Ok, now I thought long and hard about whether I should post this question here or on the wedding forum, and I decided to do it here. The reason why I chose this forum is because most of you have used both alternative AND non-alternative lenses, compared to most of the wedding guys who stick with auto-focus only. Ok, so the question in the simplest manner:
For weddings, would it be wiser to get the new Zeiss 21mm or the new 24L II?
Now here's the thing, of course most of you will say "this is the alternative forum moron, get the zeiss 21 and don't look back"... and that is quite understandable. However, here is my brief outlook on the matter:
What I need for weddings
- an excellent wide angle lens with high IQ
- has to have great contrast and sharpness
- the convenience of quick and accurate focus because of the dynamic situations at weddings
now the pro's and cons from what I see so far:
- Zeiss - Pros
- Uh.. it's a Zeiss
- It's the legendary lens redone to fit canons
- super sharpness, esp. in the corners
- again, has that zeiss look that I already love
- 21mm is wider than 24mm
Cons
- No Auto focus - a big con in weddings
- f/2.8, at weddings this is often not enough
- Canon - Pros
- Very good L quality lens being remade to be better
- Auto-focus - very important
- f/1.4 - almost a necessity sometimes for weddings, esp. indoors
- Great bokeh wide open
- weather sealing
Cons
- Not a Zeiss
- Sharpness is not the same, esp. wide open
- 24mm is shorter than 21mm
- a bit more expensive
Now here's the thing... logically it seems wiser to get the 24L II. After all, it has f/1.4, and auto-focus. However, I love my Zeiss lenses to death, esp. the CJZ 135 f/3.5 and the 35-70 f/3.4. You just can't get that same look with most other lenses. Not to mention that the 21mm is legendary, and it's sharpness can not be beat by anything. I've been wanting the Contax version ever since I saw an image here on FM two years ago, but didn't have the guts to dish out $3G. I desperately need a larger aperture and autofocus at weddings, but I'm starting to wonder if I can manual focus with the zeiss and get away with using a flash.
If you were in my shoes, which one would you get? If you're a wedding photographer, then I would be more curious to hear your explanation.
PS. I have used my manuals at weddings before (the CZJ 135, Tamron 90mm, Takumar 50mm, and even the Rokkor 58mm)... but it's pretty difficult to land the shots without the auto-focus or flash... esp. wide open. Unfortunately, more than often, you only get one shot to get it right, or you miss the moment completely.
If you get paid to do weddings and cannot rely on your manual focus skills, then get the 24/1.4. You'll get more keepers not only because of AF, but also because of the extra 2 stops.
Sure, 21mm is wider than 24mm, but I wouldn't say that is an advantage in this case. In fact, I avoid using anything wider than 28mm (on FF) for weddings (to avoid "fat heads", etc.). Group shots at 21mm might have that "Zeiss look", but you will be the only one who likes them, I can assure you of that.
I don't think this is just the best choice for you, I think it is the best choice in general. I think I would choose the 24/1.4 if I had to make this decision, despite my confidence with manual focus.
I have to agree, for weddings I think you'd be better off with the 24/1.4 and that is what I would also pick if I was in your shoes. If you were working from a tripod then the story would be altogether different, but I think weddings would almost demand AF.
Paul
Thanks for the reassurance Paul... er... both Paul's. At weddings, I have my share of equipments that are required, but I sometimes will bring a few of the alternatives to experiment with on my second body. However, like you said, it makes more sense to get the autofocus and extra 2 stops. What I may do is get the 24 first and then save up a bit and get the zeiss for my personal use for landscapes.
I love my 24/1.4 mark I, but will still get the 21mm Zeiss... cos it's the 21mm Zeiss. With shots of people critical sharpness (especially in the corners) is not as big a factor as it is with landscapes.
The current incarnation of the 24/1.4 has outstanding centre sharpness even at f/1.4 and off centre sharpness from f/2.8, only the corners need about f/8 to fully sharpen up. The brighter finder, AF and extra two stops would definitely lead me to buy the 24 if I were in your position. It's quite an underrated lens IMO. The CA is slightly severe but is so easily correctable - as it is uniform in intensity across the frame - that it is a non issue for me these days.
I primarily shoot landscapes, and have thought of getting rid of my 24/1.4 but then I take it out and it just performs so admirably I have to hang on to it.
It can also produce good general sharpness for landscapes, in this example the grass is a little blurry because the wind was strong enough to almost blow me over. EDIT - Re-uploaded unsharpened images with no NR - bloody lightroom defaults.
and here is a centre crop
and this is a corner crop
And the Mark II version will hopefully even further improve upon this lens.
