Previous news story    Next news story

Carl Zeiss creates Distagon T* 15mm F2.8 super wide angle lens

By dpreview staff on Mar 16, 2012 at 16:33 GMT

Carl Zeiss has announced the Distagon T* 2,8/15, a super-wide-angle lens for Canon EF and Nikon F mounts. The lens can focus from just 25cm (10") and offers a 110° field of view when mounted on a full-frame camera. It uses aspherical elements and abnormal partial dispersion glass in order to control distortion and chromatic aberration. It features an integrated lens hood and accepts 95mm threaded filters. It will be available from May for an MSRP of €2,148 or US $2,948.


Press Release:

Infinitely Wide

OBERKOCHEN, 16.03.2012.
Carl Zeiss brings out a new super wide angle lens in May 2012. The super wide angle Distagon T* 2,8/15 will be available with an EF (ZE) or F bayonet (ZF.2). With an extra-large angle of view of 110 degrees in combination with a fast f/2.8 aperture, the lens enables the features for dramatic perspectives and performance demanded by the most ambitious landscape and architectural photographers. With a unique ability to capture events in a natural and extraordinary manner, it is also an ideal companion for advertising, journalism and commercial photography.

Thanks to the extreme angle of view of the lens, the fore- and background can be creatively emphasized in landscape and architecture photography. These applications will also benefit from the large depth-of-field, which provides a wide range of image sharpness from close-up up to infinity. With a close focus of 0.25m (10”) – combined with a wide angle view – photographers can work in tight spaces, while also allowing focus on close-up details. Distortion is extremely well controlled, producing naturally proportioned photographs which are not typical of many other super wide angle lenses. "With the Distagon T* 2,8/15, Carl Zeiss sets the standard in super wide angle photography," says Dr. Michael Pollmann, Consumer Lenses Program Manager in the Camera Lens Division of Carl Zeiss AG. "Even at full aperture it achieves outstanding detail rendition and opens up room for extremely imaginative design."

The Distagon T* 2,8/15 incorporates two aspheric lenses and special types of glass material with abnormal partial dispersion to provide an extraordinary correction of chromatic aberration. A floating elements design guarantees high image quality from close-focus through infinity. Like the other SLR lenses in the ZE and ZF.2 series, stray light and reflections are well controlled by the Carl Zeiss T* anti-reflective coating and the sophisticated treatment of the lens element edges with special light absorbing paint.

The robust all-metal barrel of the Distagon T* 2,8/15 is designed for decades of reliable service. A long focus rotation and buttery-smooth action is perfect for photographers who want to take control of their picture making, as well as for filmmakers looking for superior focus control. A nine blade aperture provides a nearly circular opening, producing natural looking out of focus details.

The lens shade is integrated into the design and helps to protect the lens surface from unintentional damage. The 95mm filter thread accepts all standard filters, including the recently released Carl Zeiss T* UV and POL filters.

The lens will begin shipping in May 2012 at a recommended retail price of €2,148 or US$2,948 (excluding VAT)*.

Specifications:

 Focal length  15 mm
 Aperture range  f/2.8 - 22
 Number of lens elements/groups  15/12
 Focusing range  0.25m – infinity
 Angular field** (diag./horiz./vert.)  110°/ 100°/ 76°
 Coverage at close range**  340 x 221 mm (close-up)
 Image ratio at close range  1:9 (close-up)
 Filter thread  M95 x 1.0
 Length with caps  132 mm (ZF.2)
 135 mm (ZE)
 Diameter  103 mm (ZF.2)
 103 mm (ZE)
 Weight  730 g (ZF.2)
 820 g (ZE)
 Mounts  ZF.2 (F bayonet)
 ZE (EF bayonet)

Notes:

* Status: 16 March 2012
** Based on 35 mm format

Comments

Total comments: 183
12
Oleg March
By Oleg March (5 months ago)

I shoot 95% with my widest lens. Used to be an old Sigma 12-24mm. I had enough of retouching flairs and comas. I knew that sooner or later I'd loose an image. Something I do not wanted to happen. So I went to Adorama and did this test:
http://www.marchphoto.com/3lenstest.jpg
First I was shooting with Kodak 14N. Then I bought a Canon 5D because it was better. Then I bought a 5D Mark3 for the same reason. And I bought this lens for the same reason yet again. I also bought an old Zeiss for Contax 28mm and 50mm 1.4. Besides shooting interiors (mostly restaurants) I was asked to shoot food very often. For some reason all my shots done fully open w. Canon 24-105 were totally out of focus. When I tried Zeiss 50 at 1.4 I realized why- CANON SUCKS! Now I just do not understand why anybody's shooting anything else. 28 cost me $260 and 50 1.4 $160 off the Ebay. I'm not rich but I need to provide quality.

0 upvotes
Landsandgrooves
By Landsandgrooves (Aug 31, 2012)

No one can decide for someone else is anything is "worth it.". If I use this lens on a video shoot, and it not only delivers a great image, but it impresses the client, and that client pays three time the cost of this lens for one day of production, is it "worth it?"

Times 20 such shoots a year?

Over at least 10 years?

Put this lens on the Sony NEX FS700, get slow motion video with outstanding visual impact, and it pays for itself quickly.

Just another (real world) way of looking at it.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (May 3, 2012)

I read all the comment below. Time wasted.

0 upvotes
exifnotfound
By exifnotfound (Mar 23, 2012)

I like the Zeiss pricing policy, they don't make the rest of the world subsidise US prices like Nikon and Canon. :)

0 upvotes
MagnusN
By MagnusN (Mar 22, 2012)

Do all of you base all your purchases on reason? To me this lens has a very strong appeal. It has a timeless, classy design I find very attractive, and it looks like it's built to last for generations. I bet it feels even better than it looks, even though I haven't tested a single zeiss lens ever. Sure, I'd like autofocus, but I think I'd manage without it in a super-wide lens like this. In a large aperture tele lens, I definitely want AF.

I don't have the money to buy this nor the AF-S 14-24/2,8, but I can definitely see people wanting to buy this, especially if the image quality and distortion level is as good as promised. I'd buy this if I had the money and if the test shots looks good enough in regards to distortion mainly.

The appeal would however have been even bigger if it was a bit smaller, lighter and cheaper, with 77mm filter size and f/4 aperture instead.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Mar 19, 2012)

Great video. I just learned that the lens has a metal lens shade with "a very nice Zeiss logo on it." By itself, that's probably worth 3,000 shekels right there in bragging rights, correct?

Unfortunately, out of the 2 lens caps that this impressive Zeiss beast comes with, only one is metal. The other one is plastic. I guess they did not want to raise the price to 3,500 or something.

Zeiss Brain Trust had decided to offer this one in only the 2 Canikon lens mounts and in nothing else. Hmmm....

The million dollar question on many folks' minds is: is this thing actually made in Germany, perhaps? Or the Far East?

0 upvotes
LukeDuciel
By LukeDuciel (Mar 19, 2012)

A beautifully crafted piece of glass, while I doubt the usability though.

For Nikon, we already have the amazing 14-24/2.8, which offers more sharpness and color than I can beg for. The only shortage of the 14-24 is that I cannot use filter system easily. This Zeiss 15 does not look strong in filter usage either.

For canon, the EF14 is also very much capable, but with all the easy breezy filter options.

hmmm...

3 upvotes
Redteg94
By Redteg94 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Nikkor's heavy distortion ruins it for architecture (at 14mm). The Zeiss, being a prime and being related to the 18,21,25 distagons, should have very little distortion. That's one niche where the Zeiss should appeal.

1 upvote
PatMann
By PatMann (Mar 21, 2012)

All the current Distagons have too much barrel distortion for critical architectural photography and require distortion correction in postprocessing whenever straight lines are near the edge of the image. Since you never know where an editor is going to crop, you need to correct this. Since the introductory hype says "less than 2%" I'd say this is similar to the other current Distagons. True, they are better than the Nikon zooms (at their widest settings), but still have significant distortion compared to the symmetrical wides for cameras that permit the rear element of the lens to be much closer to the image plane. I'd say 0.5% is a good guideline for "very little" distortion for architectural photography, and even that may require correction for some uses, such as use in 3-d photo simulations. The 38mm Biogon for Hasselblad and the 21mm Super-Angulon for Leica M probably meet this spec. The newer Leica ultrawides are also retrofocus design with significant distortion.

0 upvotes
plasnu
By plasnu (May 3, 2012)

This is because of the sensor limitation. No one can make 0.5% 15mm lens if Zeiss can't.

0 upvotes
billorg
By billorg (Mar 19, 2012)

Might be nice if they could FILL ALL THEIR BACKORDERS FIRST of Zeiss glass (esp the ZM rangefinder lenses) before introducing more NEW lenses.

Comment edited 44 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (Mar 19, 2012)

Are the ZM lenses not made by cosina / like the ZM camera is ?

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Mar 19, 2012)

Ha-ha-ha-ha, THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a single focal length f/2.8 lens that is definitely not made in Germania but somewhere in the Far East.

Heck, you can almost buy a 35mm cinema lens for this much dough.

0 upvotes
Redteg94
By Redteg94 (Mar 20, 2012)

There are actually quite a few single focal length f/2.8 lenses made in the far east that are much more expensive than that. All the way up to $13k.

Since when does Made in Germany carry more clout than Made in Japan anyways?

1 upvote
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (Mar 18, 2012)

Rest assure that we'll never know exactly where it's made (never mind what's written on it). Since Rollei went to Singapore and Seiko makes the shutter mechanisms for all brands, the other manufacturers also spaced their business where it suited them best. There are no more genuine 100% national products for decades anyway, and it also doesn't matter as long as the final products uphold the specs.

2 upvotes
MrPetkus
By MrPetkus (Mar 18, 2012)

Wish Zeiss would consider the K-mount again...

5 upvotes
bozuffi
By bozuffi (Aug 30, 2012)

there also is a Pentax 3.5 15mm - i've one from the 70's, and it is a really nice lens. i guess the zeiss will be a lot better, but the problem is: on which fx camera one can use a a PK lens, today?

0 upvotes
Rocket09
By Rocket09 (Mar 18, 2012)

This will be a great addition to my 21,35,50MP and 100MP....D800e is going to love it!

1 upvote
Frank C.
By Frank C. (Mar 18, 2012)

make them expensive so make them desirable school of economics

Comment edited 23 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Mar 19, 2012)

Is probably worth only about 700 bucks on the street. Definitely NOT $2,948. Where are these people coming up with these weird, totally crazy and unsupportable prices?

0 upvotes
BelDDB
By BelDDB (Mar 19, 2012)

When you have millions, you will possibly never care about the price, just want to hold that brand name

0 upvotes
88SAL
By 88SAL (Mar 21, 2012)

R&D Costs and all the fancy elements. Its not just normal glass. Its really expensive, but look at a Summicron/Lux. German glass brands will be expensive.

0 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Mar 18, 2012)

These lenses hold values like investment, last decades. So buy it and use it, then sell it getting most if not all the money back. Lens seems to inflate overtime.

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Mar 17, 2012)

You have to understand that this is the "real" Zeiss, not a pay-for-rent name that is used on sony lenses. As such it actually isn't that expensive and will probably hold its value for a long time.

0 upvotes
papparazzi
By papparazzi (Mar 18, 2012)

not cosina right?

1 upvote
lajka
By lajka (Mar 18, 2012)

Zeiss ZM lenses are made by Cosina with exception of two: 15/2,8 and 85/2. These are made in Germany with according price.

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Mar 18, 2012)

Right, the Sony 135mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.4 are crap coz they aren't real Zeiss lenses ? You do realize that both lenses are probably the best in their respective classes. The 135mm especially has no equal.

1 upvote
Biggs23
By Biggs23 (Mar 18, 2012)

Neither does the 85mm for that matter Brendon. I'm a former Sony user (now Nikon) and the thing I miss most about the Sony system is the CZ85mm. The Nikon 85mm isn't nearly as good.

3 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Mar 19, 2012)

Sony? I thought they were refurbished Rokkors from our beloved Minolta, isn't it?

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Mar 19, 2012)

The best ZEISS lenses were the Jena Zeiss optics from the German Democratic Republic. They did not cut corners with design, materials, workmanship.

After the ill-fated German unification, the West Germany Zeiss killed off and shut down forever the East German Zeiss. Then they moved the vast majority of actual production to the Far East to save the Deutsche Mark and then the almighty €.

But if you only want to reminisce about the good old days, and have the money to back-up this whim, do get a Carl Zeiss branded lens, by all means. With a name like "Zeiss" emblazoned on them, they have just gotta be superior to everything else out there, right?

0 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Mar 17, 2012)

You think this is expensive - wait till you see how much they charge for the Cine Prime version.

2 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Mar 18, 2012)

I think Canon Cine lens cost about $10,000. Manual focus ring is very smooth.

0 upvotes
88SAL
By 88SAL (Mar 21, 2012)

^ Yeah probably lubricated with baby seal oil.

0 upvotes
JesseBrennanPhoto
By JesseBrennanPhoto (Mar 17, 2012)

WOW, a lot of Zeiss haters. Having a ZF.2 100mp and having compared that to just about everything Nikon has in that range (I work at a camera store). The ZF has a much higher apparent sharpness because of the great micro-contrast, and due to the great color reproduction i find that i can shoot my cameras on the neutral setting and get great results where my Nikon glass needs a little push in the right direction in post. The build of the Zeiss really makes my Nikon glass feel like junk (and I do love Nikon lenses) but holding a 100zf and a 100mm nikkor the build quality is lacking by comparison. Manual focus lenses aren't for every type of photography but if you are manually focusing your Nikon lenses like I was, the Zeiss is a much better lens. Don't hate on Zeiss unless you have actually used and compared their products to the competition.

2 upvotes
photokandi
By photokandi (Mar 17, 2012)

You are absolutely right in what you say, the haters have prob never even held one, never mind actually use one. This is the prob with forums, some people just accept what they read to be fact from someone else who read it somewhere.

4 upvotes
aris14
By aris14 (Mar 19, 2012)

True! And strictly for professional use from people they know well...

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Mar 19, 2012)

These assorted "Zeiss haters" are probably the smarter ones, I would venture to guess. Not wasting thousands on something just because there is a particular name emblazoned on the lens that, quite frankly, had lost most of its allure once held.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Mar 19, 2012)

It's just that in most cases, they're not Zeiss. They're excellent lenses but most of them are made by Cosina. What difference does it make? Well, if you bought a Leitz lens with a Leitz price and then discovered it was made by Minolta you probably wouldn't be happy.

0 upvotes
deleted_081301
By deleted_081301 (Mar 19, 2012)

I dont hate Zeiss ..I just hate paying Zeiss prices for Cosina lenses...

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Mar 19, 2012)

They should just paint the lens saying "COSINA." Why stick to the ZEISS name and pretend thast everything that says "Zeiss" is designed and built in the Fatherland?

0 upvotes
88SAL
By 88SAL (Mar 21, 2012)

Whats with "oh its just Cosina". Cosina is making waves in the RF world, offering optics 90%-100% as good as the German glass for 10-20% of the price. Thats bragging rights. The Voigtlander 15mm is one of the best lenses around, and im sure it will be comparable to this lens.

Ziess contracted Cosina for a reason, and im sure its because they had the best resume.

0 upvotes
GrumpyDiver
By GrumpyDiver (Mar 21, 2012)

Actually the Leica Vario Elmarit R 80-200mm was made by Minolta for Leitz. It even says Made in Japan on it. How do I know? I own one of course and have used it for over 20 years.

Yes, Zeiss has contracted Cosina to build lenses for them. I under stand that they are Zeiss designed, use Zeiss specified materials and are tested to Zeiss requirments. It really doesn't matter who builds them and where they are made, the important thing is that they are made to spec.

Sorry Zeiss haters, no company in a competitive business stays in business unless they deliver a product that people are willing to pay for because it is worth the money. If there is a "name brand" premium, it is bound to be small. People don't invest in this type of equipment for the label, the do so because they find value in the product and are willing to pay the price.

0 upvotes
S Hoekstra
By S Hoekstra (Mar 26, 2012)

I also hate Zeiss, but that's becouse of the price. I own the CZ ZE 50mm f/1.4 and the beautiful ZE 21mm f/2.8. They are very sharp and sollid as a rock. My next CZ lens will be the 100mm macro and maybe i'll save for this baby. For all the people who are so negative about Zeiss I would say. Go to a photoshop and rent a Zeiss and you also will be lost like i did.

0 upvotes
SeeRoy
By SeeRoy (Mar 17, 2012)

The only wides I own are an old Nikkor 20/3.5 and a 14-24 G. The latter is good enough for me so this expensive Zeiss's characteristics are of no more than academic interest. But maybe someone on this thread can tell me if the "volume anamorphosis" effect I see on my 14-24 @ approaching 14mm is an unavoidable attribute of all lenses at these focal lengths? Because it sure does bug me, even for landscape shots.

0 upvotes
GURL
By GURL (Mar 17, 2012)

This is an attribute of the rectilinear perspective this lens follows to insure that any straight line in the subject is rendered as a straight line.

To make the resulting image looks like what you saw when looking at the subject you should place your eye at a very short distance from the print or screen. For example when using a screen 36 cm (14") wide your eye should be at 15 cm (5.9") from the screen...

1 upvote
88SAL
By 88SAL (Mar 21, 2012)

Also get the Voigtlander F 15mm and see how nice it will perform. You want mirror lock up though.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Mar 17, 2012)

The lens mount must be made of some platinum alloy. :)

1 upvote
joelfoto
By joelfoto (Mar 17, 2012)

Pricey but I'd sure like to give one a test drive!

0 upvotes
Dan Ortego
By Dan Ortego (Mar 17, 2012)

Wow, the last time I paid upward to $3k for a lens was when I owned a Leica. Even though I now own ZA's I don't think I'd pay upward to $3k again.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 15 minutes after posting
1 upvote
vFunct
By vFunct (Mar 17, 2012)

Yah, the Nikon 14-24 is much better... one of the greatest lenses ever made.

2 upvotes
hippo84
By hippo84 (Mar 17, 2012)

Have You already compared them? Are You sure 14-24 will allow You to get the best from D800 with its 36MP?

4 upvotes
StefanCzech
By StefanCzech (Mar 18, 2012)

I shot the promo movie for Zeiss (see on top). And I have thisi lens for two days on my camera. I have also the EF 14mm f2.8 L from Canon...and you see the differents. And the EF lens is nearly the same price. This lens is amazing.
Stefan

3 upvotes
Bronze Age Man
By Bronze Age Man (Mar 18, 2012)

Which version of the Canon 14mm do you have Stephan?

0 upvotes
miles green
By miles green (Mar 20, 2012)

The guy in the video opened the box and the second lens started bobbing... and my hands went numb....
So if you're planning on dropping them, plz send them to me for safekeeping!

0 upvotes
miles green
By miles green (Mar 20, 2012)

PS: what i find most interesting with this lens is the distortion control that allows for "naturally proportionned images". But this would take some side-by-side *field* testing!

0 upvotes
lucavascon
By lucavascon (Mar 17, 2012)

Aaaahhh... Zeiss!
It looks quite a deal if compared to 2nd hand 15mm f3.5 in Contax mount!!!
However I do prefer old Contax mount primes adapted to 5D. And new ones still have better taste than Nikon and Canon primes (specially Canon primes, that are disappointing me so much).
For those who do not appreciate the difference between the Zeiss and other lenses, if you don't see it, it means your way, taste, and preferred light condition in taking pictures is not putting your lens in crisis. No "absolute"better in lenses and tools There is simply a tool that "fits better" in your hand for that situation

@ZAnton, I tried the Samyang 14, quite unusable for me. Far prefer using the good 15mm fisheye Sigma and than correct it with PanoTools

@thx1138, you got the point. I do not like zooms, I usually prefer zeiss and do not use filters (although sometimes, I'd like a polarizing one). But I've tried that 14-24 and I can only say that it is a fantastic, German-feeling ultrawide, I'd go for it.

0 upvotes
dbm305
By dbm305 (Mar 29, 2012)

What problem do you have with the Samyang? It has crazy distortion, but one of the good things about it's distortion pattern is that when you correct it with a LR profile you don't lose much angle of view. And it has extremely
high resolution.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Mar 17, 2012)

There is already Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for almost 1/10 the price.
Only real crazy techno-geeks will buy Zeiss.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
Stollen1234
By Stollen1234 (Mar 17, 2012)

actually zeiss users are mostly professionals..since you need to earn a lot of money to afford zeiss or such lenses..

most geeks are on a budget and they tend to buy the latest tech from the brand of the masses like canon sony etc.

you need to buy what you really need and what is good for you

1 upvote
papparazzi
By papparazzi (Mar 17, 2012)

Canon Wide Tilt/Shift TS-E 17mm f/4L EATS THIS ZEISS ALIVE

3 upvotes
hippo84
By hippo84 (Mar 17, 2012)

papparazzi- Have You already compared them?

3 upvotes
photokandi
By photokandi (Mar 17, 2012)

Papparazzi, how old are you? What a ridiculous statement. & again you prob never even seen a TSE let alone use one!

1 upvote
Pasha001
By Pasha001 (Mar 17, 2012)

> There is already Samyang 14mm f/2.8 for almost 1/10 the price.
Yeah, and for idiots. Even Ren Cockwell admits the Samyang is a piece of crap.

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Mar 17, 2012)

@Pasha001
Ken Rockwell is one of the most craziest techno-geeks. ;)

0 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Mar 18, 2012)

The Samyang is no doubt a good lens. Reviews praising it so highly can't be wrong.

http://www.lenstip.com/239.4-Lens_review-Samyang_14_mm_f_2.8_ED_AS_IF_UMC_Image_resolution.html

However you can't take filters conventionally.

0 upvotes
Pasha001
By Pasha001 (Mar 18, 2012)

@ZAnton
No, Ken does not estimate resolution mathematically, for example, as lenstip does. He only cares for things that a sane buyer should check.

0 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Mar 18, 2012)

@ Pasha001

First of all "sane buyer" will never buy a lens for over 2000 Euro if there is the same good quality lens but 1/7th of the price.

1 upvote
RedMangrove
By RedMangrove (Mar 19, 2012)

Yes, the Samyang and Zeiss do have a lot in common. They both can be mounted on a camera, that is all.

0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 19, 2012)

The Samyang has quite heavy distortion and also quite hefty CA. Its cheap - and you get what you pay for.

0 upvotes
dbm305
By dbm305 (Mar 29, 2012)

Yes: which tells you something about Ken Rockwell!
The Samyang is cheap; yes. It has wild but correctible distortion, yes. But it's sharper than the N 14-24 or canon 14 2.8. Less CA. Better flare control than the N. It's not just me: read photozone or Lenstip.

0 upvotes
Klarno
By Klarno (Mar 17, 2012)

An extreme ultrawide lens that accepts filters. Yes. That alone is a feature that will sell this lens.
Of course, 95mm isn't exactly an ubiquitous or inexpensive size...but if you're dropping $3000 on a manual focus lens and you don't even own a Leica, money probably isn't much of an object for you anyway.

2 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Mar 17, 2012)

Beautiful

1 upvote
healer81
By healer81 (Mar 17, 2012)

Lens looks interesting, especially for canon shooters since nikon already has a 14-24 which is spectacular. Canon doesnt have an answer for super wide angle at this moment so this lens will accommodate.
People in this site is always complaining about something, dont mind them.

2 upvotes
Chris_in_Osaka
By Chris_in_Osaka (Mar 17, 2012)

"Canon doesnt have an answer for super wide angle at this moment so this lens will accommodate."

What do mean? How about the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM or the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM?

6 upvotes
bed bug
By bed bug (Mar 17, 2012)

Ummmm, you obviously have not heard of the Canon 8-15. It seems to me that Nikon has no answer for the super wide at this moment!

1 upvote
AshMills
By AshMills (Mar 17, 2012)

Umm, but that is a fisheye zoom hardly comparable results/usability.

2 upvotes
brendon1000
By brendon1000 (Mar 17, 2012)

^^ No offense bed bug, but I hope you realize that the 8-15 is a fisheye lens and not a rectilinear wide angle like the Zeiss ?

In any case even Nikon's 14-24mm has a drawback that it cannot use filters. This CZ lens can make use of a Lee filter system or a Cokin Z pro system.

The Canon 14mm is by no means a bad lens, but its performance is not as good as the Nikon at 14mm and the Nikon has the advantage of being a zoom but costing only a few $$$ more.

2 upvotes
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (Mar 17, 2012)

the 14-24 can use filters if you install them on a frame.

2 upvotes
thx1138
By thx1138 (Mar 17, 2012)

At $1500-1600 I may have well got one of these as it looks superb and I know will produce great results. Alas for this money it will remain a mere wish. I would probably buy a Nikon 14-24 for my Canon for UWA for half the price and also get a far more versatile lens.

0 upvotes
Nikkorforever
By Nikkorforever (Mar 17, 2012)

I never understand the bitching and moaning for Zeiss from people that never used them.

Sounds like jealousy..

4 upvotes
ZAnton
By ZAnton (Mar 17, 2012)

but it is not.

1 upvote
hippo84
By hippo84 (Mar 17, 2012)

So...what is it? How can One compare lenses without having used them?

1 upvote
kikiriki
By kikiriki (Mar 17, 2012)

When You compare them in your hands (Zeiss, and any other Nikon or Canon), then You wonder why plastic lens cost that much, not why Zeiss cost 3k. Second thing is feeling that children of Your children will use that particular Zeiss lens, and be very grateful to grandfather who was smart (and rich) enough to buy Zeiss. Canon and Nikon Lenses have "disposable" feeling compared to Zeiss... :)

3 upvotes
Najinsky
By Najinsky (Mar 17, 2012)

Will it be available for smartphones?

4 upvotes
Jim in AZ
By Jim in AZ (Mar 17, 2012)

Guess Zeiss isn't interested in selling very many of these babies.

3 upvotes
M Jesper
By M Jesper (Mar 18, 2012)

Exactly. Quality over quantity ;)

0 upvotes
Conrad567
By Conrad567 (Mar 17, 2012)

The tokina 16-28 2.8 might be a great lens....but given the new sensor of the D800 I wouldn't write off the zeiss prime quite yet until we can see the numbers.

0 upvotes
Chris_in_Osaka
By Chris_in_Osaka (Mar 17, 2012)

Beautiful design but considering the price...
My Tokina 16-28mm from full frame with constant f2.8 and weather sealing cost me about $850 here in Japan. I can't see myself buying the Zeiss unless I was a professional capable of writing off the price as a business expense, though I don't imagine I'd be doing that even then.

1 upvote
Ben_Egbert
By Ben_Egbert (Mar 17, 2012)

Wow, wish it were an f4 at a lower cost.

0 upvotes
Ran Plett
By Ran Plett (Mar 17, 2012)

I have the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 for Canon mount, and that is a really nice lens. Maybe not the best value, but it's a lot better than the Canon 16-35 2.8. I think with this lens they are appealing to the Cine crowd. As a Canon shooter, my ears perk up when I see a new wide angle lens being introduced, but in this case, I know I won't be buying it. Maybe if the price came down by $1000?

0 upvotes
Dr. Mel Wilner
By Dr. Mel Wilner (Mar 17, 2012)

Anyone remember NIKON's 15 mm f3.5. Has all the Zeiss features...metal cap, but filter thread. I used mine frequently on my D700, until I bought the 14-24 f2.8. I still have this Nikon beauty and a lot less $$$ than Zeiss'

1 upvote
lajka
By lajka (Mar 17, 2012)

But the filter thread. Yes mister, you pay less for Nikon lens but you shake a bit when photographing in rough environment fearing that front unprotected element of your baby gets scratched and you perfectly know what it means on superwides. Same applies to 14-24 of course.

0 upvotes
TWiCS
By TWiCS (Mar 17, 2012)

What? no M43 mount! Rats....I want to see this Zeiss fit on my plastic panny without a mickey duck adaptor!

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
exifnotfound
By exifnotfound (Mar 16, 2012)

Wow, Zeiss really cops it on this site.
A common theme amongst Internet experts.

1 upvote
bradleyg5
By bradleyg5 (Mar 16, 2012)

Well it does take filters, that's one thing it does that other ultra wides don't already do.

Why did they have a 5 minute video presentation and not shoot any footage with the actual lens? obviously people would want to see how it preforms for video.

Honestly Zeiss makes some pretty weirdly spec/priced lens, but this one sort of makes sense. Nikon 14-24mm is great and Canon 14mm is great, but they both have extreme bulb front elements that make them prone to flare.

0 upvotes
commiebiker
By commiebiker (Mar 16, 2012)

not sure if it is overrated, but it is surely over-priced

3 upvotes
gordon lafleur
By gordon lafleur (Mar 16, 2012)

ewelch
Your Nikon 14-24 compared to the 18mm Zeiss
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/distagon-18mm.shtml

Autofocus, electronic coupling, equal image quality, and a range of focal lengths that would require 3 Zeiss lenses to match. Only the amateur gear weenies buy ridiculous stuff like these Zeiss lenses, and only because it says Zeiss on it. Same as when there was the Contax/Yashica. I remmember the tests showing that there was nothing special about the Zeiss lenses except the price.

4 upvotes
Lea5
By Lea5 (Mar 17, 2012)

You should have a professional website or at least have some useful images in your gallery, before you call someone amateur gear weenie.

6 upvotes
fmian
By fmian (Mar 17, 2012)

The 14-24 has considerably more distortion than the 15mm and 18mm Zeiss lenses.
I would think that for close to $3000 an architectural photographer would find it more compelling to buy a tilt shift lens.
The 15mm does seem to be a stellar performer.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=794&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=794&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

0 upvotes
LaFonte
By LaFonte (Mar 17, 2012)

I would take your "gear weenies" if the Nikon would cost significantly less than Zeiss, but as it stands they cost about the same. Nikon is of course fantastic, as is the zeiss, but no matter who makes fantastic less, you can be sure you will pay for it a lot. It is not for everybody, not even for me.

0 upvotes
Redteg94
By Redteg94 (Mar 20, 2012)

The Nikkor has amazingly great resolution (esp for a zoom), but also suffers from strong distortion, lots of CA and lots of flare, making it a non-starter for some. The Zeiss lenses (and Canon 14L and 17 TS-E) are good alternatives partly for those reasons

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Mar 16, 2012)

I have a bag full of Zeiss T* lenses, the image quality is vastly superior to my Nikons. More power to Zeiss, the more lenses they make for my D700 the happier I will be.

Comment edited 27 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
commiebiker
By commiebiker (Mar 16, 2012)

"vastly" ? really? you have examples?

4 upvotes
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (Mar 16, 2012)

please provide objective examples.

3 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Mar 17, 2012)

Keep dreaming.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (Mar 18, 2012)

Come and look at my slide collection. The Nikon are good, the old Pentax a bit better but the Zeiss are stunning.

I think every lens maker creates gear that treats light a bit differently, to me Zeiss glass has fabulous contrast, colour rendition and sharpness. There is also a "real" look to them my other lenses can't touch.

Whenever I have a slide session I always wish I could go back and retake all of the shots I took with lesser gear prior to forking out for a Contax outfit. I'm sure you'll just say I'm kidding myself because it's expensive but honestly it's depressing to compare digital to film anyway let alone when you've got some real serious glass like this for a side to side test.

At the end of the day the best camera is the one you've got with you but you've missed a treat.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Alizarine
By Alizarine (Mar 21, 2012)

Please show pics of the bag full of Zeiss lenses.

1 upvote
ewelch
By ewelch (Mar 16, 2012)

Funny, I keep thinking I paid half that for my Nikon 14-24 2.8. And it's a crazy great lens. Better than my second generation Leica 19mm 2.8 lens, which in its day was one of the best wide lenses in existence.

Comment edited 31 seconds after posting
7 upvotes
Telefoto
By Telefoto (Mar 16, 2012)

Why would this lens be attractive at that weight? Its weight is in the same ballpark as the Nikkor 14-24, which is the lens I'm looking for a smaller, cheaper alternative to. My 20/2.8 AF rocks, except for the fairly horrendous image quality :) But otherwise perfect, great size, price, and angle of view. Along comes this prime and it weighs almost as much as the probably sharper, just as fast, but AF-S 14-24. Scratching my head over the value prop here. If this lens were 300 or 400g, I'd be seriously interested.

1 upvote
lajka
By lajka (Mar 17, 2012)

Easy mister. If Zeiss weights tha same as Nikon then it means that there`s more plastic in Nikon. Glass element mounting sturdieness showes it`s worth after some time of rough rides. As to weight of alternative 15mm may I recomend VC 15/4.5 at astounding 4 oz. ! Can`t do better.

0 upvotes
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (Mar 17, 2012)

All because its heavy does not mean its sturdy. In fact there are many issues with a lens that uses materials like steel, such as sensitivity to temperature changes, air pressure, etc. Lenses that use light alloys/plastic combinations (such as those from mainstream manufacturers) are nowhere near as heat sensitive and nowhere near as mallable.

1 upvote
plasnu
By plasnu (May 3, 2012)

Wondering why you do not just buy m43. 7-14 is much better lens than any Nikon UW primes, and smaller.

0 upvotes
Ferrari_Alex
By Ferrari_Alex (Mar 16, 2012)

I already have 35 f/1.4 ZE. Wht is the point to pay 3500 USD for super advanced AF on 5D MKIII and have MF lens?

0 upvotes
Jun2
By Jun2 (Mar 17, 2012)

it's easy to manual focus with wide angle. If you shoot movies, smooth manual focus is a huge advantage.

1 upvote
lajka
By lajka (Mar 17, 2012)

Filming Hollywood style, dude. Ever heard about focus pulling?

1 upvote
Artur Kozlowski
By Artur Kozlowski (Mar 16, 2012)

This dude needs pronunciation lessons. His accent is terrible.

2 upvotes
Mtsuoka
By Mtsuoka (Mar 16, 2012)

yeah you English police

7 upvotes
Apewithacamera
By Apewithacamera (Mar 16, 2012)

GREAT LENS! BEST USED ATTACHED TO A NIKON D800!

WOOOOOOHOOOOOOO!

2 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Mar 16, 2012)

I expect nothing less to excite an ape with a camera.

9 upvotes
Biowizard
By Biowizard (Mar 16, 2012)

I simply LOVE metal-bodied Zeiss glass - like I have for my Contax S2. What a shame that marque never made a successful digital camera ...

Brian

3 upvotes
lajka
By lajka (Mar 17, 2012)

Attached to NIKON 800 E !

1 upvote
Biowizard
By Biowizard (Mar 19, 2012)

Totally agree: a 36Mpixel sensor, without the antialising blur filter, is what you need to give a good Carl Zeiss prime lens a run for its money! Kodachrome 25, eat your heart out!

Brian

0 upvotes
papparazzi
By papparazzi (Mar 16, 2012)

Samyang 14mm 2.8 anyone?

6 upvotes
DPCan
By DPCan (Mar 16, 2012)

I just received my Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and it is very sharp and coma free. Almost every review says it is as good or maybe a little better than Nikon legendary 14-24 f/2.8 because it is less sensible to flare. Besides high distortion, which I don't care for landscape, it is difficult to see why one would pay 7X the price for Zeiss except for architecture (the Nikon is also almost free of distortion). Any idea or justification besides architecture or Zeiss Acquisition Syndrome ?

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting
2 upvotes
Bart Aldrich
By Bart Aldrich (Mar 16, 2012)

These Zeiss lenses don't even get especially good reviews from independent reviewers, like Photozone or Bjorn Rorslett.
Like someone also said, they are made in the same plant as Cosinas; not bad, but also not the old Zeiss whose prices they are extrapolating onto these.

4 upvotes
baldeagle21b
By baldeagle21b (Mar 16, 2012)

It all depends on the specifications of the lens. Cosina is quite capable of producing Zeiss level optics if that is what the specification calls for. Other the other hand, they also can produce Quantaray stuff if that's all you are willing to pay for.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting
1 upvote
tkpenalty
By tkpenalty (Mar 16, 2012)

he's saying they're just average lenses in general; nothing special for their price bracket. However reason escapes most people as soon as they see the Zeiss badge.

They seem more of a fashion item, which is fine, although that does speak words of many photographer's aesthetic sense.... having a 50 1.4 zeiss looks great by itself, but having it with a normal DSLR body, well, i think they're aesthetically blind.

But seriously, a 50 1.4 EF-S or even a 50 f1.4 minolta will take the same if not better image than the Zeiss 50 1.4. Why do we have to pay so much?!

1 upvote
Nikkorforever
By Nikkorforever (Mar 17, 2012)

LOL..it seems you have no idea and never used one

3 upvotes
Tape5
By Tape5 (Mar 16, 2012)

The is a very special lens. Not a lens to see better with, but one better to be seen with, if you see what I mean. However, if your photography needs to hide behind this overpriced MF lens, you are reassured to benefit from its full protection. Leica style.

2 upvotes
Bart Aldrich
By Bart Aldrich (Mar 16, 2012)

Customer profile: largely the same people who spend wads on Leicas and high end Canon and Nikon pro bodies and haven't a clue why they would need it or how to benefit from having one.
Go on one of the photo storage sites and see the crap most Leica owners fill their galleries with.
I have a friend with an eight thousand dollar canon body and he doesn't even know if it's full-frame or DX! Nor does he know what a polarising filter is.

It's the more money than brains crowd.

6 upvotes
digitalDork
By digitalDork (Mar 16, 2012)

I confess I want this lens because of the aesthetics more than the real world usefulness, but that's just me.

I've used all manner of low and high end equipment, and I still remember the (Yashica built) Contax 50mm 1.4, not because of the pictures it produced (which were excellent despite my skill level) but because it was a joy to use.

And yes, I do know what a polarising filter is - I have two, a south version for pictures of penguins, and a north version for polar bears.

14 upvotes
ewelch
By ewelch (Mar 16, 2012)

Apparently you don't know the difference between Nikon (DX) and Canon (EF-S) lenses.

Glass houses...

2 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Mar 16, 2012)

Jealous?

4 upvotes
Nikkorforever
By Nikkorforever (Mar 17, 2012)

Oowh such hatred.. Did Leica or Zeiss ever screw you up in the past?
So you being his friend and the Mr. know it all and be all of photography feels good by saying out loud?
Your site is nice but less so the attitude..

2 upvotes
Scorpius1
By Scorpius1 (Apr 1, 2013)

What a crock of rubbish... TRy Wayne Fox's website.. he is a Zeiss Fan.. is he just a wannabe with too much cash? Lloyd Chamber's is also a big fan of Zeiss.. is he just an ignorant rich person ?? hell no.. you sound bitter

0 upvotes
Total comments: 183
12