I have the Canon zoom and typically shoot at or near the 17mm end for landscapes. My question is whether the Zeiss is going to be that much different when both are stopped down to f8 or f11. I see B&H has the Zeiss ready for pre-order but they are not shipping yet. Has anyone that got to shoot with a pre-production copy know how it compares to the Canon zoom?
I am quite interested into this question as well. I did test the ZE 18 and ZE 21 at a photo fair, and found the 21 clearly wonderful, but the 18 looked definetely less convincing. But I did not have my 17-40 to test together with these. I have decided I will buy either Zeiss but kind of wonder wether I should go for the 21 (awesome, and FL I would use a lot) or the 18 (my 17-40 is definetely more challanged at 18 than at 21).
5D, speaking of difference the Zeiss is the better lens for Landscape, edges and even corners are "sharp" at f5,6 compared to the Canon zooms. At closer ranges the 17-40 is as good as the Zeiss even wide open, it is splitting hairs to look out for differences here. BTW the images above are at f11. If you want the "fast2 landscape lens get the Zeiss
Thanks for the feed-back, Andi. My 17-40L may not be quite as good as yours, though it is hard to compare on one picture. With my copy, the IQ deteriorates seriously in the corners/extreme corners especially in the 17-20 range.
I borrowed that lens, I never liked the 17-40 and went for the 16-35 and the Zeiss prime. IMO it will not take long before Canon updates their wide angle lenses, until then, the Zeiss is the best Canon mount lens for landscape. For what it is it could be faster and a bit sharper. Diglloyd said it should be around 700$, but I wouldnt go quite that far considering that even the Oly went for almost 1000$ one year back. I recently picked up a 3.5/18mm Nikkor (discontinued some 15 years ago) and it comes very close stopped down to the Zeiss BTW
Andi, so the 18mm ZF sample was at F5.6? I was generally happy with Contax 18mm F4 Distagon at F8 to F11. Like the ZF, the Contax suffered in the corners until stopped down. At F8 and F11 its corners were better than 16-35L I and II. I always liked the 18/4 Contax for its build quality & compact size. I'm not sure if I'll buy a 18 ZE or not.
It looks like Zeiss deisgned the master lens 21 by their best smiths and gave this procject to the apprentices. It has not that usual Zeiss extra. If you happen to own one of the really decent Conatx 18mm I would save the money and look what comes out by Canon or Sigma.
I'll be Mr. Obvious here and mention that this isn't really a fair comparison.
17-40 has a big zoom range, much lower price, fast AF, and is weather-sealed. I also think the 17-40 does very well with colors and contrast, and the CA is real easily corrected. Corner sharpness wide open is not the one of its strong suits. I like the results I get with it at F8 and F11... though I'm sure there are sharper lenses out there.
Thanks for the feedback, Andi, that is very helpful for me. This confirms what I seemed to notice with my quick testing, but obviously you did the real test I wish I had done.
I guess I feel closer to a 21 every day. Just wish the bank account would allow it with less remorse right now (well, I also think I will not go on a landscape photography trip tomorrow, so the purchase can wait a little bit).
Sam N wrote:
I'll be Mr. Obvious here and mention that this isn't really a fair comparison.
17-40 has a big zoom range, much lower price, fast AF, and is weather-sealed. I also think the 17-40 does very well with colors and contrast, and the CA is real easily corrected. Corner sharpness wide open is not the one of its strong suits. I like the results I get with it at F8 and F11... though I'm sure there are sharper lenses out there.
Excellent points, all of which mean that it is commendable that the 17-40 comes as close as it does to the Zeiss considering all of its other advantages over the expensive prime...
"I'll be Mr. Obvious here and mention that this isn't really a fair comparison." Agreed, but it is just the situation I find myself in since I own the 17-40, typically shoot at the 17 end (don't care about the much lower price, fast AF, and weather-sealing), and wonder if the 18mm prime would offer more sharps at the f8-11 apertures.
Andi, thanks for posting the images. It does not appear that selling and buying a Zeiss is going to offer enough of an upgrade, at least with the 18mm. The 21mm maybe, but I do like wide. The Canon 17mm ts looks to fill the bill but its out of my price range. Thanks again for posting the shots.
