philip_pj wrote:
Had to laugh at philber's suggestion that it is 'showing its age', lol. Like all of us, my friend, like all of us. Hopefully the spouses don't kick us out.



Philip, it is a good idea to remind a spouse who protests yet another expensive lens purchase that changing lenses for a more recent model is harmless compared to other changes for younger items...

I think the gap from 15mm to 25mm is gigantic and the 21 fills it perfectly. It's like deciding you don't need anything between 100mm and 500mm, both telephoto but worlds apart.

I sold my 25/2.8 when I got the 21/2.8 but kind of regret it and may add it (or 25/2) again to my collection. Of course it all depends on how you shoot but you might find that the 15 is too dramatic and the 25 too narrow.

I am sticking with my 21/2.8 and 35/1.4.

After viewing Lloyd Chamber comparison with the Nikon 24G (the roof tile comparison) I decided not to buy the the 25/2. The 24G appeared to be in another league. Perhaps his test was floored. The 25/2 seemed low contrast and rather mushy.

magiclight wrote:
I am sticking with my 21/2.8 and 35/1.4.

After viewing Lloyd Chamber comparison with the Nikon 24G (the roof tile comparison) I decided not to buy the the 25/2. The 24G appeared to be in another league. Perhaps his test was floored. The 25/2 seemed low contrast and rather mushy.

Whatever might have happened with the 25/2 there, the 24G perfomance is very solid - that is if you can live with the lateral CA.

It bothers me that nearly all reviewers now say "But lateral CA can be corrected". If you try to correct for lateral CA, you can say goodbye to that extra crispness of the 24G immediately. OTOH, if you try to correct for a bit lower micro contrast with (proper) sharpening, the adverse effects are not nearly as bad.

In fact, it would have been MUCH more fair to say that "low microcontrast can be corrected in post" than "Lateral CA can be corrected in post".

jcolwell wrote:
Sometimes the obvious is OK. For example, I decided today, that I will sell my 21/2.8 ZE, because I use my Canon TS-E 24/3.5L II a lot more. Also, it will help to pay for the Canon TS-E 17/4L that I just ordered. Given that I will have the TS-E 17/4L and 24/3.5L II, I figure it's obvious that I should sell the 21/2.8 ZE. Don't get me wrong - I love the ZE, it's just that I don't use it. OTOH, my Contax 28/2.8 and 35-70/3.4 are staying. OTOOH, my Planar 85/1.4 MM is going. Damn balance sheets!

I own the Canon 17 TS-E and 24 TS-E II lenses. But I still have the Zeiss 21 lens. They are very different lenses. And I belive you will regret it if you sell your Zeiss 21

Bob, if money is not a big determining factor I would rather think about buying the CY 28/2.8 to fill the gap in your current series 15-21-35..

I agree with Hauxon in the sense that each mm's on the wide side means a lot. I have the series 14-21-28-35... where the 14 is Samyang, rest Zeiss. I dont really know what to upgrade to in the wide end (if possible), I am not too fond of ZEs because of the electronic aperture and a bit pricy too. Price also prevents me motivating the T/S's despite a solid interest for those since long.

On the other hand too many lenses prevents some from being used. For me it means that I rarely touch the 21/2.8 but having seen what it can do (mostly here at FM of course) I am reluctant to sell it. Still looking for opportunities to use it. Wow, we in the rich world really have our problems, dont we :-)

I have the 15, 21, and 35 f/2 (ZE's) and have been thinking a 28 is the way to fill the gap. I hate to say it though, most of my shooting involves hiking......and I just don't know if I'd be able to carry all that. This is blasphemy, but I'm almost thinking of picking up a 24-70 II. (It's heavier than an individual 28 or 35...but lighter than the combination of the two.)

That being said, I believe the 15-25 gap would cause me more trouble than the 21-35 gap. As others have said, the effective difference between 15 to 21 is bigger than you would expect just comparing numbers.

-Tim

There is no doubt in my mind that, for the shooter who has a target of having "the right focal length" in his bag, 15 to 25 is a big leap, and that 15 to 21 is probably a better balance, it being understood that your "next" FL is a 35 f:1.4, Bob.
Conversely, if your priority is to have "whatever best lenses are out there", which is my case, then the 25 was good enough for me to sell my 21 for.
But who am I to lecture on such an individual choice?

I really appreciate all of the comments on this topic. Of course, personal choice is always at the top of the list sometimes even beyond practicality. The varied comments here have been extremely helpful in terms of filling the camera bag with a suitable arsenal of varied focal lengths but also on the merits and detriments of each lens on its own. I think at this point, I will stay with the 21. I love this lens in my hands and I know what it can do under certain situations. The point is taken on the differences on going from 15 to 21 vs 25 and then to 35. Besides, my personal tendencies are to shoot wide so why not tend toward the wider end and have more choices . . . wide or super wide.

jcolwell wrote:
Sometimes the obvious is OK. For example, I decided today, that I will sell my 21/2.8 ZE, because I use my Canon TS-E 24/3.5L II a lot more. Also, it will help to pay for the Canon TS-E 17/4L that I just ordered. Given that I will have the TS-E 17/4L and 24/3.5L II, I figure it's obvious that I should sell the 21/2.8 ZE. Don't get me wrong - I love the ZE, it's just that I don't use it. OTOH, my Contax 28/2.8 and 35-70/3.4 are staying. OTOOH, my Planar 85/1.4 MM is going. Damn balance sheets!

Yes, I did very similar thing, selling my ZE 21 after finding I gravitate to the 24 TSE II for IQ in that focal range, and using the 16-35L II for convenience. I didn't want another lens to carry around in that range, and used the ZE money to finance a different lens (28-300L) that I found much more useful for my needs. Can't have it all.

Bob -- I think your keeping the 21 makes a lot of sense for your grouping of primes. I'd also suggest you buy the relatively inexpensive ZE 28/2 (used). Although some don't care for its reduced "Zeissiness", it looks very interesting as a variation, maybe useful in harsher contrast scenarios. I've been thinking about it myself. I had the ZE 21 and the ZE 35/2, and if I was carrying only those two, it was a huge focal leap between them. A 28 handles that gap nicely. If you buy used, you can always sell the 28 for what you paid for it if you don't like it. So why not give it a try?

Congrats on your 15mm!

Regarding Tims comment I carry my 21 ZE, 28 CY and 50 CY hiking and the 28 comes out most often

Gunzorro: '(28-300L) that I found much more useful for my needs. Can't have it all.'

I'd have thought that a 28-300mm would pretty much equate to having it all ;-)

And a note that old timers considered 28mm to be the 'normal' wide focal length, one reason why there are so many good ones. Most landscapes look great at 28mm.

And to say that whenever CZ release a new wide angle they always use the 21mm as the reference, for good reason. It is their gold standard. But if the focal length does not suit your subject, not much use.

Thanks for the insight Mike, I'll probably sit tight until it gets closer to spring. I don't shoot as much during the winter and maybe the path I want to take will become more clear by then. I do feel I need something between the 21 and 35, and 28 makes the most sense.....

-Tim

21 has more 3D and more drama. 25 has more subtlety. Somewhat lower contrast but greater sharpness and smoother transition to OOF. 25 has almost no distortion.

One thing to know though is that the max magnification is really about 0.25, similar to 21 and 35. It is not 0.4 as is listed on B&H and perhaps lensrentals. Zeiss website and my test put it at 0.25.

I liked the 21 but loved the 25. Same way I felt about the 35/2 vs. 35/1.4.

Just my pennies.
Jim

Philip -- Ha-ha! So true!

Sell the 21 ...?

I feel like some kind of dark European curse is about to descend on me just for typing it. I'm doing my best not to repeat it three times because I'm afraid something bad will happen, something like selling the zf21. There I've said it twice but you can't trick me Bob, I wont say it again ....ever.

philip_pj wrote:
And a note that old timers considered 28mm to be the 'normal' wide focal length, one reason why there are so many good ones. Most landscapes look great at 28mm.



What happened lately then, I can't find any modern, available 28 mm prime wiht excellent color correction and sharpness across the frame. One that will work on the D800E. There is the overpriced Elmarit v2, and the old C/Y f/2.8 with unsure Leitax conversion.

28/1.8G?

carstenw wrote:
28/1.8G?

Excellent sharpness, but unfortunately the same problem as nearly all Nikon lenses, lateral CA.
If I wasn't so annoyed by CA, I would have the Zeiss 28/2 already.

OneAnt wrote:
Sell the 21 ...?

I feel like some kind of dark European curse is about to descend on me just for typing it. I'm doing my best not to repeat it three times because I'm afraid something bad will happen, something like selling the zf21. There I've said it twice but you can't trick me Bob, I wont say it again ....ever.

Haha - Exactly my dilemma . . . and why I will stay with the 21 for now!