.0"
Do you have experience with this one? Has anyone else experience with the mentioned lense in milky way shot or northern lights? Can someone recommend this?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have experience with the Zeiss 21mm and not with the 25mm. However the hard stop at infinite position will be very useful. You will focus much easier and loose only 1 stop. Of course it depends on the other uses you have in mind.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Tonika 16-28 vs Canon 17-40 or Carl Zeiss 21mm f2.8 for canon 5d3
Replies
14
Views
10K
risc32
R
madspihl
  • Locked
16-35L or related primes
Replies
23
Views
13K
Caps18
C
W
  • Locked
Canon 14mm + 24 1.4 vs. 16-35 and 135mm vs. 70-200 IS
Replies
16
Views
12K
Loswr
L
P
  • Locked
7D+5DII or 5DIII?
Replies
10
Views
7K
briansquibb
B
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu