Quick decision help: canon 24 vs zeiss 21

[CJRodgers]

Well seeing as I have missed the opportunity to get the zeiss, if you're from the UK have a look at this. Ive contacted him and he seems like a really nice guy.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150959590155&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:GB:1123

 

[extremeinstability]

fwiw
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120224_1-Zeiss21.html

Yeah I'm sure it is a for what you will use it for. Not that it matters now since you already bought I guess.

I recently had the same decision to make going back to full frame. The F1.4 for night stuff desire, like Milky Way, Auroras, etc got the better of me and I went 24L II. I then soon saw the F1.4 difference was a moot point given how useless it was anyway. Any light source had huge flying coma wings. Really all the way through to F2.8. Basically I'd be wanting to stop it down to that in the end anyway. And that stuff extends well in from the corners a long ways. Wound up with the Zeiss in the end. But for sure there would be other uses for that F1.4 to F2.8 bonus range of the Canon, just nothing I'd ever shoot. Now having the Zeiss I'm a lot floored by the resolution and all that micro-contrast I'd heard about. It really is a different deal than I've ever seen.

The other thing on DxO resolution scores linked here. lensrentals.com always has some used 21 Ziess lenses for sale it seems. I've seen some of them with a 20/20 lp/mm resolution value stated by then. Most 22/22. The one I got said 24/24 "obscene resolution". So even with Zeiss it must really depend on the copy. I wonder how many of the "20/20" types could be tweaked by Zeiss to 24/24 or if they are sol for some un-tweakable reason. The hard stop infinity focus deal is a serious bonus too, as I saw on a recent night out shooting and swapping lenses a lot. Was always thankful for that when I'd slam the Zeiss back on.

 

[infared]

OK, CJ...since the obsession of these lenses is totally consuming my day!!!! LOL... (I love it!)
I thought I would throw this into the mix from Roger at LensRental...(can we take anything seriously from a man who wears headgear like this? He looks like a Spanish Conquistador, no?)... I respect his opinion a lot. This is what he has to say about the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE:

 

[CJRodgers]

Argh, if only id had a few more hours to make my choice...Hopefully using it will make me feel better!

 

[MARKOE PHOTOE]

I love my Zeiss lenses too and there is a learning curve required to shoot manual focus, but has anyone mentioned Canon's 24TSE-II which also incredibly sharp corner/corner with the ability to tilt/shift for perspective control? I've got the TSE and love it. It too requires an 82mm filter.

I'd have to say that in order of sharpness, it would be 1. 24TSE, 2. 24L-II and 3. ZE 21mm. at least per my eyes.

 

[extremeinstability]

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Carl-Zeiss/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Canon/%28camera%29/436/%28cameraname%29/CANON-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III#div1anchor

Clicking on measurements, resolution, then field map, then going through the apertures, that is rather humorous. Like the corners go that bad stopping down to F5.6. Something ain't right there and surely that figures into the overall resolution score.

 

[infared]

Argh, if only id had a few more hours to make my choice...Hopefully using it will make me feel better!

CJ, I think that there is no wrong choice here!!!! You did great!
I have the 50mm f/1.4 Sigma and the Canon 85 f/1.2L...had sold my 24-105mm f/4L IS back in the spring anticipating the new 24-70mm f/2.8II. Well I was without a "walk-around" lens for a long time because of all of the delays and I was really balking at the price and mixed reviews...so I started to look perhaps purchasing the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and the Canon 24mm f/1.4L... . ..which would have filled that whole range in for me beautifully...(it would be approximately the same cash outlay for those two lenses vs the new 24-70mm)
In the end ...I bought the new 24-70mm f/2.8II. I just do not want to carry all of that glass with the primes many times, and change lenses out. I am pretty impressed with the zoom... It works with what I have. I have a 5DIII so low light is becoming less of an issue.
I think that the Canon 24mm is an excellent lens. I would still think of owning it and the Sigma...but I think I am
going to set my sights on the new Zeiss 25mm ZE f/2.8....That looks KILLER and would really round things out for me further. Just wish I could have it all!!!!!!!! It is great that we have so many choices though...That is never a bad thing...and if the rest of the new Sigma Artist Line lives up to the 35mm...there will many more choices down the line.
ENJOY your lens CJ. If I lived next door to you we could swap-out once in a while!!!!!!! LOL!

 

[infared]

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Carl-Zeiss/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Canon/%28camera%29/436/%28cameraname%29/CANON-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III#div1anchor

Clicking on measurements, resolution, then field map, then going through the apertures, that is rather humorous. Like the corners go that bad stopping down to F5.6. Something ain't right there and surely that figures into the overall resolution score.

Yeah...like I said above...I am NOT a fan of DxOMark. Everything they do seems questionable to me, but I thought I would throw that into the mix as there is not a lot of bench testing for the Zeiss out there. Just opinions.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Thanks for all your thoughts.

Whilst I was very excited by the zeiss i went with the canon. It was a lens I have wanted for a long time, and I haven't even looked into the zeiss very much because I just always assumed Id never have one. So i went with what i had researched most. Plus i got the guy to know an extra £20 off, chuck in postage. And it has filters, and its weathersealed. So im happy. I think :s lol.

The best thing about both lens' is that they both hold their value so well. So if I practise manual focus on this, if i decide i prefer the colour or the slightly wider feel of the zeiss I can always sell it and buy a zeiss if the opportunity comes up again i guess!

Thanks again. I love that I can always count on this forumn for some input.

For the sake of completeness, the Zeiss lenses are shielded - they have a gasket at the back.

 

[Kernuak]

I think the reality is, the differences in sharpness between the 24 TS/E, 24 MkII and Zeiss 21 are minimal at equal apertures. The main differences are in the tilt for the TS/E, the wider aperture for the 24 MkII and the Zeiss look for the 21 (due to the microcontrast). If you want something wider and have a chance at owning Zeiss, the 18mm gets quite good reviews, albeit, it is supposed to be less sharp, but it is a few hundred pounds cheaper too. I also looked at the same lenses and was leaning towards the Zeiss, but then went for the 24 MkII because I wanted to shoot the northern lights. As long as you stop down to f/1.6 or narrower, it is fine for that purpose and in fact is probably about as good as you can get. It may be less sharp at wide apertures, but it does prevent star trails and loss of definition in the norhtern lights as they move.

 

[wayno]

The 24L ii is a great lens - superb for landscape stopped down but probably not as useful with the advent of the 24-70 ii which appears to match it. For me, where the 24 is simply unmatched is low light bokeh portraiture wide open. Something the Zeiss won't do as effectively. On that rationale, I prefer the L simply for the flexibility however if its purely landscapes the Zeiss is probably slightly ahead.

 

[Botts]

I would qualify Optikus's reply : manual focussing on an slr is much more difficult with wide angle lenses than with longer focal lenses. That's because things don't "snap in focus" in the same way, due to the wider dof. You may see things in focus on your viewscreen, which provides a small enlargment of your picture, but when printed at a significant size, you find out that your focus plane is not where you expected it to be.

Even if you've manual focused with an SLR before it may not be like MFing on a DSLR. Keep in mind that MF only SLRs had good focusing screens that sacrificed brightness for accuracy. Things like split prisms are extremely useful.

New SLRs don't have these focusing screens and thus it is extremely hard to nail manual focus. You could always use liveview to MF in 5 or 10x, but this is slower.

Expect to upgrade the focusing screen (not easy) in your 5D3 to maximize MF lenses.

 

[NWPhil]

The Zeiss 21mm T* ze mount has the AF confirmation chip - so is just a matter of slower manual focusing.
Don't have the 24 II 1.4, but as others said, below 2 -2.8 most WA are soft - pretty much the same as you find on the 35mm, which I have too.
I rather have wider, and yes, although 3mm does not seem quite much, well, it is
Now, if you really want to have both focals, and can live with MF, then consider the 24mm TSE II....but will be slower than the other two options, and possible $$$$ depending if you buy new or used.

 

[wickidwombat]

I prefer the 20-21mm focal length over 24mm so for me the call is easy zeiss 21mm all the way
I have the 20mm voigtlander with AF confirm and electronic aperture control so using back button focus
the only real difference is my hand is the focus motor but it beeps and confirms focus quickly plus if i'm using my 5Dmk2 with brightscreen its very easy to see when MF is achieved. I've been thinking about getting the zeiss but i am happy witht he little voigtlander which is tiny like the 40mm so it goes everywhere with me where as the zeiss is much bigger and heavier so I dont think i'd take it along as often