Well, it does have about the same weight, same filter size and same number of lenses as the 16-35L II. Other than that, performance wide open is better on the edges and in the corner - one thing that actually started the run for the Zeiss 21mm Distagon if I remember it right from some years ago. But, I really don't care that much about this type of review, I rather like to see how a lens does in real life. Then again, I see great images made with crap equipment that are better than technical perfect-sharp-to-the-corners nothing telling images and start asking myself why I hang out around here anyway . This is the point I start to look again into the picture threads here on the alt forum - because poeple here are not only knowledgeable about equipment, they are also very good photographers
jhg photo wrote:
Doesn't look so much better than 16-35 L II at 20 mm f11, does it?
How much better did you expect it to look like?
I can see the Zeiss is visibly better especially at wider apertures, the zoom catching up but not quite from 5.6 upwards. I have to say this is quite an achievement for the Canon zoom. The test does not show how the lenses perform in micro-contrast and color rendition.
It would be illuminating to see Lloyd Chambers real life photo comparison between these 2 lenses and his conclusions
LLoyd has been a lover of the CZ21mm ever since the original and then the ZF came out. He raves on and on about it. Funnily enough if you are a subscriber, he pits it against the likes of the 14-24 zoom and in alot of the tests the zoom wins! I think there is alot of good lenses in this range now and it doesnt stand up like it used to. I have been testing this against the 24mm T/S and the Canon wins on all counts. I think the hype got a little out of control.
photomadnz wrote:
LLoyd has been a lover of the CZ21mm ever since the original and then the ZF came out. He raves on and on about it. Funnily enough if you are a subscriber, he pits it against the likes of the 14-24 zoom and in alot of the tests the zoom wins! I think there is alot of good lenses in this range now and it doesnt stand up like it used to. I have been testing this against the 24mm T/S and the Canon wins on all counts. I think the hype got a little out of control.
I am a subscriber too, and while it is not fair to disclose the results here, what you claim that the zoom wins in a lot of the tests is not accurate.
I have no reason to doubt your claim that the Canon 24 T/S is better (regardless of the different focal length) but myself and several members here have expressed our interest in seeing some comparisons. Hopefully you can show us some.
I've seen quite a few people say the new 24mm TSE II is amazing. You gain the perspective control with it, but it's significantly more money. The 14-24 looks incredible too, but if you want the same integration as the Zeiss, you need a special adapter. It's also more $$.
If I was after a non-Canon UWA on my Canon I'd rather take the Nikon 14-24/2.8. Other than size and weight I can't see any reason to take the Zeiss. Then again, I'd much rather take the 17/4 TS instead.
Fair enough about to disclosing to many results. I think you should re-read the test result pages against each other and then re-read the conclusion. Pretty clear to me.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I am a subscriber too, and while it is not fair to disclose the results here, what you claim that the zoom wins in a lot of the tests is not accurate.
I have no reason to doubt your claim that the Canon 24 T/S is better (regardless of the different focal length) but myself and several members here have expressed our interest in seeing some comparisons. Hopefully you can show us some.
I am about to head away for a couple of days but if someone can give me a quick and dirty way of showing 100% crops etc then I will post some tests when I return. Thanks
That's not actually a test of the ZE. It may sound nit-picky, but testing an adapted ZF isn't the same. The optics may not have changed, but adding auto-aperture into the mix is a fairly significant change. And there's the Nik to EOS adapter- the quality of that could certainly affect a lab test.
I think it is worth it to note that they tested the ZF, not the ZE.
Quote: "Unfortunately we weren't able to get our hands on the ZE version so we had to use the ZF variant via adapter. However, there aren't any differences apart from the mount specific aspects so our conclusions will be fully valid for ZE lenses as well."
As we all know too well, adapting lenses can certainly result in less than ideal performance. I'm not saying this is the case here, just that it might be.
(freak beat me to it, as I had this all typed up and then got called away from my desk)
photomadnz wrote:
Fair enough about to disclosing to many results. I think you should re-read the test result pages against each other and then re-read the conclusion. Pretty clear to me.
I am a subscriber too and what you are saying here is not true at all. I think you should re-read the test result pages yourself.
You repeatedly made some statements about the supposed superior Canon 24 over the Zeiss 21/2.8, but up to now you didn't post any picture that confirms this statement. Besides that, how can we know that your focussing was done properly in this "test"? As you may know it is not difficult to make an unsharp-picture with a MF-lens. Are you sure you are able to manual focus accurate?
I don't understand why Photozone tests a ZF-lens with an adapter on a Canon. Why not test it on the D3x they have? Now it is possible that the use of the adapter results in a less reliable test.
Canon quality control variability was always an issue with the original 16-35, iirc. Is it the same with the mark II? In cases of high variation from a given manufacturer, it is always hard to judge anything from just one sample of the lens - especially if it was hand picked by Canon for the review.
Graham,
I think the quality control problem exists with the 16-35 mkII as well as with the older version.
The mkII also had, apparently, different design goals and improved the wide open performance
considerably but took a hit to the stopped down resolution in trade off. Castleman's tests showed this,
and my experience with the two lenses agreed with this.
I kept the mkI version and it is doing the job on my 5D, but I'm sure I'd enjoy having more resolution
from my lens if I stepped up to a 5D2 or 1Ds3.
I confess to being reluctant to fork over the kind of money Canon is asking for the 24 TS-E mkII
given that Canon QA is still sub-par in my estimation.
snowboarder wrote:
This is probably the funniest thing I've seen in a while
Yeah, there is no reason to get the Zeiss 2.8/21 ZE, none.
Yep. When you quote only part of what I said no wonder it sounds silly. It's size and weight advantages when compared to the 14-24/2.8. Now, the obvious optical reasons to prefer the Zeiss over the Nikon would be......
photomadnz wrote:
LLoyd has been a lover of the CZ21mm ever since the original and then the ZF came out. He raves on and on about it. Funnily enough if you are a subscriber, he pits it against the likes of the 14-24 zoom and in alot of the tests the zoom wins! I think there is alot of good lenses in this range now and it doesnt stand up like it used to. I have been testing this against the 24mm T/S and the Canon wins on all counts. I think the hype got a little out of control.
How about posting some pics of this very interesting test, please?
. This is the point I start to look again into the picture threads here on the alt forum - because poeple here are not only knowledgeable about equipment, they are also very good photographers 
