Considering the Zeiss 21

[wayno]

I'd welcome the opinion of those who have these lenses. I currently have the 17-40L which I find has good IQ and the 24-70II which has discernably superior IQ. Very sharp, contrasty - the whole shebang. I have had the Zeiss 21 Distagon on my radar for awhile now and am wondering about (generally) replacing the 17-40L with the Zeiss for landscape work. I find the zoom very handy for landscape and will still use it but am wondering just how special the Zeiss really is. Is it similar in IQ to the 24-70II? Or is it 'better'? The new 24-70 has spoiled me somewhat, and am keen to maintain that degree of awesomeness into something a little wider.

Thoughts welcome.

(Before you say it, I will likely pick up a 24 TS at some point in the next 12 months as well). Perhaps this is generally cramming the focal range?

 

[FunPhotons]

Yeah me too! Been planning on that one for some time.

 

[shutterwideshut]

I have both the TS-E24mm f/3.5L Mark II and the 24-70mm f/2.8L II and I would say both lenses really have superior IQ. I also have the 17-40mm which I also use to shoot landscapes but I can not speak for the Zeiss 21mm. Why not save your money for the TS-E24mm f/3.5L Mark II which is the ultimate landscape lens? Here's a comparison of the TS-E24mm f/3.5L Mark II vs Zeiss 21mm by Darwin Wiggett: http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/a-quick-lens-test-canon-ts-e-24mm-versus-zeiss-21mm/.

Hope this helps. Cheers.

 

[cpsico]

Canon urgently needs to replace the 16-35 and 17-40. Or at least the 17-40. That's even if they bring out a 14-24 or similar. Otherwise, yes, get the 21 because nothing from Canon compares.

I love my 16-35 at F5.6-11 yes it's a little soft at 2.8 but it really mates nicely with my 5d mark II

 

[davidstarzhou]

I have a Carl Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZE lens for about two years. I considered 17-40L and 16-35L before I purchased Zeiss 21.

I have used 16-35L and 14L for a while (lens available from friends or coworkers), and I am not impressed with the corners of images from these lenses. I even considered Nikon 14-24G for 5D2 body but I really care about the quality of the image in the corners.

Zeiss 21mm is a legend in terms of the performance of sharpness in the corners.

Buy it and you won't regret.

 

[davidstarzhou]

I have some images taken recently with Zeiss 21mm on my flickr. You may look at them as samples if you so wish.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhouxing2004/8415746901/#in/photostream

 

[paul]

I also have 16/35 II and 24/70 II and I just bought the Samyang 14/2.8. Great lens! I 've considered the Zeiss 18 or 21 too,but I think they're to close to 24,so I wanted wider.

 

[Zlatko]

Canon urgently needs to replace the 16-35 and 17-40. Or at least the 17-40. That's even if they bring out a 14-24 or similar. Otherwise, yes, get the 21 because nothing from Canon compares.

Perhaps not so urgently, considering ...

Here's a comparison of the TS-E24mm f/3.5L Mark II vs Zeiss 21mm by Darwin Wiggett: http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/a-quick-lens-test-canon-ts-e-24mm-versus-zeiss-21mm/.

Wiggett concludes: "Sharpness is much better with the Canon lens and I was pleased to see little or no fringing. The winner here is clearly the Canon lens."

 

[wayno]

Thanks guys.... The 21 focal length I like for the extra width vs the 24 TS... But obviously both are impressive.

 

[docholliday]

I have the 16-35L II, the 24/TS-E II, AND the Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE. Each has it's own purpose...the 24 is sharp, and has movements, but it's microcontrast isn't as high as the Zeiss. It is also a bit more muted on the colors. The Zeiss has more dimensionalism and the colors are much punchier. The 16-35L II is good, but nowhere near the others. I have it because I need wider than 21/24 sometimes.

I also had the 16-35L (v1) and the 17-40 a while ago, as well as the 17-35L. The 16-35 I is a piece of junk compared to the rest. It just didn't have any "personality" to it. I'm not a fan of the 17-40, as it was decently sharp, but lacked dimensionalism (severely).

All of these are shot on a 1DsMkIII and 1DMkIII (and before that on the 1DsMkII). The Zeiss is worth it. Don't worry about a polarizer - you won't need it. But, the 82UV will set you back a bit (Heliopan or B+W).

As far as the Scamyang - j-u-n-k. Like looking through a Coke bottle. A colleagues had one...for two days before he got rid of it because it that bad.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have the 16-35L II, the 24/TS-E II, AND the Zeiss 21/2.8 ZE. Each has it's own purpose...the 24 is sharp, and has movements, but it's microcontrast isn't as high as the Zeiss. It is also a bit more muted on the colors. The Zeiss has more dimensionalism and the colors are much punchier. The 16-35L II is good, but nowhere near the others. I have it because I need wider than 21/24 sometimes.

I also had the 16-35L (v1) and the 17-40 a while ago, as well as the 17-35L. The 16-35 I is a piece of junk compared to the rest. It just didn't have any "personality" to it. I'm not a fan of the 17-40, as it was decently sharp, but lacked dimensionalism (severely).

All of these are shot on a 1DsMkIII and 1DMkIII (and before that on the 1DsMkII). The Zeiss is worth it. Don't worry about a polarizer - you won't need it. But, the 82UV will set you back a bit (Heliopan or B+W).

As far as the Scamyang - j-u-n-k. Like looking through a Coke bottle. A colleagues had one...for two days before he got rid of it because it that bad.

I agree on the 14mm Samyang. The 17-40mmL is OK, its cheap, and for the price its worthwhile. Same with the 16-35.
There is little doubt that The 21mm Zeiss is a great lens. Its not for everyone, manual focus is something I struggle with, and you really need to do fully manual exposures as well. If you are in a situation where you can take your time, its great, but if you are photographing a live event with people moving around, it might be a bit frustrating.

 

[Mr Bean]

There is little doubt that The 21mm Zeiss is a great lens. Its not for everyone, manual focus is something I struggle with, and you really need to do fully manual exposures as well. If you are in a situation where you can take your time, its great, but if you are photographing a live event with people moving around, it might be a bit frustrating.

Yep. I hired a Zeiss 21mm at the end of last year, to do some astro-time lapse (using my 5D m3). At wide aperture (f2.8 ) it was amazingly sharp, compared to the Canon 24mm f1.4 (the Canon suffers from bad coma, the Zeiss has a hint of it at the edges). But the manual focus was an issue for me. Landscapes and manual focus, no problem. People and manual focus, tricky. Just set to f8 and guess the focus

 

[risc32]

the zeiss has a hard infinity focus stop so i would have guessed that manual focusing for astro work couldn't get much easier. It's got complex distortion, and color shifts at the corners of the frame, and according to photozone.de at f2.8 and smaller the canon is at least as good or better. But of course the canon can go 4x as fast if needed. actually, go to 16x9 .net? and see the old canon 24mm 1.4 match the zeiss, and that's from guys who think mounting a nikon 14-24 on your canon is reasonable!
I had a 17-40 and 16-35. now i'm rocking a samyang 14 and it's pretty cool. wish it had a hard infinity focus, and electronic aperture control, but i'm managing. old school focus distance guessing at f2.8 on moving targets in the dark is actually working pretty well. i have no doubt there are dogs out there, but mine 14 is better than my 16-35 and 17-40 were. (IQ wise that is)
That all said, it sounds like you have some money to spend and don't mind having a few lenses at what i would consider very close focal lengths, so maybe you should pick up a zeiss. either way i doubt you'll lose much money on the deal, and that way you'll know for sure how you feel about it.

 

[wayno]

Again, thanks. I'm now wondering whether the Zeiss 18 might be a slightly better fit - admittedly not as stellar optically but still 'better' than the 17-40L, IQ-wise (pixel-peeping perhaps) and cheaper than the 21. The difference between 21 and 24 is noticable but maybe not a deal-breaker. 18, however makes a difference.

Anyone with the Zeiss 18 got anything else to add? I like it for it's ability to take filters - something the 17 TS cannot conventionally do...

 

[wayno]

(and I'm not concerned at all with MF - this is very much for landscape/deep focus walkaround) - 80% of the time, I use the 17-40 and 24-70II on MF for night photography). I've seen a Zeiss 18 for a decent price used which might fit the bill...

 

[Axilrod]

I have the 21mm, as well as the 50mm f/2 and 100mm f/2, and I prefer all of them to their Canon counterparts. They are super sharp across the frame and I love the way they render color. Also built like tanks and the focus rings are smooth as butter. The 21mm is definitely way sharper than my 16-35mm, especially in the corners. Excellent lens, but I'd buy it used as it's pretty damn expensive new.

 

[noisejammer]

I own several ZE lenses and the 17 TS-E. I used to own the 17-40L.
My take is that the ZE 21/2.8 is a good lens, but I don't rate it as highly as several others in the Zeiss stable.
As for the ZE 18/3.5. You may need to be aware that it's very difficult to focus through the eyepiece (live view is fine.) It also suffers from a lot of edge fall off so that it only really reaches sensible levels at f/8 or f/11.
My suggestion would be to go for the 17-40 and exploit it's versatility. Maybe you can get a TS lens when it's appropriate. (Personally, I'd suggest the TS-E 17/4L because you can add a 1.4x tc and it works just fine at f/8.)

 

[wayno]

Just to close this out, some may find my findings useful... I came close to purchasing a Zeiss 18 but on close scrutiny I didn't see enough of an improvement on the 17-40. It was a good price but not good enough for a few nanowidgets of corner sharpness. The edges were nowhere as impressive as those of the Samyang 14 which are ludicrously bang-on.

So I'll keep my hard earneds for now. The 24-70ii is just so impressive, it makes other lenses in the wide range look average!!!

 

[Canon 14-24]

I am curious to those that mention the 17-40 and 16-35 II are not sharp in the corners compared to the Zeiss 21mm, what f-stop were you using to compare to make the statement? Was it wide open or stopped down to around f/8-f/11? From what I've seen, the Zeiss only handles chromatic aberration and slightly less distortion than the Canon equivalents in the corner, but in regards of detail/sharpness they are pretty much similar stopped down to around f/8 (which I would assume most would use the lens for in landscapes - with the exceptions of astrophotography, low light events, or portraits).

In my personal usage, I have passed on owning the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm as they were not weather sealed like the Canon equivalents. Taking the lens out to destinations right up close to the ocean shoreline, dealing with mist from waterfalls, in rain, snow, etc. didn't seem practical in the long-term for usage.

For the price of a new Zeiss 15mm + $300+ filter, I decided on a used 16-35mm II + 17mm TS-e to cover my wide angle uses (16-35 II when I need filters & versatility of a zoom for more outdoor landscapes and the 17mm for urban/interiors).

By the way the 17mm TS-E can use filters with the compromise of slight vignetting at certain degrees of shift. This link can provide the DIY details:
http://www.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linsenschuss.de%2Findex.php%2Fblog%2F79-canon-ts-e-17mm-f4l-filterhalter

 

[wayno]

To my eye the 17-40 appeared a bit sharper in the centre with only marginal corner improvements found in the Zeiss 18. All my tests were at f8. I rarely shoot UWAs wider.

(And colour, contrast etc were not much different to my eyes).

As for the reference to corner sharpness in the 16-35 and by recognized extension, the 17-40, there is some general sponginess at F8 in the corners/edges vs the results I've seen from the TS lenses and the Zeiss 21.