They are excellent lenses, but the CZ21 is in a class of its own. Recent results over at 16-9.net have shown this to be true, once again.
If you want "L" quality at the wide end, the Zuikos can get you there. If you want to see for yourself that "L" does not mean "uLtimate", then a CZ21 will show you. Hell, most 50mm lenses have trouble keeping up with it.
The Olympus OM 21mm f2.0 may be closer to the Distagon 21mm f2.8 than most other lenses. If you are looking for a 21mm lens, the Olympus 21mm f2 is definitely worth a shot.
The OM lenses are significantly under appreciated when big names like Zeiss or Leica are thrown in the mix. No doubt, Zeiss can be hard to beat, but the OM's are not that far behind.... unlike the Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Other OEM's which really struggle to keep up.
Not that the CZ21 is small, but the Nikon is really big and can't take filters, which makes it a non-starter for me. One of the best things about the OM lenses is their size. You can put a killer 21mm lens in your camera bag and not even know it's there.
The OM lenses have a less steep contrast curve than Zeiss lenses and therefore retain shadow detail (or highlight detail depending on how you expose) more effectively in contrast rich scenes. The Zeiss lenses beat the OM lenses in terms of micro-contrast, but that's not to say the OM lenses are slouches in this regard either. I find that they both resolve a similar amount of detail, the Zeiss winning in the corners of course.
I've owned the 21/2 Zuiko, and i've used Steven's 21 Distagon (and his 21/3.5 Zuiko). They're all great lenses, but they all serve different purposes.
I think the Zuikos can make incredible photos, but to be competitive in the resolution department, you'd have to stop the Zuikos way down to 11 or so to get what the Distagon will do at 4 or 5.6...
BUT- the Zuikos have a very even pallette, so they retain details very well...
PLUS- the Zuikos are absolutely TINY compared to the Zeiss or esp the new Nikkor.
I have a Canon 17-40, now, and I am just not satisfied with its performance on my 5D-especially at the corners. Will I see a marked difference with the Zuikos 21/2, 21 3.5, 18 3.5, or do I need to move up to the Distagon 21 2.8?
Cogitech's point is a good one -- my 17-40mm beats the version of the Oly 21mm f3.5 I tried, which was a good one too. The Oly 21mm f3.5 has a lot of CA. The 17-40mm has less so, and it is almost perfectly corrected for by DXO Optics Pro (or possibly the latest version of DPP). The Oly 18mm f3.5 I had, had CA in the extreme corners too -- again almost perfectly corrected for by DXO Optics Pro with the 17-40mm. I agree that the Olys are very nice lenses, and tiny, but in the digital age when dust is a big issue if you want to change lenses on site, I find a good (or perhaps mine is a great) copy of the 17-40mm is much more valuable in the field than good copies of the Olys. . . . It's the same reason why I'd prefer the Nikon 14-24mm to having The Canon 14mm L II and the Distagon 21mm -- in the field I'd like to be able to switch focal lengths without changing lenses. . . The Olys were nice for having lower contrast, and thus holding better highlight and shadow detail.
Sometimes I wonder about this also. old.photodo.com rates the 21mm zuiko quite low, though lots of user are happy with the lens. I stick with zeiss, not only for performance reason, I also love the mechanical quality.
There are also some great Canon lens designs, however I am reluctant to buy more of them because many Canon lenses suffer from production problems.
Previous tests show the Oly 21's to be very nearly as good as the Zeiss, especially the f2. However, that was on 5D or 1Ds2. Now the 1Ds3 is here, the Zeiss may go further.
A good 17-40 is a very very good lens, especially if you don't obsess about the corners, and especially considering the price. I was quite whelmed by the results I got from one. I sold it as I also have a 16-35 mk2 which is slightly better.
Also keep in mind that the Oly 21/3.5's CA is not uniform across the frame, it is more pronounced in the corners and therefore a pain in the butt to get rid of. At least my copy is like this.
theophilus wrote:
Also keep in mind that the Oly 21/3.5's CA is not uniform across the frame, it is more pronounced in the corners and therefore a pain in the butt to get rid of. At least my copy is like this.
Mine too. Sometimes it is a non-issue, but I have had images that are next to impossible to correct.
but from what i've read, it seems that the main advantage that the zuikos give over Ls are their size. i mean afterall, none of the wide angle zuikos are faster than f/2.8, require to be stopped down to f/8-f/11 for optimal performance. but say if i have an excellent copy of the 16-35L II, i get all that the zuikos can offer and AF to boot.
but from what i've read, it seems that the main advantage that the zuikos give over Ls are their size. i mean afterall, none of the wide angle zuikos are faster than f/2.8, require to be stopped down to f/8-f/11 for optimal performance. but say if i have an excellent copy of the 16-35L II, i get all that the zuikos can offer and AF to boot.
someone correct me if i am wrong.
You are wrong on a number of accounts. The wide angle Zuikos are available in F2 versions, even the 21mm, and a few of them get sharper into the corners than the Canons. The other advantage is size and mechanical build quality.
Here's one from last weekend. 5D and OM 21/3.5 stopped down to probably f/11. Notice the corner sharpness, and what's more, overall beautiful evenness of sharpness across the frame. While I find the OM 21/3.5 to suffer in the corners on absolute infinity shots, there's no question in my mind that it beats the 17-40 at 21mm in situations when you want the lens just back from infinity because of an important, detailed foreground object. I believe this shot had me focusing the lens at around the 3m mark on the barrel. Further, compositionally, there aren't too many situations (i.e. keepers) when I want the lens racked right to infinity anyway. http://www.pbase.com/stevenpa/image/104591295/original.jpg
I just can't wait to see how the new ZE 21 Distagon compares against the Contax-mount 21 Distagon. As long as it's better than the Nikon 14-24 I will be a very happy camper!
