ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 end

Archive 2009 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Jeffrey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

I finally had a chance to use my Ziess 21 ZE at a favorite location, Zion National Park in Utah. The first image is a closeup of a sandstone ledge. I did not apply any sharpening or color correction to these images (except the final ones shown in this post). All are converted from RAW in ACR PS CS4, saved for web at very high quality level, no sharpening.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

the efix data, and a 100% crop about 750 pixels long:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image of lichen on a rock had the ZE21 about 10" from the subject:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

And a 100% crop:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

And, to show some other results, these images were made in the Narrows with the same camera and lens. I have processed them in Photoshop.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

I am pretty happy with this new Ziess lens.

Nov 17, 2009 at 06:12 PM

Sam N
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Don't you start losing sharpness to diffraction by f/16? It seems like you'd have plenty of DOF at F8 for that first pic.

Anyway, the actual shots at the bottom look good.

Nov 17, 2009 at 07:55 PM

dadagallery
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

I predict a run on this lens and on that location.

Nov 17, 2009 at 08:02 PM

Jeffrey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Landscapers use f18 to f20 all the time. I see no problems at 100%.

Nov 17, 2009 at 08:05 PM

Z250SA
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Light here around is just lousy these november days. Just love the glowing trees against that magnificent background!

I tried my ZE21 all the way to f22. On the smaller pixels of a 450D I start to see diffraction around f13, f16 is clearly mushy, f22 bad (for what this lens is capable of at f2.8 to f11, again on a 450D).

Most surprising, however, was the deep DOF allready at f5.6. I have a feeling that landscape photographers will have to learn some new habits with the ever smaller pixels.

Edited on Nov 17, 2009 at 08:18 PM · View previous versions

Nov 17, 2009 at 08:15 PM

AhamB
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Nice samples (last 2)!

PS:
You're writing Ziess instead of Zeiss two times. :P
The (German) name is pronounced as "tzice" (not "zees").

Nov 17, 2009 at 08:15 PM

Jeffrey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Ooops!! I'm just an American.. I can't spell! Thanks for the correction.

Nov 17, 2009 at 08:28 PM

timpdx
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

nice work and nice lens. You think there will be any color left this weekend at Zion?

Nov 17, 2009 at 08:49 PM

philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Z250SA wrote:

Most surprising, however, was the deep DOF allready at f5.6.

+1

I posted this morning this picture on another thread, and another member commented on the DOF at f:5.6. I never push my 21 beyond f:11, at which aperture my 5D MkII is pretty much a P&S anyhow...

2012 © philber

Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21 mm f/5.6 1/125 sec 100 ISO 0.0 EV

Nov 17, 2009 at 09:10 PM

Jeffrey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

If anything past f11 is 'pushing the lens', then why does it go to f22?

Nov 17, 2009 at 09:24 PM

philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

I didn't mean "pushing" as in "going too far", only as in "setting". Sorry if my English, which is not my mother tongue, is at fault.
As far as the existence of a f:22 setting on the lens, I believe it is pretty standard on most lenses. Yet, in most cases, it is far from optimal in terms of diffraction. So your question should be generic IMHO, rather than targeted as this one lens.

Nov 17, 2009 at 09:30 PM

Valorin
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

If you really need the DOF or to limit the amount of light, smaller than f/11 is usable. I still typically use f/11 as the upper limit except in those circumstances. There's not much reason to stop to f/16 if you get enough DOF at f/8-f/11, since you compromise slightly on sharpness.

Nov 17, 2009 at 09:48 PM

DanPBrown
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Jeffrey wrote:
Landscapers use f18 to f20 all the time. I see no problems at 100%.
Does that mean f/18 to f/20 is optimum? Probably not for most landscape work especially with such a lens. Try f/8 and see if you can see a difference with the sharpness.
Live view allows very precise focusing and with most photos f/8 with the 21mm D provides more than adequate DOF.
Dan
www.danbrownphotography.com

Nov 17, 2009 at 10:22 PM

andrewd01
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Jeffrey wrote:
If anything past f11 is 'pushing the lens', then why does it go to f22?

The small apertures are provided so it is possible to get shots that you may not otherwise be able get (extreme sunlight, snow etc). But be aware that by using small apertures you will not be taking full advantage of the high resolution sensor and high MTF resolving lenses that you paid good money for. Images shot at very small apertures reduce the effective resolution of the sensor. It is all related to the size of the Airy disks relative to the pixel pitch. See linked reference, which has a calculator where you can calculate the effect at various apertures for a given sensor.

For the 1DsIII f16 should be useable for shots where extra DOF is needed. It is probably slightly less sharp than f11 but we can see that in the real world the shots are still superb (especially number 2). I personally wouldn't use f22 on that cam and definitely would avoid anything below f11 on high resolution crop cameras such as Canon 7D.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Nov 17, 2009 at 10:26 PM

dancam
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

As others have said diffraction is a product of the camera not the lens. Don't forget these lenses can be used on older Canons as well. Smaller apertures would be much more acceptable on something like a 5D mk1, 1D, or 1Ds. Diffraction limits are decreased as pixel pitch increases.

Nov 17, 2009 at 10:41 PM

Hougaard Malan
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

I'm still undecided about upgrading from my 16-35mm II to the 18mm or 21mm.

Did any of you guys have the 16-35mm II prior to the 21mm? How does the IQ compare between the two? Specifically corner performance... Any input is appreciated!

Nov 17, 2009 at 10:51 PM

Hougaard Malan
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Phil, would you mind posting 100% crops of something? Ideally something with architectural detail in the extreme corner?

Nov 17, 2009 at 10:53 PM

mMontag
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

I was out this morning testing a 17-35N - not a 21 prime but a kicka** Zeiss zoom just the same. I did some comparisons shots of f11 & f16 on snow laden landscape. I had never shot that lens at f16 previous - (I was wishing that f16 might somehow magically improve shooting on snow). The f11 was much sharper / clearer. I could not discern additional DOF at f16 - the foreground was reasonable & the distant objects quite diffracted. I've always found WA's best from f5.6 to f11.

Nov 17, 2009 at 11:01 PM

Jeffrey
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Thanks for all the great input. No, I don't shoot all my landscapes at f18 to f22! But, often I am bent down capturing a scene where the foreground object is perhaps within 12" on the lens and the background mountains are a mile away. Most other times I am between f11 and f16. This is a habit that comes from using normal and longer lenses. The wide angle lenses provide a greater DOF by design, so I need to to adjust my habits. My next shoot will be further testing with wider apertures and using live view to make determinations in the field. It's a hard habit to break!

Nov 17, 2009 at 11:17 PM

Valorin
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

dancam wrote:
As others have said diffraction is a product of the camera not the lens. Don't forget these lenses can be used on older Canons as well. Smaller apertures would be much more acceptable on something like a 5D mk1, 1D, or 1Ds. Diffraction limits are decreased as pixel pitch increases.

Diffraction has little to do with the camera. The only difference is that with higher resolution you perceive the effects of diffraction earlier. However, the diffraction remains the same, f/16 on a 12MP and 24MP sensor will yield the same diffraction-caused softness (in print of course). The reason people complain about diffraction on higher resolution cameras is that they look at their images at 100% on the computer, and mentally compare those results with 100% images from lower resolution cameras. It's not wrong to do that though, it doesn't make a lot of sense having a high resolution sensor where you're not making use of that resolution, unless you have a burning need for that extra DOF.

Nov 17, 2009 at 11:17 PM

gasrocks
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #21 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Makes me think of T/S lenses.

Nov 17, 2009 at 11:44 PM

tsdevine
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

I'm sure holes will be poked in this, but FWIW here are some corner comparisons. Shot with 5D, tripod, MLU, etc. Focus was on the center of the frame (the building), so some of the corner softness may be due to field curvature. Processed through DxO with lens corrections turned off (only matters for the 16-35 mk II.) I can't remember if sharpening was turned off or set to default. Crops are of upper left corner. Left capture is with the 16-35 mk II, right is with the Zeiss 21mm Distagon.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

f/2.8

f/4

f/5.6

f/8

f/11

Don't know if this is helpful, but figured I'd post.

-Tim

Hougaard Malan wrote:
I'm still undecided about upgrading from my 16-35mm II to the 18mm or 21mm.

Did any of you guys have the 16-35mm II prior to the 21mm? How does the IQ compare between the two? Specifically corner performance... Any input is appreciated!

Nov 17, 2009 at 11:44 PM

belsha
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #23 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Poor, poor little Canon boy.... a law was just proposed in France to forbid spanking of children, but little Mark2 just got spanked at ALL apertures by the mean Zeiss!

Nov 17, 2009 at 11:51 PM

tsdevine
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #24 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

I'm not unhappy with the mk II, 16mm is a lot different than 21mm. I will prefer the Zeiss except for those cases where the 16-35 makes more sense.

-Tim

Nov 17, 2009 at 11:54 PM

dancam
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #25 · ZE-21 on the 1DsIII Samples

Valorin wrote:
dancam wrote:
As others have said diffraction is a product of the camera not the lens. Don't forget these lenses can be used on older Canons as well. Smaller apertures would be much more acceptable on something like a 5D mk1, 1D, or 1Ds. Diffraction limits are decreased as pixel pitch increases.

Diffraction has little to do with the camera. The only difference is that with higher resolution you perceive the effects of diffraction earlier. However, the diffraction remains the same, f/16 on a 12MP and 24MP sensor will yield the same diffraction-caused softness (in print of course). The reason people complain about diffraction on higher resolution cameras is that they look at their images at 100% on the computer, and mentally compare those results with 100% images from lower resolution cameras. It's not wrong to do that though, it doesn't make a lot of sense having a high resolution sensor where you're not making use of that resolution, unless you have a burning need for that extra DOF.
Well, I should have been more clear. Ok, you're right going by what I had said, thank you for the correction. What I meant was the diffraction is more apparent with increased pixel density. As far as lenses go, diffraction is a product of any lens. Which is why pinholes look the way they do no matter what camera they're used on. The lower the pixel density the higher the apparent diffraction limit. Make more sense.....?

Nov 18, 2009 at 02:45 AM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end