Carl Zeiss presents the Distagon T* 3,5/18 wide-angle lens with EF bayonet mount
OBERKOCHEN/Germany, 14.09.2009.
Whether shooting the elegant lines of the Eiffel Tower or the vast expanses of the Grand Canyon, both situations require a lens field wide enough to reveal the unique and full dimensions of each image. With the new Distagon T* 3,5/18 from Carl Zeiss, EOS camera users now have an ultra-wide-angle lens at their disposal while benefiting from all the other optical qualities that ZEISS lenses are well-known for. The lens’s extremely wide 99°-angle view is suitable especially for full-frame sensor cameras, delivering an array of new creative possibilities. From landscape and architecture photography to advertising images, cameras equipped with the new Carl Zeiss wide-angle lens meticulously capture once-only moments and spectacular perspectives.
Despite its short focal length, the Distagon T* 3,5/18 ZE has an extremely compact design compared to other zoom lenses in its category. Internal focusing also helps to reduce its size while delivering extremely precise and smooth focus control.
To prevent image aberrations during close-ups, internal lens groups are repositioned individually during focusing in what is called a floating elements design. This allows the Distagon T* 3,5/18 ZE to deliver exceptionally high quality—from extreme close-ups to infinity. Thanks to the ZEISS T*s anti-reflective coating and meticulously crafted lenses, the ZEISS T* is not affected by reflections or stray light. The result: razor-sharp images even under the toughest lighting conditions or with wide aperture settings.
Following the Planar T* 1,4/50 ZE and 1,4/85 ZE, already long cherished by photographers around the world, the Distagon T* 3,5/18 ZE is the first wide-range lens with EF bayonet mount on the market.
The Distagon T* 3,5/18 ZE will be available in autumn 2009 at a suggested retail price of EUR 1,049.00 (excluding VAT)*.
Technical specifications
Focal length: 18 mm
Aperture range: f/3.5 – f/22 (half steps)
Number of elements/groups: 13/11
Focusing range: 0.3 m – infinity
Angular field* (diag./horiz./vert.): 99/90/67°
Coverage at close range: 44 x 29 cm
Image ratio at close range: 1:12
Filter thread: M 82 x 0.75
Mounts: ZF (F bayonet), ZK (K bayonet), ZE (EF bayonet)
Accessories: Lens shade included
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
41 Comments
first. :P
that’s what FF is for :)
Well, my 10-22 gives me a 16mm in FF dimensions. No need for FF with 18mm not-so-wide angle lens.
How many people are going to get one of these?
Lets assume, as is quite likely, that there is not wider lens with better optics available for Cannon.
The rare person that cant be satisified by a 16-35 has probably already ordered a 17-TS.
I think they don’t order a 17-TS, but a 14L or 20 2.8.
The 17TS has no autofocus and is difficult to use.
The only other Zeiss lenses available for EF are, as far as I know, manual-focus only. Is that the case here as well?
Zeiss is indeed known for superb optics, but the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZE Planar T* doesn’t seem all that impressive, judging from the review of it at The Digital Picture:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx
I have the Canon EF 17-40 f/4 L, which so far has served my wide-angle needs adequately.
I used to have a whole Contax/Zeiss SLR system. I prefer Canon’s L lenses.
thats some serious $$$$ for a MF prime
I wouldn’t swap your 17-40 for this. I’ve heard the Zeiss lenses are good, but pretty much only as good as the OEM top-flight lenses.
the zeiss primes look even sillier when you pit their price and performance against Nikon’s 14-24 ultra-wide
I don’t get Sony-ites or Olympians and Panasonic-the-hedgehogs who always enjoy complaining that Canon and Nikon are cheating us on our lenses and making us pay for in-lens stabilization … blah blah
have you seen the prices of these Sony/Olympus/Panasonic lenses? where are these supposed savings?
I don’t see myself ditching Canon for Sony anytime soon … especially with some 580 EX II’s on the way …
Once upon a time Zeiss optics were the best ground glass you could get. Canon and Nikon caught up a couple of decades ago, and in many cases surpass Zeiss quality. I think the L lenses overall offer the best color/sharpness available for DSLR’s. I’d take the 14mm L, 16-35mm L or 17-40 L over this 18mm manual focus Zeiss lens any day.
I’m very dissatisfied with the 16-35 2.8 L and know many people who are. Way too soft!
Too slow at 3.5.
I wish this lens was available 10 years ago. I switched to Canon (mainly for the AF telephotos) from Contax then and was very disappointed by the first 17-35 f2.8 L. I really missed my Zeiss Distagons. Newer offerings from Canon are much improved. I’d like to at least try this lens side by side with a Canon zoom.
Did the same thing after all of my RTS III’s broke on a shoot in Spain, went with Nikon only to have tons of break down problems with the F3’s, finally went with EOS 1 and been happy ever since with picture quality and reliability.
the zeiss wont have af
So is it nostalgia that keeps people buying these? Frankly, it’s hard to see the attraction – it doesn’t have AF, it’s not that fast, and it’s expensive.
I wonder how it compares to the TS-E17. At half the price, it might be a bargain. There is no doubt that it will blow the Canon Zooms away, since it has already been tested using a adapter for EOS.
The 21mm lens may still be the best of the best.
it’s half the price but I would say less than half the functionality. there are so many ways to shoot with a Tilt-Shift that are entirely impossible with a regular prime.
See http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/
Zeiss is just living on reputation. Reality tells a different story.
They are good lenses, have their own color-look from the T* coatings. I’m not saying they are bad just not the to-die-for optics their reputation from past glory suggests and many Canon lenses are as good or better imo.
You should get the mark II its much improved
interesting site, he pits Canon and Nikon zooms against Zeiss/Leica primes, which isn’t very fair. Though I did find the test results for Canon’s 17-40 2.8 L and Nikon’s 17-35 2.8 interesting in that they are pretty much on par with each other – so much for Nikon destroying Canon in wide zoom glass arguments. Also, the Canon 16-35mm II compared to the Leica 19mm was interesting as I’d have expected the prime to smoke the zoom, but the Canon zoom came quite close to Leica prime with the conclusion the 16-35mm L II gives “prime-level quality with zoom flexibility in the ultrawide range.”
not just that, but 19mm is 19mm. 16mm is a whole nother ballgame. so I’d say it’s even more impressive.
“Way” too soft? You seem to have pretty unrealistic IQ expectations unless you happen to have a very bad copy of the lens.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/175-canon-ef-16-35mm-f28-usm-l-lab-test-report–review?start=1
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
“By 20mm, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM Lens’ barrel distortion is dramatically lower and corners sharpness approaches center sharpness. Sharpness wide open is very good across the focal length range with the longer end being slightly weaker than the wide end. By f/4, this lens is very sharp across the frame.”
Other reviews easily Google-able also seem to contradict your rather dramatic statement.
I have worked with the Zeiss Distagon T* 3,5/18 on Nikon D3 bodies, and it creates beautiful and very sharpe results with little or no CA.
Right its not a lens for for photojournalism, but for interior, landscape etc where image quality is fare more important than AF this lens comes close to any other WA medium format lenses I have seen.
I will be likely to get one for my 5D sometime this year.
So you’re effectively saying the 16-35 f/2.8 is a good 20-35mm lens.
The photozone test you’ve linked to uses an EOS 350D, which makes it completely meaningless for FF users.
“Nother” is not a word.
AF is not needed at 18mm on FF. This lens will get used for landscape, so at f 8 and 18mm most things will easily be at hyperfocal distance. That’s not a porblem. The problem is the corners, are they tack sharp by f 8?
I’ surprised zeiss launch this lens when most serious landscape Canon shooters were begging for the Zeiss 21mm, which is superb…
yeah, when quality does not matter at all to you then you have the perfect solution. don’t try to compare an aps-c cropped chip plus a zoom lens on the edge of it’s focal lengs with a ff chip plus a prime lens….
With a Zeiss lens you can see distorsion prior bying it. Why is Canon delivering this data to the EOS-software for correction of images but hiding this data to the eyes of there customers?
Is there a program to display the image correction information used by canon software?
Is there any plugin to correct the imlluminance and distorsion with photoshop?
“So you’re effectively saying the 16-35 f/2.8 is a good 20-35mm lens.”
I said no such thing, please do pay attention when reading.
“The photozone test you’ve linked to uses an EOS 350D, which makes it completely meaningless for FF users.”
1) FF users are a minority, 2) The OP never said he was using a FF camera 3) digital-picture has FF info as well http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=114
The 10-22 is a better lens than any of the Canon FF wide-angle zoom lenses.
That said, it sure would be nice to have a decent EF-S 10mm prime.
Please please PLEASE tell me you’re not related to J.S. of last weeks infamy -_-
2 posts and you two sound the same.
..you just forgot the fact that D3 remove CA with in camera processing..
According too Zeiss, both the 21 mm and the 18 mm are coming soon.
EF 16-35 f/2.8 and EF 24-70 f/2.8 is the most important reason why change to Nikon. Canon please! Everything is not about big white lenses….
Quallity is expensive. There is plenty of cheap lenses out there allready.
I useually use f 5,6 – f 11 anyway som I don’t care. Planing to buy one.
Many people have alos become fans of Paul Smith Shoes since they came into the market. I also one of them , I very like Paul Smith Wallets and <a Paul Smith Belts,It designs very good.