Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #5 · Utah and Arizona roadtrip- 16-35L or Zeiss 21 ZE? |
A big +2 on the 16-35, as long as we are taliking about the current version II. Versatility is very important in landscape for many places where there is no way to zoom with your feet. When you get stopped down to 5.6 or 8 like much of landscape shot with a tripod, your Zeiss would have little over the 16-35 II. Chromatic aberation correction in post polishes up one area that may need on the 16-35 for a landscape. Very few landscape scenes have issues with the slight straight line distortion that the 16-35 II has at the wide end.
And of course for other uses where you want autofocus, the Canon 16-35 II does that very well, and the Zeiss not at all.
If you are spending this much on a lens, and it will be used mostly for landscape, you might also put the Canon 17 TS-E and 24 TS-E II in to the mix, depending on what all else you would be shooting. They are of course both manual, but both tilt and shift can be very useful at times for landscapes, and the image quality of each of them is outstanding. I have never had the desire to go the Zeiss direction now that I have both the 17 and 24 II TS-E lenses.