I own the ZE 21 and also the 17 TS-E & 24 TS-E lenses. If it make sense depends on so many things like your economy. If you can afford it and still buy the other lenses you like to have, it make sense (IMO) From a really rational point very few people in this forum should own all the lenses and bodies they do own I do use the ZE 21 a lot more than the other two TS-E lenses.
Oct 29, 2011 at 03:48 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
splathrop wrote:
Anyone here who thinks it could make sense for someone who owns the Canon 17 TS-E and 24 TS-E to add also the Zeiss 21mm? If so, why? And by the way, does the Zeiss 21mm distortion rule out horizon shots over water?
Yes, it could make sense IMO if you use the lenses for different applications. For landscapes and nature shots for example I much prefer the rendering and ease of use of the Zeiss over both Canons.
The Zeiss has its shortcomings for architecture although, in cases when shifting is necessary or beneficial. I own the 17 TS-E and the 21 ZE and thinking for some time now of the 24 TS-E as an addition (I did own the first version) to both, because 24mm is a more appropriate focal length for most architecture shots for me. The 24 TS-E would then be my main architecture lens, the 21 ZE my main landscape wide angle and the 17 TS-E comes into play when the 24 TS-E is not wide enough (mainly interiors). This would make a lot of sense to me.
For landscapes only although I wouldn't add the 21 ZE if you own the 24 TS-E already.
Lars, like that tree shot, very good lighting.
Jim, love the blue bokeh.
From sample I see from Canon 24 TS-E, I see nothing short compare to Zeiss but with TS.
ZF35mm f2 at f2
Thanks to Ulff, Lars, and Babu for helpful information. Alas, Ulff's breakdown of tasks-for-lenses is exactly the one I anticipated I would use, but have been trying to resist. It seems to make sense, though.
When Lars writes, "I do use the ZE 21 a lot more than the other two TS-E lenses," he provides a summary from practical experience. I'm wondering if Lars could add a bit more about why that happens. Convenience? Color? Contrast? Speed? Something I haven't anticipated?
And since several folks seem to be really well stocked, are there maybe some of you who also know the relative merits of the 90 TS-E and the Zeiss 100? Is that another case where owning both could make sense?
Oct 29, 2011 at 04:48 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Most of the time I use the TS-E lenses is when I need the tilt/shift function. They are great lenses as "normal" lenses also. But the ZE 21 is a little bit better as a "normal" lens for most things. The Zeiss is also a faster lens than the other two if I need that.
I would say the Zeiss wins in all those things you ask Convenience, Color, Contrast & Speed. Even if the others are really good also
splathrop wrote:
And since several folks seem to be really well stocked, are there maybe some of you who also know the relative merits of the 90 TS-E and the Zeiss 100? Is that another case where owning both could make sense?
I use the 90 TS-E for nearly 10 years now (and like it very much) and acquired the ZE 100 this summer. The applications of both lenses are very similar for me: landscapes, close-ups and portraits from time to time (for portraits I prefer lenses with AF, but both these lenses shine if AF is not necessary). Looking at the frequency of usage, the number of pictures I took with the ZE 100 in the last months equals already the number I've taken with the TS-E in the last years. I assume that the better microcontrast and the outstanding f2.0 performance of the ZE do it for me. For landscapes my conclusion is clear: I prefer the ZE, although the Canon is very good. For close-ups (flowers, table top) and for portraits I slightly prefer the Canon, mainly for the tilt feature and sometimes the smoother bokeh.
To answer your question: I don't think that it makes much sense owning both lenses because they are too similar. The only situation where owning both lenses could make sense, is if you really need f2.0 and Zeiss rendering on the one hand and TS functionality on the other hand. If I had to choose only one, I would clearly pick the ZE (although it is not perfect because of too much longitudinal CA from f2.0-f2.8) and I'm actually thinking about selling my Canon, but hesitating to do this because I value the tilt functionality too high (I almost never use the shift feature). Both lenses are among the best I ever used.
Two favorites from the last page I forgot to mention are Lars' great last image with the trees and the last tree shot with great autumn colors from kevphoto!
Ulff wrote:
Two favorites from the last page I forgot to mention are Lars' great last image with the trees and the last tree shot with great autumn colors from kevphoto!
splathrop -- I'm another one chasing that UWA lens Muse. I want the 17TS to round out my FF collection: 14 Samyang, EF 15FE, 16-35L II, ZE 21, and 24TS L II. Why so many? They have different applications. The TS are obviously for architecture (and some landscape, like Yosemite). The 14 & 15 are specialty UWA. The 16-35 has AF and is my most used of all these, especially when traveling light and not knowing what I'll run into. The 21 is gorgeous, and used when AF and TS are not needed and 21 is the right focal length.
I've just gotten the 14 and run into a focus problem, but otherwise, all these lenses are stellar and I don't rank one over the others.
It is really amazing what a couple millimeters do to the angle of view at the ultra WA end.
Gunzorro, how do you rate the image quality from your 14 Samyang (color, contrast, corner sharpness, etc.), and where does one find such a thing? No luck at B&H or Amazon.
I do use the ZE 21 a lot more than the other two TS-E lenses. 
