Looking for opinions. I've scoured and read all of the posts here and am still torn as to which lens to get. I looked at my history and my 17-40 Canon zoom comes up a lot at 17mm. But, I've always wanted the 21mm. I want a lens that I can use for architectural & landscape photography (min curving lines > flat field right?) and has the Zeiss 3D look! Will use it on a Canon 1DsIII. Thoughts? Opinions? Thanks, Bob.
If 17mm is your preferred focal length, there are two ways to go:
Contax 17~35N (converted by Conurus) Runs fully auto focus and exposure, just like a Canon lens.
Nikkor 14~24G (with a 16:9 adapter) Manual focus, you must stop down the aperture to make the exposure.
I don't know about the ZE 21 for architecture. As good as it is, the moustache distortion may be a bit of a challenge in that application.
The ZE 18 might have better distortion characteristics -- that is easier to fix -- than the 21, but it won't as sharp, notably in the corners.
The Contax 17~35N (converted by Conurus) and Nikkor 14~24G (with a 16:9 adapter) are options that are quite a bit larger in size, with a bit of added flexibility due to zoom. The Nikkor while sharp (probably sharper than the ZE 18), lacks that ol' Zeiss magic and can't take filters. The Contax N zoom is probably better than the ZE 18 wide open, and as sharp in the center wide open as the ZE 21 (if not more so) but less so toward the edges. It's also twice the cost of the ZE 18, if you can find one, but has Zeiss-ness in spades. I hope this helps a little.
For Architectural it's the 17 &/or 24II TS-E - hands down - shift to correct vertical lines - minimal distortion. Both are great for landscape - the 24 is easier to filter.
The 21mm Zeiss certainly has a great IQ - but also has a very prominent distortion if your using it for Architectural.
jjlphoto - how does the 17-35 compare to the 21mm? - the copy I have is very strong in the 17 to 21 range. I've only shot landscape & nature with that lens - don't know about distortion related to Architectural. Much less distortion & better edge / corner IQ than the 17-40.
alexandre wrote:
Not a Zeiss, but I'd try a WA shift lens, like Canon or Olympus.
and
mMontag wrote:
For Architectural it's the 17 &/or 24II TS-E - hands down - shift to correct vertical lines - minimal distortion. Both are great for landscape - the 24 is easier to filter.
Of course, neither of these options will give the OP the unique Zeiss qualities and 3-D characteristics that the Zeiss lenses will provide. I look of images from Canon lenses (whether sharp or not), IMHO, always fail to impress. I woulkd really like to see Zeiss, or Cosina or Schnieder produce a tilt-shift lens or two in this focal range. Of course, you could always use one of the exceptional Schnieder or Rodenstock digital view camera lenses on a view camera attachment for your DSLR -- if you must have good T-S capability.
The two Canon lenses that I currently own & witness Zeiss like rendering is the Canon 24II TS-E & 70-200/4 at the short end. Rich, rich color, micro-contrast and - CAREFUL - 3d look & feel. JMO.
I'm using the 24II to anchor my landscape and interior Architectural kit - I find it more versatile than the 21mm Zeiss - easy shift pano's if 24 is not wide enough - add a 1.4 TC to go longer - minimal distortion even at close distance.
Maybe the 24mm is too narrow for the requested purpose - that takes it back to the 17-35N or the 18ZE - if Zeissness and wide are the key ingredients.
Lotusm50 - Do you know if the distortion in the 21 can be improved with DxO or other software?
Great feedback. I guess I'm mistaken in that I thought the 18 & 21 would provide straight lines (flat field) so to speak if used properly for interiors. However, major use for me is for landscape. I have the old Canon 24mm TSE (orig) and it's ok but wanted something wider with as mMontag says " Zeisness and wide are key ingredients". The 17-35 is expensive if converted (seeing it here for ~$3K). Hmmmm, still not sure!
bobring wrote:
Great feedback. I guess I'm mistaken in that I thought the 18 & 21 would provide straight lines (flat field) so to speak if used properly for interiors. However, major use for me is for landscape. I have the old Canon 24mm TSE (orig) and it's ok but wanted something wider with as mMontag says " Zeisness and wide are key ingredients". The 17-35 is expensive if converted (seeing it here for ~$3K). Hmmmm, still not sure!
Flat field means that the lens is focused at the same distance across the frame, a lens with curvature of field will have the corners focused at a different distance than the centre.
Distortion is a separate issue, lenses with strong curvature of field may have minimal distortion (which is common in fast 50mm's)
I have a 21mm 2.8 contax and to be honest I`ve only seen the seriously bad distortion that every one talks about on a handful of occasions but then I`ve only shot about 10,000 images with it
Well, I made my decision & went for the 21mm. UPS delivered it about 3 and half hours ago. I went out to the beach to take a few shots. I don't think they'll show the Zeiss 3D effect as the sun was fading fast and I've found that my 1DsIII sensor really likes a lot of light to make my photos shine (but maybe that's just me!). Here are a few (very) quick samples to check out. The build quality is superb but now I have to start lifting weights to carry it!
