Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Image Upload
1 2

end

edwardkaraa
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #1 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

I've been praying for that but I know it ain't going to happen

Not that there is anything wrong with the ZA 16-35.

kosmoskatten wrote:
edwardkaraa wrote:
kosmoskatten wrote:
I am starting to hope the Zeiss 21 will eventually come out in Alpha mount.

That head has really nice pop to it and the following shot has good depth separation of the elements in the image, which I find unusual in superwides.

I like your way of saying 3D

Ed; haha, you got it.

Well, I guess I could go for a 21mm ZA if they ever make one.
I ain't holding my breath though.

Nov 14, 2009 at 04:53 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #2 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Phil, what I meant is that Sony doesn't want to use the existing Zeiss designs being sold under ZE/ZF/ZK in its ZA line. It wants the ZA line to be fully exclusive. I did not mean that these borrowed designs will be manual focus, they can be easily implemented for AF, especially with the screwdrive system because manual focus designs do not need any modification to become AF, unlike USM/SSM designs.

As for Zeiss itself adding the ZF line in alpha mount, that is absolutely out of question, as I have been told by Zeiss that they cannot compete with their own partner.

philber wrote:
I think that Sony would be crazy to introduce MF lenses on the ZA system. They have an exclusivity on AF Zeiss lenses, and that can swing customers their way who can't get "German-style AF lenses" easily on Canikon.
If there is a 21mm prime on ZA, I would expect it to be AF as well, even though AF matters so much less on a WA than on a telephoto.
But, who knows, marketing departments of major corporations can sometimes think in strange ways...

Nov 14, 2009 at 04:59 PM

bobbytan
Online
Image Upload: On

p.3 #3 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

I have not tried the Canon 14, 17, 24 or the ZE 21, but my Nikon 14-24 is the best lens (in terms of IQ) that I have ever owned and easily beat the 16-35L II that I used to have. The color, contrast, sharpness, CA, flare control are all stunning. I wouldn't dream of replacing my Nikon 14-24 which can do the job of the above-mentioned 4 prime lenses. I will ONLY replace that lens if Canon comes out with their 14-24/2.8 .... and only if they able to match the Nikon in terms of IQ which is a tough act to follow. Without a doubt, Nikon has set a new benchmark for optics .... prime lens IQ in a zoom lens.

Just compared Photozone's resolution and vignetting charts and it looks like the Nikon 14-24 easily beat the ZE 21 .... so it appears that the Nikon zoom is better than the Zeiss prime .... No?

Nov 15, 2009 at 01:10 AM

PhotoMaximum
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #4 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Did you see this :http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834861
This guy shot a church interior with the Nikon 14-24, 17 TS-E, 21ZE, and 24 TS-E.

I would not say the 14-24 beats any of the other lenses here. In fact the 14-24 seems like it has more CA than the others. I have seen statements about how great the 14-24 is. But for Canon users the lens and adapter is an expensive option with a long waiting period to get the adapter from all accounts.

I still think the 17 TS-E is the most interesting lens of the bunch...

Nov 15, 2009 at 02:26 AM

bobbytan
Online
Image Upload: On

p.3 #5 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Maybe so, but the poster says "Regarding the quality there is not much difference between the 14-24mm, the 17mm TSE, the 21mm ZE and the 24mm TSE II in this situation" .... implying that the 14-24 zoom is prime quality i.e. 4 prime lenses in one!

PhotoMaximum wrote:
Did you see this :http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/834861
This guy shot a church interior with the Nikon 14-24, 17 TS-E, 21ZE, and 24 TS-E.

I would not say the 14-24 beats any of the other lenses here. In fact the 14-24 seems like it has more CA than the others. I have seen statements about how great the 14-24 is. But for Canon users the lens and adapter is an expensive option with a long waiting period to get the adapter from all accounts.

I still think the 17 TS-E is the most interesting lens of the bunch...

Nov 15, 2009 at 03:44 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #6 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

bobbytan wrote:
I have not tried the Canon 14, 17, 24 or the ZE 21, but my Nikon 14-24 is the best lens (in terms of IQ) that I have ever owned and easily beat the 16-35L II that I used to have. The color, contrast, sharpness, CA, flare control are all stunning. I wouldn't dream of replacing my Nikon 14-24 which can do the job of the above-mentioned 4 prime lenses. I will ONLY replace that lens if Canon comes out with their 14-24/2.8 .... and only if they able to match the Nikon in terms of IQ which is a tough act to follow. Without a doubt, Nikon has set a new benchmark for optics .... prime lens IQ in a zoom lens.

Just compared Photozone's resolution and vignetting charts and it looks like the Nikon 14-24 easily beat the ZE 21 .... so it appears that the Nikon zoom is better than the Zeiss prime .... No?

As the photozone site makes clear you can't compare across systems like that. Also they don't do any test at 21mm, so who knows. It is not at all clear the Nikon zoom is better.

Nov 15, 2009 at 03:53 AM

PhotoMaximum
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #7 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Its certainly interesting that one photographer has access to all of these great lenses at one time!

Hopefully he will do more tests. Not to be critical of you Bobby, but I am always skeptical of users who invest in one particular lens and then declare that lens is better than all the rest.

Each of these lenses offer different pros and cons. Its great to actually have these options in the wide angle arena now though. I myself do not own any of these lenses. Choosing one includes many decisions like IQ, lack of CA, zoom range, cost, filters, and TS-E function. As a user and admirer of the TS-E function I am far more attracted to the TS-E options than the 21ZE or the Nikon zoom. Of course others will have different needs. I own and use the EF 16-35/2.8 II and it find it lacking in several ways, even though I still consider it a great lens. I would prefer the Nikon 14-24, but the adapter issue and my need for a great wide TS-E with superb IQ trumps the Nikon big time.

As the saying goes, "one size does not fit all"...

Nov 15, 2009 at 04:17 AM

PhotoMaximum
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #8 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

I do find the the 17TS-E produced the more interesting photo in that test as well. The other aspect to the 17 TS-E is that many users are finding that using the 17 TS-E with the Canon 1.4 TE produces better images at the resulting 24mm factor than the original version of the Canon 24 TS-E lens...

Nov 15, 2009 at 04:25 AM

Doo-bop
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #9 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Nov 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM

Yakim Peled
Online
Image Upload: On

p.3 #10 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

snowboarder wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
Filter usage in the Zeiss is indeed easier (as you don't need to buy a filter holder, rectangular filters etc.) but at 82mm, it's not that cheap either.

What are you talking about? Easier? It's a normal lens I can use all the filters I have with,
82mm since the introduction of 16-35L II lens has been the "normal" size, all my
filters are 82mm.

Now tell me how I can use a polarizer with the 14-24 zoom?

You can't. Another point for the Zeiss. Great. Now look at the last sentence I wrote: "It's horses for courses, as it always is, but it's far from being a clear cut victory for the Zeiss." Look, I'm not anti-Zeiss or pro-Nikon. All I'm saying is that there are VERY good reasons to chose either.

And BTW, I - personally - lust for neither. I want the 17TS.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Nov 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM

montespluga
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #11 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Steve Spencer wrote:
As the photozone site makes clear you can't compare across systems like that.

its horses for courses, they' re made for different purposes, even they might be in a similar focal lenghts. That's why I like to have both - a prime quality shift and a prime quality non shift.

In real life, you don't care if the MTF is a bit higher or not, but how you get bloody big object in a small room on the sensor. In these moments, you like the day your bought the N14-24, cause you can just zoom out enough to get b. object into the picture

It's not directly in context of a single image's quality, but a shiftlens offers flatstitching, which makes it more versatile vs a prime. That might save your life, the day when you need a 2:1-ratio, and a big output, so you can't crop with a wider focal lenghts.

17 TS-E with the Canon 1.4 TE

I' ve the N 1424 and been testing TSE 24, TSE 17 and TSE 17+1.4 TC, at the same day and situation:
While both the TSE 24 or TSE 17 are fine - it depends quite much on the shooting style - the TSE 17+1.4 TC produces quite a noticable amount of CA and distortion; in 99 % of all cases, you can't correct that distortion.. resolution and contrast wasn't that bad, but not really good either, I never would spendt 3000 on that combo.

As I' ve the N 14-24 (with the weakr side at 24), the TSE 24 is for my needs just the best addition.

Another photographer with different needs might be very happy with the ZE-21 - I have no problems whith that, I 'm rather glad that we can chose

Nov 15, 2009 at 11:53 AM

philber
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #12 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

When we think back what the choices were not so long ago: no 17 TS-E, no 24 TS-E, no 14-24, no ZE 21, no 24L II. So let's not complain that we don't all agree on which one is best. Best is the choice we have...

Nov 15, 2009 at 01:32 PM

montespluga
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #13 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

phillipe (??)

I didn't mean to °harmonise° to the point of not seeing differencies betweeen these lenses; yes the' are some, but the use of it, especially between fix focus and shift plays here a bigger role than in other comparisons.

Nov 15, 2009 at 03:54 PM

bobbytan
Online
Image Upload: On

p.3 #14 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Touché. I would love to be able to afford all of them, like Boris, but most of us can only own 1 or 2 of these lenses. If you (like me) don't use ND filters I am not at all bothered by the fact that fitting a CP is both clumsy and expensive - but doable. Even if there is a filter thread on the 14-24 I would not be willing to pay $200 for a CP .... and only get part of the sky polarized. I would much rather use the grad filter in Lightroom which works 200% better than any CP - as you have total control over how much polarization to apply.

montespluga wrote:

As I' ve the N 14-24 (with the weakr side at 24), the TSE 24 is for my needs just the best addition.

Another photographer with different needs might be very happy with the ZE-21 - I have no problems whith that, I 'm rather glad that we can chose

Nov 15, 2009 at 04:39 PM

montespluga
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #15 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Would become a heavy bag, don't you think so?

There's one thing that I apreciate much with DSLR - not beeing donkey anymore and carring heavy 4/5'-cams, another bag with film casettes, studio torches, etc... and I don't want o go back.

Corrcet me if I' wrong, but I think that polarizing filter dont work properly with UW.

Nov 15, 2009 at 05:32 PM

Mirek Elsner
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #16 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Perhaps it is just me, but all the landscape and architecture samples from the Nikon I've seen so far looked boring and lacking presence.

I think the Nikon is a great lens, with great sharpness, vignetting, flare resistance and CA correction, I think it is excellent for sports and people photography, but for a landscape lens, the Zeiss Distagon and Canon TSE offerings are more attractive for me.

Nov 15, 2009 at 06:47 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #17 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Mirek Elsner wrote:
Perhaps it is just me, but all the landscape and architecture samples from the Nikon I've seen so far looked boring and lacking presence.

I'm not talking about the Nikon in particular, but all these new computer generated designs are really great and seem to have great resolution and corrected aberrations.

But the reason I stick with Zeiss is something that a good friend of mine explains very well: Shooting with non-Zeiss lenses is like looking at the world through a window, while with Zeiss it's like you actually open the window and breathe the fresh air

I actually think this is very true. Zeiss lenses may not always be the best in resolution and corrected aberrations, but they always have this unbelievable clarity and 3D feel.

Nov 15, 2009 at 07:02 PM

magiclight
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #18 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

I have just spend 1/2 a day shooting with my new 21ZE and my 16-35mm II @21mm.
I must say of these two samples the Zeiss is superior all the way up to f11.

Blades of grass stand out as blades of grass on my lawn with the Zeiss. It seems to have extra zing compared to the Canon.

I did notice the far left hand side seems to be slightly soft with the Zeiss compared to the Canon which is annoying. I needed to focus into the left hand side to reduce this softness.

The Zeiss seems to hold a greater depth of field compared to Canon at the same aperature. I presume this is curvature of field at work here. It is most noticable in the foreground. Im not talking about pixel peeping here either it is noticable at 25% viewing magnification.

I have to say though the Canon zoom isn't a bad lens! I was rather suprised to see how good it actually was.

I found it to be very difficult to compare the lenses. You cant just focus both lenses at the same point in the scene as curvature will favour one over the other. e.g the Zeiss might beat the Canon but then if I focus the Canon slight closer the Canon catches up on the Zeiss.

Nov 15, 2009 at 10:10 PM

montespluga
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #19 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

magiclight
I'm not surprised at all about the ZE 21 beeing superior than the 16-35mm II @21mm, that could be expected.

the far left hand side seems to be slightly soft with
looks like a out out of axis, or a sensor offsett

Ed, another way of describing 3 D?

the N14-24 is closer in rendering colors and tones to the CYZ than the °normal° Canons, even L's. .

Nov 16, 2009 at 10:47 AM

philber
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #20 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

montespluga wrote:
magiclight
I'm not surprised at all about the ZE 21 beeing superior than the 16-35mm II @21mm, that could be expected.

Ed, another way of describing 3 D?

the N14-24 is closer in rendering colors and tones to the CYZ than the ï¿½normalï¿½ Canons, even L's. .

The ZE had better have better IQ than the 16-35 II. It is not cheaper, not lighter, not faster, so, outside from IQ, what advantage would it have to offset the absence of AF and the fixed focal length?

Nov 16, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Jorge Torralba
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #21 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

The new lens is spectacular. I have always been fond of the 21 and for good reason. It holds the corners sharp from edge to edge. One of my favorite seascape pictures I have taken was with the old 21 on a idsii. You can see it here:

http://icameradb.com/showphoto.php?photoid=45

I can post it here but I also want your feedback since the gallery software on the site above was written by me and not a pre packed gallery.

Thanks

Dec 01, 2009 at 04:01 PM

philber
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #22 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Spectacular shot, Jorge! Yes, the lens is great, but that alone is not enough...

Dec 01, 2009 at 05:01 PM

laurapalmer
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #23 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

NCAndy wrote:
I did a few comparison shots of my ZE21 and the 16-35mk2 today. Neither lens is sharp in the extreme corners at f2.8 but the Zeiss is better with much less CA (really next to none on the ZE). At f5.6 the ZE21 is sharp in all but the very tip of each corner while the Canon is a bit better than wide open but not close to the Zeiss. By f11 the two are pretty close. The Zeiss is sharp right into the extreme corner tip and the Canon is almost as good. Any difference is only apparent at 100% on my monitor. The Canon still shows substantial CA stopped down.

My test wasn't perfect of course but I used a 5D2 at infinity focus with mirror lockup and cable release at ISO 400 to keep the ss up due to the wind. My 16-35 is due to go back to Canon for a cleaning after going through the Grand Canyon on a raft with me and I'll ask to have it calibrated then too. I doubt it will improve much but it never hurts to try.

I can post corner crops if anyone is interested.

I'd be interested to see corner crops. I need to do some formal testing, but so far my 16-35ii's corners are borderline acceptable, even at f/11.

Are you happy you bought the Zeiss in this case?

Dec 03, 2009 at 11:32 PM

tsdevine
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #24 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

My ZE21 is noticeably better in the corners than my 16-35 II.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/836585/0#7788102

-Tim

Dec 04, 2009 at 12:01 AM

philber
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #25 · Zeiss ZE 21 mm Review on Photozone

Here is an example of a more than 100% edge crop from the ZE 21. Frankly, Laura, it better be "better" than a zoom like the 16-35, because, as it is not lighter, or cheaper, or faster, what else does it have to offer than superior IQ to offset what it doesn't have, i.e. AF and zoom flexibility?
Hope this helps.

2008 © philber

Exif information
Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Date	2009:10:25 16:01:55
Original date	2009:10:25 16:01:55
Exposure time	1/200 sec
Focal length	21mm
Focal number	f/7.1
ISO speed	100 ISO
Exposure compensation	0.0

Exif information
Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Date	2009:10:25 16:01:55
Original date	2009:10:25 16:01:55
Exposure time	1/200 sec
Focal length	21mm
Focal number	f/7.1
ISO speed	100 ISO
Exposure compensation	0.0

Dec 04, 2009 at 07:01 AM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 end