Hello, I recently bought the Zeiss distagon 21 mm ZE to use with my 7D. I know there always is a learning curve, but I'd like to know whether my lens is sharp enough. Here below are some samples.
Hi Ulan, great shots. You just need to paste the jpg link here.
I don't use flickr, must be a easy way to get this.
Else from the link, right click on the image and click on the resolution desired. Then, in the window that opens, right click on the image, click on properties, and copy the url.
For Philber, should he care to comment, I can boil my question down to this:
I shoot a lot of landscapes with everything sharp. Can you characterize subjective differences between images from the two Zeiss 35s when shot with the aperture at f/5.6 and smaller. I am particularly interested in color and contrast, and in knowing if the F/1.4 produces a less aggressive, less biting presentation than the F/2.0—at those smaller apertures. I would consider that an advantage if true, because I plan to use also the extremely crisp 50 MP, and in some instances might consider the focal lengths interchangeable, letting me choose the right lens for the lighting. Assuming there would be any notable difference.
Anything else you might choose to say would be greatly appreciated. I already have the Canon 35L, and like it a lot for shooting people, but most of my work is shooting landscapes and making big prints (30 inches, etc.), and in that application the 35L seems to fall a bit short of the image quality delivered by my beloved Canon TS-E 90 mm. I'm hoping that by adding some Zeiss lenses I can get that level of image quality in other focal lengths. I use the 5D II from a tripod, and live view focusing for the landscape work.
I guess that wasn't all that boiled down, but thanks in advance for any help.
Ulan wrote:
Can't import them directly. Here are the links.
Reposted from Yossarian123
1. go to your flickr image page. click on the "Share This" button.
2. click "Grab the HTML"
3. Select the image size (Medium or Large probably for these forums).
4. Now click BBCode
5. Now copy/paste the code that's generated into your post.
Philippe - Glad you jumped in as I don't know what I was talking about. Istanbul trip sounds great. Lookinig forward to see shots from there.
dbehrens- My jaw dropped looking at them. You shot them with 21 !!!! Did you set up with remote and wait ? Absolutely amazing.
Ulan - Welcome to the thread. From the pictures you posted, I think your lens is pretty sharp. I like your fish shot and the last one. Love your last shot.
dbehrens, the shot with the gannets in flight is extraordinary. I note too that you couldn't have been too far from the cliff edge when you were setting that shot up. Apparently with a 21 mm Zeiss nothing is impossible.
philber, thank you for your input. I'm going to take your comments as gospel, because they sound like it. Exactly the visually intelligent evaluation I was hoping for.
Any comments on whether you would expect the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 to produce notably better image quality than a good copy of the Canon 35L?
splathrop wrote:
Any comments on whether you would expect the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 to produce notably better image quality than a good copy of the Canon 35L?
Thanks for your kind words! As far as the 35L is concerned, it days with me were numbered the day I compared its output with that from my ZE 50 f:1.4 (there was no ZE 35 at that stage). By comparison, colours from the 35L were dull, leaning towards the slightly washed out, and the output looked "flat". I tried increasing contrast and/or saturation, to bring them closer to the Zeiss' output, but the result just got different, not better. Since then, I haven't looked back. Zeiss native colours and contrast (some say: micro-contrast) have me sold. And I hold the ZE 35 f:1.4 to be the best of the ZE bunch, even ahead of the mighty 21. So my copy of the 35L just wasn't of the same caliber as far as my personal preferences go. Neither was it as large or expensive, to be fair.
And you have to keep in mind that, the better a lens gets, the more it shows what is "wrong" as well as what it "right". So ZE 35 F:1.4 requires finer focusing than its f:2.0 sibling in order to get the best result.
I have a lot of experience with the ZE 35 2.0 and a very good copy of the 35L and limited experience with (philbers) ZE 35 1.4. My bottom line would be the same as Philippes': the ZE 35 1.4 should be the best lens for landscapes, if you can live with the field curvature.
The biggest advantage of both Zeiss lenses in comparision to the 35L is in my opinion that they handle different lightning conditions way better than the Canon without loosing their color and higher micro contrast. Extreme flare conditions are handled better by the ZE 2.0 than from the ZE 1.4 (sadly). But both are way better in this respect than the Canon. The difference between the lenses is not about sharpness, where I would rate the Canon wide open even better than the ZE 35 1.4.
As Philippe already mentioned: the ZE 1.4 renders more detail than the ZE 2.0, at least for stopped down landscape shots. The ZE 2.0 excels more at closer distances. I also like landscapes with it with wide open apertures (nice rendering), but at infinity and stopped down it lacks the fine detail.
Personally I'm thinking for a long time now to replace the ZE 2.0 with the ZE 1.4 (I have to keep the 35L for it's AF and I like it for people shots), but haven't decided yet (the bulk, the longitudinal CAs at wider apertures and the worse flare performance holds me back from the f1.4 yet).
Ulff wrote:
The ZE 2.0 excels more at closer distances.
Ulff, your sentence can be understood as meaning that the f:2.0 is better than the f:1.4 at close distances. That is something I disagree with. At short distances, the f:1.4 is amazing. Not only very sharp, and with a long throw which allows very precise focusing, but also, it has a fabulous bokeh, which I forgot to mention as a strong point. Thank you for provising the occasion.
My mistake: what I meant is that the ZE 2.0 is better at closer distances than at longer distances and that it is indeed extremely good (including the bokeh) at closer distances. I have no personal experience with the ZE 1.4 at closer distances at all, so thanks for your additional informations! And yes: the ZE 35 1.4' bokeh is fabulous! (except the CAs in it of course...)
