A number of people on this site have shown comparisons between various UWA, the Canon twins, the Zeiss, the Nikon 14-24 zoom, for all to see. Others have owned one or the other and moved on. I am sure Peter has seen all this already.
philber wrote:
A number of people on this site have shown comparisons between various UWA, the Canon twins, the Zeiss, the Nikon 14-24 zoom, for all to see. Others have owned one or the other and moved on. I am sure Peter has seen all this already.
If he has seen all this, and remembers it, he probably wouldn't have made this thread.
I'm also curious, did you do any exposure blending or HDR treatment on those last four 21mm samples?
No multiple exposures, minimal PP. The reason for the very low contrast is that, as in all large dark churches in broad daylight, the windows present massive contrast and end up in blown highlights, which I tone down rather crudely in PP. And the darkness of the church suffers most when I downsize/downres for the Web (again, call me daft).
alundeb wrote:
He already said he didn't use a tripod.
I'm sorry if I sound rude but that's irrelevant. With the capability of modern software to align images together, you don't need to use a tripod to do exposure bracketing. You will need to do some cropping around the edges if you shoot handheld but that's about it.
@philber, I mean no offense but I'm not sure how you can claim that the colours in Joshua's samples feels more "flat" and are duller than it would've been had it been shot using the CZ 21mm and then proceeded with posting some low contrast images that look duller than his samples.
Indeed, one has to make a sort of normalizing of what one sees.
Different subjects show differently, even the same subject shows differently in different light.
Aperture value chosen for the shot can also make a major difference, even on the same scene lit identically.
So does the photographer's skill, vision and pp.
When I look at excellent Joshua's images, etc, I am trying to make allowances for all those factors and distil the tenuous lens factor out of it. Indeed, that is very difficult, almost impossible to do, particularly on these web-crippled images.
However, based on what I've seen here and elsewhere, I feel the 21mm Distagon has a very hi IQ capability. After all, look at the results of this survey so far. It is not likely that all of those folks choosing 21mm Distagon are smoking some funny Zeiss cigaterres.
In all this, I believe the build, handling and feel of the Zeiss lens should not be neglected as a factor contributing to quality. If you give an average symphony orchestra violin player an instrument made by Stradivarius, their playing will instantly improve in 9 cases out of 10. Why is that ? Because the Strad is better, or "feels" better, or the player feels inspired to make better music on what they believe is one of the finest violins ever made ? Or perhaps all of those factors come to bear on their music making. In the end, what counts is the quality of results, be they music or photographs.
Since I seem to have come to the end of Canon lenses I am interested in collecting, perhaps I should be exploring Zeiss lenses now.....21mm Distagon is probably a good candidate to start the process.
n0b0, when I said that his images felt "flat", that referred to the"volume" aspect, and "dull" to the colours. Hence the first three of my pics, which, to my eyes, feel more "dimensional" despite the very adverse circumstancesnn while the fourth shows colours which, again to my eyes, are quite lifelike despite the shot parameters. But, if that doesn't work for you, that's fine too. To each his own.
alundeb wrote:
Joshua, why is it surprising that the image I thought was less sharp, turned out to be from the, in theory and on test bench, lowest IQ lens?
Simply, because on the full size image I couldn't tell the difference that well, let alone on a small image for the web? Maybe because I like that image, I am biased ? Just saying...
Joshua, your comment on the "chandelier shot" made me laugh. I have almost the same from a church in Venice, with my 24-105... which is a lens which doesn't suffer from lack of sharpness IMHO.
PetKal wrote:
Since I seem to have come to the end of Canon lenses I am interested in collecting, perhaps I should be exploring Zeiss lenses now.....21mm Distagon is probably a good candidate to start the process.
I would strongly recommend that, Peter. Several years ago though I had easilty 15-17 Zeiss, Leica and Voigtlander (100mm APO) SLR lenses to be used on my Canon FF system. I still love the Leica M ASPH lenses on my M9 but except for a single Contax Zeiss Anniversary lens, I sold every single one of them after the current crop of Canon/Nikon lenses became available. I had the chance to compare them side-by-side. Except for the 100mm Makro, I didn't try any of the current crop Zeiss lenses. As such, I am referring mostly to the Contax version of Zeiss lenses. Correct me if I am wrong, the optical design of the 21mm Distagon with its moustache distortion is still the same, correct?
That's the only way for you to convince yourself, one way or the other. Who cares what others have to say or what review tells you? You are the only one that matters! Good luck!
I think this comparison is not unlike comparing the 24/1.4 against the 24 TS-E II. In that what you'll want is based on how and what you shoot. Being a low light and thin DoF shooter myself I would choose the 24L II over the Zeiss even though I greatly prefer the Zeiss look over most Canon lenses.
24L II because of 1.4
ZE 21 2.8 because of 21mm
If you can't backup then 3mm makes some differences. It is also true that you need to shoot in low light then 2 stops makes some differences as well.
Aside from that, happy post processing
The best compromise is really the 16-35mm II if you want coverage or 24 L II if you want the 2 stop advantage for other creative shallow DOF type of work.
I would have 24L II + 16-35 L II combo over just 1 Zeiss or Canon lens. But the 16-35mm II do make sense for someone who's on the tight budget.
Hard choice to make but the buyer shot define their own shooting style.
If we allow 16-35L II to become a zoom again, then I suspect many people would go for it as their first choice. Very high IQ WA primes are obviously nice, however, having to photograph the outside world only at 21mm would begin to wear thin quickly. Unfortunately, such WA lenses suck in all kinds of civilization intrusive elements such as power transmission towers, telephone wires, trash bins, inane advertising and political message billboards, individuals waving to the photographer, folks having a picnic in the park and grown men clad in white leggings dancing sirtaki. etc.
Besides, I don't know about your 16-35L II copy, but mine is very good at all FLs and apertures of interest to me.
I miss the two sharpest Canon/Zeiss lenses in this focal range: The Canon 24f3.5TSE beats the 24f1.4, the corner sharpness of the Zeiss CY21f2.8 is better than of the ZE21f2.8.
grasmuc wrote:
the corner sharpness of the Zeiss CY21f2.8 is better than of the ZE21f2.8.
Grasmuc, I don't think that a comparison of these two lenses has been shown here. I would love to see some pics of it, and I think quite a few others as well.
It's funny how so many people seem to think the ZE 21/2.8 is sharper than the EF 24/1.4L II. It's not. It's actually worse in the corners at all comparable apertures, with lower contrast and stronger vignetting, and there is more complex mustache distortion. The 24/1.4L II does have a tiny bit more lateral CA in the corner on FF, but this is much more easily and effectively corrected in post than the distortion problem of the ZE 21/2.8.
And you know what this tells us? The differences in image quality between the EF 24/1.4L II and the ZE 21/2.8 are not as significant as the Zeiss fanatics would have you believe. The EF 24mm lenses are hardly crappy. They offer as much if not more than the Zeiss, but some people would have you think that if you don't shoot with alt glass, all your pictures are going to suck.
