Zeiss vs Canon on the 5D

I am looking to upgrade from the 20D to the 5D, and I've read that I will see much better optical quality using the Zeiss 21 2.8 Distagon, Leica 19 2.8, Oly 21 2, or Nikon 17-35 2.8 on the 5D than my current 17-40L. I realize I will need an adapter, and I will lose auto-focus, etc...; however, is the IQ differential great enough that I should use one of the above lenses? Will I need a special focusing screen on the 5D to accomodate the above lenses? I appreciate your help; I'm apprehensive about spending the kind of $ it takes to purchase the Zeiss (for example,) without knowing in advance what I'm up against (in inconvenience wise) and how great an IQ improvement I will see.

Also, as a side issue:

From a pure IQ differential standpoint on the 5D, will I see a bigger improvement going from the 17-40L to the Zeiss 21 2.8, OR going from the Canon 200 2.8L to the Canon 200 1.8L??? Both the Zeiss and 200 1.8L are Huge investments (for me, at least,) and I want to put the $ where I will see the biggest improvement (I'm speaking of IQ, not focal length issues.)

Thank you in advance.

If you want to shoot wide open the Zeiss 21mm will certainly be sharper, particularly in the corners, than the Canon of your choice. But since corner sharpness is mostly an issue shooting landscapes, and since when shooting landscapes the corners of the image are rarely on the same narrow plane of focus as the center, you'll want to be shooting at f/8 or so to maximize depth of field. At maximum aperture the corners of your landscape will be out of focus, so it hardly matters that when shooting a test chart the corners are sharp. Test charts are flat, the real world rarely is flat. At f/8 the differences between various lenses will not be large enough to warrant the expense of the Zeiss lens, or the loss of auto diaphram control on any of the other lenses, for most people.

And don't forget that there are tests that prove the superiority of all sorts of lenses, including Canon wide angles. It is by no means a given that all Canon wide angle lenses are poor quality. Some of us are quite pleased with the quality. There are tests showing that the Nikon 17-35 zoom is far superior to any other zoon in that range. And another test proves that the Canon 16-35L is better in every way to the Nikon.

People with a Nikon fetish like to trot out those tests showing Nikon's superiority. People who like to take photographs with their Canon cameras just smile and go on their way.

--
Peter White

I think there's a huge difference.

http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/816090

All the best,

Andy

Peter White said:

If you want to shoot wide open the Zeiss 21mm will certainly be
sharper, particularly in the corners, than the Canon of your
choice. But since corner sharpness is mostly an issue shooting
landscapes, and since when shooting landscapes the corners of the
image are rarely on the same narrow plane of focus as the center,
you'll want to be shooting at f/8 or so to maximize depth of field.
At maximum aperture the corners of your landscape will be out of
focus, so it hardly matters that when shooting a test chart the
corners are sharp. Test charts are flat, the real world rarely is
flat. At f/8 the differences between various lenses will not be
large enough to warrant the expense of the Zeiss lens, or the loss
of auto diaphram control on any of the other lenses, for most
people.

And don't forget that there are tests that prove the superiority of
all sorts of lenses, including Canon wide angles. It is by no means
a given that all Canon wide angle lenses are poor quality. Some of
us are quite pleased with the quality. There are tests showing that
the Nikon 17-35 zoom is far superior to any other zoon in that
range. And another test proves that the Canon 16-35L is better in
every way to the Nikon.

People with a Nikon fetish like to trot out those tests showing
Nikon's superiority. People who like to take photographs with their
Canon cameras just smile and go on their way.

Click to expand...

Great post, Peter. When I'm stopped down for DOF anyway, the 17-40L does just fine, even in the corners:



And a better look at that lower-left corner which is just barely within the DOF:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

This is utterly inexcusable. The Canon lens is a zoom, the Zeiss is fixed focal length.

But worse still, the Zeiss image is shot at f/8, the optimum compromise between depth of field and diffraction. The Canon image is shot at f/22 where diffraction reduces image quality.

You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this cr*p.

--
Peter White

hard about getting a Zeiss 21 at the current prices. Many are going for the upper $2k range and a few over $3k. (The price has dropped since summer) There is tremendous buzz about it, but I see only a few killer shots posted. It seems the lens is mostly dealt with by speculators rather than those using it in earnest. Or maybe the owners are too busy selling images to fool with internet forums!

Look at the CZ21 tests and see the nice sharp corners - look between the corners and see the wave form distortion. No doubt it is a great lens and very sharp across the frame and I'd like to have one - but I'll wait for them to drop to the lower $2k's.

You are right to consider the olympus 21 - the 3.5 version has tested close to the CZ21 and costs around $400-500 The 2.0 version will be $800 - 900. Plus, the olys are very compact and have other small advantages.

Either of these options should be noticably better than a 17-40, especially at the edges.

TAXIONE said:

I am looking to upgrade from the 20D to the 5D, and I've read that
I will see much better optical quality using the Zeiss 21 2.8
Distagon, Leica 19 2.8, Oly 21 2, or Nikon 17-35 2.8 on the 5D than
my current 17-40L. I realize I will need an adapter, and I will
lose auto-focus, etc...; however, is the IQ differential great
enough that I should use one of the above lenses? Will I need a
special focusing screen on the 5D to accomodate the above lenses?

Click to expand...

The Zeiss 21mm is as good as it gets. Whether or not you'll see the difference between it and Canon equivalents depends on the kind(s) of photography you do and how large you print. I own the Zeiss (for my Contax SLR system) but since I'm not a big landscape shooter I rarely use it with my Canon D-SLRs. I've found the 17-40mm performs just fine for my needs at the wide end. Ease- and speed-of-use outweigh ultimate image quality for me at this focal length.

You wouldn't necessarily need a split-image screen to use the 21mm--you could use zone or hyperfocal focusing instead--but it would help. Canon makes a 5D screen intended to improve manual focusing accuracy...not sure how effective it is with ultra-wide lenses. There's at least one third-party split-image screen available too (from the Brightscreen folks).

TAXIONE said:

From a pure IQ differential standpoint on the 5D, will I see a
bigger improvement going from the 17-40L to the Zeiss 21 2.8, OR
going from the Canon 200 2.8L to the Canon 200 1.8L??? Both the
Zeiss and 200 1.8L are Huge investments (for me, at least,) and I
want to put the $ where I will see the biggest improvement (I'm
speaking of IQ, not focal length issues.)

Click to expand...

In my experience the 200mm f/1.8 isn't a better lens than the f/2.8 at same apertures. It is faster, of course, which may mean "better" depending again on what sort of photography you do. It's a significantly larger, heavier lens than the f/2.8. Unless you need the extra speed save your money.

-Dave-

Are you talking about Andy's post? Both lenses were set to f5.6 or f8 according to the text in his comparison photos. The Zeiss looked very impressive.

Hello there, Peter,

Are you having a bad day? Geez. I'm terribly sorry but you make it sound like I made the whole test f/22 vs f/8 and that's completely wrong

• the first two pairs of shots are like aperture comparisons. Honestly, I don't know why I shot the third set at f/22 and f/8. I could dig up the f/8 Canon shots but they aren't much better, I promise. Doesn't matter. The first two pairs of shots clearly show why I shoot with the CZ21

Now, the great "zoom" vs "prime" debate. Well now, what Canon 21mm prime shall I use? I'm all ears, Peter Many folks look at the Canon 16-35L and 17-40L as top of the line gear and when they want more, sharp corners in their landscapes for example, they start looking at Zeiss, Oly, and other non-Canon glass. And if you'd like to match the CZ21 against any other Canon fixed lens in the same neighborhood, focal-length-wise, it too, would lose out - worse!

I'm sorry you found it to be offensive!

All the best,

Andy

Peter White said:

This is utterly inexcusable. The Canon lens is a zoom, the Zeiss is
fixed focal length.

But worse still, the Zeiss image is shot at f/8, the optimum
compromise between depth of field and diffraction. The Canon image
is shot at f/22 where diffraction reduces image quality.

You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this cr*p.

--
Peter White

Click to expand...

--
-- Andy
http://www.moonriverphotography.com

bdnc said:

hard about getting a Zeiss 21 at the current prices. Many are going
for the upper $2k range and a few over $3k. (The price has dropped
since summer) There is tremendous buzz about it, but I see only a
few killer shots posted. It seems the lens is mostly dealt with by
speculators rather than those using it in earnest. Or maybe the
owners are too busy selling images to fool with internet forums!

Look at the CZ21 tests and see the nice sharp corners - look
between the corners and see the wave form distortion. No doubt it
is a great lens and very sharp across the frame and I'd like to
have one - but I'll wait for them to drop to the lower $2k's.

You are right to consider the olympus 21 - the 3.5 version has
tested close to the CZ21 and costs around $400-500 The 2.0 version
will be $800 - 900. Plus, the olys are very compact and have other
small advantages.

Either of these options should be noticably better than a 17-40,
especially at the edges.

Click to expand...

Agree - on the Oly - and don't forget the CZ 18 - a great performer and much lower price. I've never ever seen waveform or moustache distortion in any landscape w/ the CZ21....

All the best,

Andy

Ah, I didn't look at the last three.

This is from the 17-40L at 20mm, f13 on the 5D



And the lower-left corner:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

ljfinger wrote:
Hi Lee Jay

Those look great. For me, I really could notice the difference at large size with my printed landscape work. I use my CZ21 and my Canon 35L for most of my 'scapes. Wouldn't trade either

Cheers

Andy

Can't you find something important to worry about?

I know plenty of pros, myself included, who are happy with Canon lenses. Why is it that there's all sorts of engineers and similar types on this board who are moaning and groaning about the quality?

If your life is lacking in stimulation, go out and do something. Maybe join the National Guard....that might satisfy your need for something to think about.



Here's a shot with my 20mm Canon lens. Would it be better if I'd used my Leica 19? How?

Zidar
Alaska
--
'He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond
the pale of any acceptable human conduct.'

• Apocalypse Now

Andy Williams said:

Those look great. For me, I really could notice the difference at
large size with my printed landscape work. I use my CZ21 and my
Canon 35L for most of my 'scapes. Wouldn't trade either

Click to expand...

I really find the 17-40L to be very good for what it's for even on full-frame. I do need to stop down to get sharp in the corners but I usually need to stop down to get DOF anyway so no big deal. I never seem to see what you saw with your 16-35L. Do you think what you saw is consistent across all 16-35s or are others better? The wide lens test I usually post shows the 16-35 to be much better than it looks in your tests.

The 35L is one seriously awesome piece of technology. I can tell the difference between 1.4 and 1.6 but, at the center, I can't really tell the difference between 1.6 and 5.6!

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

I'm not a professional, I have no standing to comment on the debate in this thread. I'm working hard to teach myself how to take better photographs through practice and the advice of professionals, like yourself. Having said that, I was fortunate to be able to afford the lenses, such as the 85 1.2, 35 1.4, etc... and the part of me that was intrigued by the optical quality of these lenses, is searching for the same quality in a wide angle lense for the Canon. One professional is telling me that the 17-40 is good enough for my needs, another is implying that it might not be. If I photograph a landscape with the 17-40, enlarge it to 13X19, and find no descernable difference between it and one I would take with the Zeiss 21 2.8, then I would be more than happy to save the $, and use the 17-40. My conern is that after seeing Andy Williams site on the 21 2.8 comparisons, I might be losing a lot of detail by not using the Zeiss lens. The "uncertainty" of this issue makes me "shut down" and unable to decide.

I probably should be more practical, and use the 17-40, since I'm new to photography (taking pictures for less than a year.) Sorry to take up your time with a relatively unimportant issue.

Adam

You're probably right. I'm sorry I brought up the issue.

Adam

Get a 17-40L. Learn to use it well, how much to stop down, hyperfocal plus a little focusing etc. and get a couple of 20x30s. If it doesn't make you happy, sell it. You'll lose almost nothing and learn a lot along the way.

My prediction. If you get a good copy and use it properly, the first 20x30 you get will blow you away. If you get a bad copy (say, soft on one side) or if you shoot landscapes at 17mm f4, you won't like it. However, if you shoot landscapes at 21mm f4 (well, most landscapes won't be great like this but some can be) you won't be happy with any lens combination regardless of the lens quality.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

in architectural shots and such. You are right, I can't imagine it being a real issue with landscapes.

I think the CZ 18 is very nice as well - I have it and also have a 18 Oly coming to compare.

What type of photography will you be using this wide angle for?

I've been involved in the testing of the Nikkor 17-35, Sigma 15-30, Sigma 12-24, Canon 16-35 and Canon 17-40 side by side on the same camera, same subject, same distance, same high quality tripod, mirror release, focusing method, best of three frames,etc, etc, in some intensive testing.. and once even posted a few hundred megs of samples for this forum and a few others. Let me summarise what we found starting wtih the worst lense first.

Nikkor 17-35. This shocked me because having come from Nikon I was extremely impressed with the 17-35 and it was my favourite lense. Unfortunately once mounted on a full frame body it also reveals it's edges and issues just like it did on my F5 using film. The 17-35 wasn't bad, but there were easy to see differences while with the rest of the lenses you really had to look.

Sigma 15-30. Distortion, sharpness, etc, equal to the Canon's... but a very strong colour cast.. Easy enough to correct the colour, but it just wasn't the same as Canon glass.. or even the 12-24. Sometimes consistency is important. The contrast was also a bit less with this lense, nothing significant.

Canon 17-40/16-35.. Virtually indistinguishable at like apertures. Some people viewing the results would say the 16-35 was better, some the 17-40.. Me? I though they were the same. However, if you need F2.8 on your wide which I do on occasion then the 16-35 earns it's higher price tag.

Sigma 12-24. This blew us away.. This lense at F8-22 was significantly sharper both in the centre and corners than the others, had the advantage of 12mm if you needed it.. and the contrast and colour matched the Canon's.. I tried this lense as a fluke, it's cheap price tag making it possible to make that decision. I thought I might have picked up an exceptional copy, but the person doing the test (were we pooled our lenses together) who is a very accomplished pro who as a product photographer is incredible (he uses the wides to shoot the interiors or boats, trailers, mobile homes, RV's, etc).. bought a second copy from a different source than mine and found it identical in performance..

Then.. I have a few primes that I've tested and compared to the images some talented others have posted over at RG's using the same lense as I have agains the Zeiss and some others. I have the Sigma 20mm F1.8 and the Zuiko 21 F2 and Zuiko 21 F3.5.

So now I actually own the Canon 16-35, Sigma 20 F1.8, Sigma 12-24, (my only two Sigma lenses btw, normally I hate the things), and of course the 24-70, 24-105, 17-85 (for my XT), and some others.. When using my 1dsMarkII and 5d these are the lenses I choose and for what reasons.

Sigma 12-24. This is my first choice for anything where I have the light to shoot at f11-16.. Landscapes, interiors, anything where edge to edge sharpness is important, if I have the light it's the 12-24

Canon 16-35. This is my first choice for any sort of event (like weddings, interiors of temples, museums, etc, etc) where I'm going to be using below F8.. This and the 17-40 are both great lenses, but occasionally I need that extra stop so the extra cost is worth it to me, it probably wouldn't be for most people.

Sigma 20mm F1.8. I use this lense for inside dimly lit temples (I live in Thailand) and other low light photography. It's not a bad prime at all.

Zuiko 21mm F3.5. If I have tons of time to shoot just one scene and 21mm is wide enough.. then I'll "occasionally" shoot it over the Sigma 12-24.

Interestingly enough.. A very highly skilled architectual photographer, maybe one of the best in the world, flew in to Bangkok recently because he earned the contract to shoot a 7-8 month project which is the new international airport. We're talking lenses and when I ask him what his favourite WA is for his 1dmarkII (when he isn't shooting large format) he opened two large cases filled with primes, Zoerk shifting devices, adapters, etc, and pulled out the 12-24 and I couldn't help but laugh a bit because three of us, on three different continents, all ended us choosing the 12-24.. I think it was the only lense he had with him that actually metered and focused automatically...

An interesting observation. Many of the guys who bought the Zuiko's, Zeiss Distagons, etc, and paid high prices for them.. end up re-selling them on the FM and RG's forums after they've had a chance to try them out and see how they fit their style. I'm guessing when I say they're probably finding out the differences just arent' enough to justify the higher price, the inconvenience of adapters and stopping down, etc..

So.. what is your primary purpose for a WA lense?

BKKSW