Zeiss 21mm Distagon owners

Hello all,

Have made the decision to 'invest' more into my photography and will be shortly moving up from my Nikon D300 to a 5D Mark 2.

I shoot Landscapes 90% of the time, some travel and people stuff thrown in. Mainly prefer my wide angles.

And now that i've mentally justified / allocated the money, I am looking very closely at the 21mm Distagon.

My total lens budget after the body will be $4000 NZD which is about $3000 USD max.

Suffice to say getting a Z21 would eat well into that, probably rounding out my initital kit with a Voigtlander 40 F2 and EF 85 1.8 (as a short tele and people lens).

I 'analysed' my general shots and only 10% of them were 100mm plus.

My major hesistation here (it was intiitally the high cost for a MF prime) is if i'm going to be shooting F11 landscapes, will I be 'wasting' a bit of what the lens has to offer (i.e. it appears to shine from 2.8-8)?

Alternatively, any suggestions for a lens kit covering those ranges with an emphasis on excellent quality would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Sam
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

For landscapes you may want to consider a Canon TSE 24 II or the 17mm. Superb IQ.

--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

First off the Zeiss 21 has a huge dof, and its so sharp, even at f2.8, that you don't need to go to f11. I usually use mine at f5.6, the max value for sharpness. for landscapes you normally set the focus to infinity unless you have something quite close that you want to catch too.

I also own the Canon 24 TSE II and its also a really fine lens. It doesn't have the micro contrast or color of the Zeiss, but the movements are great. I probably use it a bit more than the Zeiss because of the flexibility. I wrote a post within the past month or so comparing and contrasting where each lens came into its own. The Zeiss is great at expansive views and has a lot of WOW to its images. I think the response to your query is how many of your shots use this expansive view, its a very personal issue of artistic style and "view". However, unshifted the 24 TSE II is comparably sharp. Do a search for Zeiss 21 VS 24 TSE for several other threads on this topic.
Mike K

Thanks Mike - I do like to do a few near-far compositions and think the Zeiss could be nice for those (as naturally the 24 TSE would be) - I'll search your posts and have a look at your prior comments - thansk!
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

Thanks Zee,

The 24mm is one i'm going to look at a little closer - may not be wide enough though (although more useful than 17mm ), although I do use 24mm equiv at the moment a fair bit - certainly the ability to manipulate DOF is attractive even though I am exploring focus stacking anyway.

Thansk
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

Sosua said:

Thanks Zee,

The 24mm is one i'm going to look at a little closer - may not be wide enough though (although more useful than 17mm ), although I do use 24mm equiv at the moment a fair bit - certainly the ability to manipulate DOF is attractive even though I am exploring focus stacking anyway.

Thansk

Click to expand...

Sosua said:

--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

Click to expand...

I rented the 24 for 2 weeks during my vacation this summer. The only thing is I'm not a tinkering person so I would probably not use the TS functions very often so not sure I want to pay for that feature. It is one amazing lens.

--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

Mike K said:

First off the Zeiss 21 has a huge dof, and its so sharp, even at f2.8, that you don't need to go to f11. I usually use mine at f5.6, the max value for sharpness. for landscapes you normally set the focus to infinity unless you have something quite close that you want to catch too.

I also own the Canon 24 TSE II and its also a really fine lens. It doesn't have the micro contrast or color of the Zeiss, but the movements are great. I probably use it a bit more than the Zeiss because of the flexibility. I wrote a post within the past month or so comparing and contrasting where each lens came into its own. The Zeiss is great at expansive views and has a lot of WOW to its images. I think the response to your query is how many of your shots use this expansive view, its a very personal issue of artistic style and "view". However, unshifted the 24 TSE II is comparably sharp. Do a search for Zeiss 21 VS 24 TSE for several other threads on this topic.
Mike K

Click to expand...

I am having a serious look at the Zeiss as well.

--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

Sosua said:

I shoot Landscapes 90% of the time, some travel and people stuff thrown in. Mainly prefer my wide angles.

Click to expand...

The TS-E 24 II in the un-shifted/tilted position is slightly sharper than the 24L II unprocessed mostly in the corners but the 24L II is much more versatile in the travel and people stuff categories than either lens mentioned . I define travel & people stuff as a little more fast paced shooting than tripod landscaping and lend themselves to having AF.

As much abuse as Canon's zooms take, a 16-35 II or 17-40 will take more than respectable images at the FLs mentioned. They might be a little weaker than than Nikon's 14-24G

So, you don't think Nikon will come onboard with a 5D mkII competitor?

I'm doing the same research of a wide angle prime and reading the net I discoverd that at a fraction of the cost the olympus 21mm f3.5 with adapter can reach similar results (except, probably wide open). There is also a f2 version of the olympus which is cheaper than the zeiss and has a very good reputation. They are quite small and portable too.
--
cuginoStefano
http://www.pbase.com/cuginostefano

mazzuccato said:

I'm doing the same research of a wide angle prime and reading the net I discoverd that at a fraction of the cost the olympus 21mm f3.5 with adapter can reach similar results (except, probably wide open). There is also a f2 version of the olympus which is cheaper than the zeiss and has a very good reputation. They are quite small and portable too.
--
cuginoStefano
http://www.pbase.com/cuginostefano

Click to expand...

I'll check it out. Samyang came out with that 14mm and now the 35. 14 is too wide for me and there are some mixed reviews. I know it does not compare to the Canon and Zeiss but if they could do that with a 14 they should be able to do fairly well in the 21 to 24 range. I contacted them to see if the were planning to make a lens in this range but have not heard from them.

--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

The zeiss 21 mm is the best 21 mm of the market for FF reflex camera. I have one, and it's even sharper thant the 35 mm F2 ZE.
I highly doubt that the Oly is on par even stopped down in the corners.
--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range

I do not own the lens, but own 16-35 1, 16-35 2, nikon 14-24 adapted to canon, and samyang 14. The thing is that both 16-35 are pretty good at 20mm. microcontrast is good on both. sharpness is very good stopped down. And others may be doing something differently, but I sure do not get good dof for critical sharpness at f 5.6 even at 14mm. But again, If I am shooting wide, its often b/c I have something interesting in the foreground. I find that I often shoot at f11, trying to avoid defraction.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11731152@N00/

Sosua said:

The 24mm is one i'm going to look at a little closer - may not be wide enough though...

Click to expand...

You can create a wider FOV with the 24TSE by stitching images taken at different shift positions (countershifting the body to avoid parallax). In this manner, the 5D2 with 24TSE can do everything between roughly 18mm (40MP) and 24mm (unstitched, 21MP). IQ is outstanding but moving elements (water, wind etc) are of course a problem.

kevindar said:

I do not own the lens, but own 16-35 1, 16-35 2, nikon 14-24 adapted to canon, and samyang 14. The thing is that both 16-35 are pretty good at 20mm. microcontrast is good on both. sharpness is very good stopped down. And others may be doing something differently, but I sure do not get good dof for critical sharpness at f 5.6 even at 14mm. But again, If I am shooting wide, its often b/c I have something interesting in the foreground. I find that I often shoot at f11, trying to avoid defraction.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/11731152@N00/

Click to expand...

I own all those lenses mention above except for the 16-35L Mk2, but I 'high jack" my friend's a lot and shot with it so many times, in fact, I think I bought the Bower 14 after I saw your sample posted in DPR and read so many good reviews on it, thanks again for the sample.

From what I have seen so far, the Zeiss 21 is a clear, easy winner here for me for landscape application, Nikon 14-24 is very close behind it and then the Bower14mm f/2.8, the 16-35 and my own 17-40L is not at the same level, especially the corners and edges, where I actually care a lot, however, like some other already mention, the 24 TSE is very very close to the Zeiss and I can't really tell the different in corner sharpness even I look hard, that's un-tilt and un-shift, if I use the T?S function, quality goes down pretty fast on the corner which is expected, I tried it few times and will be my next lens, just debating between the 17 TSE and 24 TSE which to get first but I am sure eventually I will have both of them.

Me too never go over F11 when shooting with those lenses, mostly within 5.6 to F8 range, at the beginning I was a littlle hesitate to go manual focus only lenses and thanks for all those great examples people posted here and FM forum, now the two Manual focus lens becomes my main lens.

I still much prefer to use the AF for everything other than tripod, landscape works though. and I use the 14-24G on the D3 for those times when a wide lens and AF is needed.

an older comparison of the Zeiss/Contax 21 before the ZF, ZE Zeiss models were out. The only zoom in the same league as the Zeiss is the Nikon 14-24, and they are pretty close
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_21mm/nikon1424_21mm1.html

Here are a few additional reviews of the Zeiss 21 incomparison to other Canon lenses.
The new 17 and 24 TSE are the only ones that are close in IQ.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

http://diglloyd.com/articles/ask/lenses-21mm-PrimeOrTilt.html

http://macdanzigphotography.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/zeiss-21mm-distagon-ze-review/
Mike K

Thanks Matt,

I already have an Acratec levelling base and RRS nodal slide for quick and precise single row panos - what are the main advantages of using a TSE lens for these?
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

Thanks Rick,

Thats the main thing i'm wondering - if one of the L zooms at closed down apertures would give me 'good enough' results... partcularly if say I limited the use to between 20 and 35mm.

However having said that, if i'm going to shell out significant pesos for a body and lens combo, i'd prefer 'fantastic' quality to 'decent'. Plus, with FF sensors likely heading upwards of 30MP its kind of future proofing too.

I am also very interested in this Tokina 16-28mm that is due in Canon mount shortly. The lack of filter threads no problem as I blend exposures these days or handhold grads, plus it looks like it could well be a cut above the 16-35 II.

I think Nikon will chime in with a high MP FF in an 'affordable' body eventually, but its not going to be cheap so long as they continue the D700 line as well, which I beleive they will.

I currently have only two Nikon fullframe lenses I bought used as well so shifting won't be too painful!
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

Thanks - yes, I've looked at the Oly 21 3.5 and it sounds promising, although stop down metering dosn't really appeal to me too much, plus it dosn't seem to get as universalyl acclaimed as the Distagon...(what does?)

They have one (EX+) at KEH at the moment for $450US - over $1200 less than the Zeiss.

Tempting to try. I have a nice little OM 50 1.8 MIJ as well that would be interesting to try on EOS FF.
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

Thansk for the Links - i've subscribed to Lloyd Chambers DAP, tempted now to subscribe to his ZF / ZE guide as well...

On the 24 TSE, if the corners start falling apart once you start utilising the movements, that would really negate that advantage for me to be honest.
--

http://www.samwaldron.co.nz

Sosua said:

I already have an Acratec levelling base and RRS nodal slide for quick and precise single row panos - what are the main advantages of using a TSE lens for these?

Click to expand...

When you rotate the lens in your setup the individual frames have to be distorted/resampled according to your desired projection in order to make stitching possible. With the TSE lens, the lens remains stationary and the sensor is moved to record different parts of the image circle. No resampling (with loss of image quality) is necessary. Polarizing or GND filters can be used (difficult or totally impossible with a rotating lens setup).