This topic may have been beaten to death of late with the advent of the new Canon glass, but I am looking for input as to what makes sense for optimal quality for the wide end for a Canon 1DSM3. I have just sold a couple of lenses off and expect to sell two more to raise some funds for new glass. Here is what I expect to have when I am done with at least a first round of selling:
While I find the 16-35-II to be a useful lens, I like some architecture photography and have been reading rave reviews of the new T/S lenses. On the other hand, the new Canon mount Zeiss ZE lenses have also mainly been well received and I have long wondered about the legendary Zeiss 21 2.8. Mostly, of late, I have been getting interested in landscapes including waterfalls, mountain scenes, etc. So I am concentrating on the wide end for now and considering the following: Canon 17L T/S, Canon 24L T/S-II, Zeiss ZE 21 and ZE 35. While I have been surprised by how good the 24-105 is at 35mm and have a pretty competent 35 in the Zeiss 35 PC, I am not sure how much use the Zeiss 35 PC will get if I get a 24mm T/S and so am not opposed to selling this lens. I just sold my 35L as I had not been using it much so am wondering if there is a better lens for landscape at 35 and, if so, I would consider selling the 35 shift. I have also considered getting rid of the 16-35-II as it seems I almost always use it at the wide end and I dislike the quality at the long end of its range so if I get the 17 T/S, I am not sure how much I will use it. I have even contemplated trying another 50mm, but that is not a high priority. Right now, my budget (without selling more) will probably allow for about $5,000 in outlay. I am pretty sure I want at least one T/S lens from Canon't new line, but am open to suggestions. Any thoughts for how to construct a wide angle lineup? Any lenses I have not considered that I should?
There seems to be a consensus that 4 lenses "dominate" the Canon WA landscape as we speak: the 2 Canon T/S, the Zeiss ZE 21 Distagon, and the Nikon 14-24. As they are so very different in features, functionality and performance, at that stage it becomes a matter of "what you need/what you like" rather than "how good is the lens". Meaning that there is no hierarchy that conforms to everyone's tastes and needs. But any one of those 4 is superb!
And, of course, there will be dissenters plugging other lenses too, just because I said that there was a "consensus". But that does not mean that it is unanimous...
If you don't have a sherpa I'd avoid the 14-24 :P
I'd add the Contax 17-35 N to the list, the best Canon AF wide ever.
I'd add the Zuiko 18 too because it's tiny and quite sharp and (gasp) is a budget lens among these listed.
Otherwise both new TS's and the legendary Distagon 21 are - if you can buy 'em - amazing lenses.
Yes, I am not excited about the Nikon for some reason. I suspect this is because of its size and weight and having to use an adapter. I am leaning toward getting the 17mm T/S and then deciding if I still want to keep the 16-35. Anyone have an opinion as to the merits of the Canon 24 T/S versus the Zeiss 21? Not sure I can buy both right now. Weird to see Zeiss as the cheaper of these two! Also, anyone know the merits of the new Zeiss ZE 35 versus the Zeiss 35 PC distagon? Any reason on image quality to go with the newer lens? I know it does not shift but if I were to get a Canon shift (especially the 24) I am not sure how much I would use the 35 PC, tho perhaps some for stitching.
I have the 17 TS-E, 14-24G, and ZF 35/2 for my 1ds3.
For architecture I lwould recommend one of the new TS-E's either 17 or 24.I don't like the ZE21 for architecture because of mustache distortion, even though some here say you can remove it with ptlens.For landscape, I like the ZE 21 or the 14-24G.
I like the 14-24G because it gives me flexibleability to cover from 14 to 24 with the IQ of the best primes in that range.Some don't like it due its size and because it doesn't take filters, at least normal size ones.
I think ZE 35 is the best at landscape and has great sharpness across the frame.
Thanks Philber. Tough decisions. Will keep chewing on it. Probably need to get one or two of these lenses in my hands and see how I like them. My mind keeps telling me there is a "right" answer, and I suspect there really is not. It is strange that we have gone from having no good wide angles unless converted to having an abundance in a short time. I guess these are good problems. I guess I could sell the Zeiss 35 PC and get a ZE 35 and stitch using conventional means on the rare occasion I find the need to stitch..... I think I will likely get a 17 T/S and maybe a ZE 35. Harder call is the 24 T/S versus ZE 21. Not sure I can justify both.
Wayne, I hear you about the flexibility of zoom for landscape, but with my 16-35 at least, I am always at the wide end. This may be because it is not so good at the long end, however. I wish Canon's wide zooms were at Nikon's level, but they are not--at least not now.
For a great value lens at 28mm, the Zeiss 28/2.8 for Contax/Yashica mount is my first
recommendation for the landscape shooter. The extreme cornerns on full frame bodies
require f/8 or f/11 to get sharp, but the color, contrast, and resolution of this
lens is first rate. For under $300 this would be my first recommendation. The Nikon
28/2.8 Ai-S is very fine as well, and even a bit cheaper. If money is no concern, I would
go for the ZE 21, I expect. Since I am shooting the original 5D, the 28/2.8 Zeiss gives
more than sufficient resolution. I am certainly camera-limited over most of the frame.
One more thing: The Nikon 28/2.8 Ai-S is almost distortion free, so this would be
a very good choice for architecture.
For landscape the Oly 21mm or 24mm probably should not be overlooked. I realize that they aren't getting the press of the high $$ lenses.
If the T/S is necessary for architecture, I'd think the T/S 24 would go well with the Oly 21 3.5 (or 2.0) ... saves you $$ vs. the ZE 21mm ... for some other glass.
I want to be sensor limited and not lens limited. I hope any lenses I buy will enable me to get the most out of the camera and hopefully be good enough for at least the next generation of sensors that come out. I wonder if the Oly's recommended and the C/Y 28 2.8 would fit the bill? I also think that I would prefer a bit wider that 28 for architecture at least much of the time.
I understand the desire to be 'sensor limited' vs. lens limited ... I used to think that way also, but others have explained that it is a systemic improvement, not a limiting factor. Sorry I can't explain it better ... but even at that, the C/Y 28 and the Oly 21 are on some of the best lenses list elsewhere, and the Oly 24 ranked well in the 16-9 shootout of 24mm's.
Luvwine wrote:
I am leaning toward getting the 17mm T/S and then deciding if I still want to keep the 16-35. Anyone have an opinion as to the merits of the Canon 24 T/S versus the Zeiss 21? Not sure I can buy both right now.
Both the TSE lenses are better than other Canon primes near their focal length, they just don't AF! The 17 TSE L will easily beat the 16-35II, especially in corner performance. After all you don't really start challenging the 17 TSE corners without shifting a fair bit.
I think Lloyd Chambers covered this comparison, but its probably moved to his pay review section.
I am currently keeping the 24 TSE II and Zeiss 21. Both can produce great images, but they are different in their character. The Zeiss is really sharp to the corners and loexpansive in its view, a pretty straight forward landscape lens. The TSE usually takes lots more time and care in setting up, but can also yield great sharpness with all the corrections of the TSE movements. No CA in either lens. Right now they seem to be complimentary as they have different uses.
Mike K
Luvwine wrote:
alexandre: Have you compared the 17-35 with any of the newer primes in that range? Any past reviews to indicate its quality to current options?
No, I haven't, I just say some samples and opinions and just believed it.
Anden wrote:
I would love to get what I think is the holy trinity of landscape lenses at the moment:
TS-E 17
ZE 21/2.8
Leica 28/2.8 R. Latest version.
.
what's the strength of leica 28 compared with CY/Z* 28? thanks!
I am leaning toward getting the T/S 17 and the Zeiss 21. As for 35mm, I have the Zeiss PC. I just looked at the MTF charts for the Zeiss ZE 35/2 and tried to compare with the 35 PC. I am not sure I see a lot of difference. Am I reading this correctly? They don't compare at the same F stop, naturally, so it is not a great comparison. I know the Zeiss 35/2 has the advantage of F2 which gives more versatility, on the other hand, the PC can shift and stitch easily. For landscape use (not my only interest, but the subject of this post) I am guessing there is no point in swapping the 35 PC for the ZE 35/2. Any thoughts?
Anden, I know nothing about the Leica 28/2.8. Any recommended places to start reading?? Is it easy to mount on Canon? Never used a Leica lens. Do I really want to go down that slippery slope
Though I haven't used a 35PC I would not swap the 35PC for the 35ZE. I have the the 35 ZF it is a great lens, and as Wayne says sharp, great IQ and is my favorite of lenses I have at the 35mm focal length.
But you have shifting capability, I have all the Canon T+S and a Nikon 85 PC-D and once I mount one of them on the camera for landscape I am hard pressed to use any other lens that day, I just keep shooting with the various T+S. But I do wish I had a 35 T+S.
The 17 you will find at times is too wide for the landscape shots, and the 35 shift will fit the bill especially if you have to do a little shifting to get that distraction out of the frame, or keep trees, buildings with straight lines.
I guess I could sell the Zeiss 35 PC and get a ZE 35 and stitch using conventional means on the rare occasion I find the need to stitch..... I think I will likely get a 17 T/S and maybe a ZE 35. Harder call is the 24 T/S versus ZE 21. Not sure I can justify both.
