guyharrison
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #4 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2 | |
For your needs, go with option 2. It gives you wide angle tilt/shift, 35mm fast lens with AF, and a normal fast lens with AF. If you want to give up AF for a sharper lens, substitute the Zeiss 35mm f2 ZE. I have heard that you can also use the canon 24TSE with a 1.4 extender with the 24 giving you about a 33mm TS lens as well--a great benefit. You could then keep the 35 1.4 if you really need the speed. The original 24 was an excellent lens when centered and good when shifted, and the new lens kicks these up to superior and excellent respectively. I do plan to upgrade my 24.
The Zeiss 21 is a great lens, but, for landscape and cityscapes, 21mm is getting a little to the wide side for many shots. I would say that most landscapes (maybe 70%) are shot between 24 and 100mm. Ultra-wide and tele landscapes can be very impressive, but they are specialized views. Some photographers specialize in these techniques and shoot much more % of their work at ultrawide, but I think the slightly more conservative focal lengths might serve you better and you seem inclined that way as well. In addition, the TS lens allows rapid panoramas just by shifting and so can equal the wide perspective of the 21, but the 21 cannot shift or tilt, two traits of extreme value to landscapers (and shifting is essential for architecture).
I would not recommend the Nikon. I shot one that someone lent me. No autoexposure, no exif, manual focus, very difficult to focus at stopped down shooting aperture. Even worse, for a landscape or outdoor cityscape/architecture, no filters. No polarizers for water, color saturation, skies. No ND grads to balance exposures--requiring long times at the computer for what you can do in five seconds in the field. No regular NDs to get long exposures. You also shoot video and NDs are essential for manual video exposure control. You cannot mount a protective filter for harsh conditions (rain, snow, spray, sand/dust). The front element is always exposed and subject to damage. Finally, the Nikon is a niche lens on full frame. 14mm is fun but rarely useful and even the 'long" end at 24mm is still pretty wide. I'm not knocking the quality of the images, superb, but it is very impractical and actually a hindrance for the type of images you shoot.
If you want a wide zoom, find a converted Contax/Zeiss 17-35 2.8. Full autofocus and autoexposure and exif. Works just like a Canon AF lens but much better than the Canon 16-35. It is a close second to the Nikon in sharpness at f5.6-f11 and a more useful FF focal range. Even better flare control and distortion control. Fully filter compatible. Hard to find but I did, and do not regret it at all. Much more satisfactory over the Nikon.
So, in sum, use your option #2 but substitute the Zeiss 35mm f2 unless you really need two fast lenses. It would be a very light package of superb quality.
As an alternate, Zeiss 17-35 2.8 (has AF/AE), Canon 45 2.8 TSE (a very, very excellent MF lens which with a converter gives you around a 60mm as well), and a Canon or Zeiss 85 1.4 (if you find a Contax N 85 you can convert that to EOS as well with full AF/AE) for speed/portraits, shallow DOF and tele perspective (you have overlooked the tele range in your options). This would be a much more versatile, but lots heavier (the inevitable trade-off) package.
You will get lots of good advice here, I have! Others will undoubtedly have other options.
|
