a couple of pics taken at the Getty Center today:

The clarity (from this lens and Zeiss lenses in general) is what gets me. I've seen this exhibited in pictures of mountains too. These image really do feel like theres nothing between you and the scene that was photographed. Your two images above, snowboarder, really showcase this.

Bluetsunami, i think that is more from a good photographer than from this lens.

I still have not seen anything from this ZE21 that could not have been done pretty much to the same extent with any other 20/21mm (besides those awful zuikos haha).

It's already on my wishlist. Nice starburst!

ISO1600 wrote:
Bluetsunami, i think that is more from a good photographer than from this lens.

I still have not seen anything from this ZE21 that could not have been done pretty much to the same extent with any other 20/21mm (besides those awful zuikos haha).


If that is the case, ISO, how do you explain that "good photographers" like Snowboarder tend to gravitate towards Zeiss lenses?
BTW, you are not the only one to make this case. Others also contend that, for example, at f:8 all lenses pretty much look the same.

If that is the case, ISO, how do you explain that "good photographers" like Snowboarder tend to gravitate towards Zeiss lenses?There are plenty of awful photographs taken with Zeiss lenses, too. And plenty of good photographs taken with Canon, Nikon, Leica, Olympus lenses etc. Look on pbase at the ZF21 photos - they might as well have been taken with a point and shoot. While lenses do make some difference, light, luck and skill have a much greater influence on the quality of a photograph, especially when we're talking top primes from one brand against top primes from another. The Zeiss 21mm is arguably the best at its focal length, but there are certainly other pieces of equipment that are able to take equally fantastic photos, particularly ones that are as heavily post-processed as some of the photos on this thread. That is the skill of a photographer and an editor above and beyond anything else, and I think that's a much more laudable skill than the ability to buy expensive lenses.

I did not say it was completely unnecessary to have a high end lens to do fine art photography, i just said most of these could be done "pretty much the same" with lower lenses.

I just said i have not seen any "wow that must be from a 21mm ZE Distagon!!!" shots yet, and i doubt i will. There are so many great UWA/WA lenses out there, i don't think you need to spend $2000 on a manual focus prime these days to take great pictures.

Well, other great wide angle lenses also tend to cost 2000$ or more, like the Canon 24 TS-E and 17 TS-E, and the Nikon 14-24.
Now as to shots that I couldn't have taken with a lesser lens, it is all relative, of course. Because, strictly speaking, you are right, any lens can take the same picture providing it offers the right focal length, and it will give a pretty decent account of the scene that is in the viewfinder. And, certainly, cheap lenses tend to get better a lot faster than expensive ones, so the gap in quality is closing, whereas the gap in price is not, making each incremental improvement more and more expensive.
That being said, there is no way my previous WA prime, Canon EF 24mm f:2.8, a good lens in its own right, and offering very good value, could have done what ZE 21 did with this shot. It has to do with the DOF, and a learned member tried to tell me how Zeiss used the field of curvature in a clever way to get this sort of DOF...

ISO1600 wrote:
Bluetsunami, i think that is more from a good photographer than from this lens.

I still have not seen anything from this ZE21 that could not have been done pretty much to the same extent with any other 20/21mm (besides those awful zuikos haha).

Definitely won't argue with the competence of the photographer behind the lens attributing to the resulting quality of the image! I certainly agree.

My original post was just an observation on how strikingly clear it all looks though the beautifully even exposure of the sky and building seem to really add to this effect (of being drawn into the photograph).

ISO1600 wrote:
I just said i have not seen any "wow that must be from a 21mm ZE Distagon!!!" shots yet, and i doubt i will.

Not sure what you're expecting to see... Sharpness? Those are web sized pictures,
my little Ricoh will do great for a 1000x667 posting. Color? Contrast? It would be unfair
to post an untouched picture if I do some post work to all my pictures.
All I can do here is give you a taste of the feel for the lens, to know that it's better
than anything I've ever shot wide, you have to trust me.
It's impossible to take each shot with a set of wide lenses and post full size 21MP samples
treated the same way so you could see that the Zeiss is better...

Oh i am sure the lens is fantastic, at least as good as the original 21 Distagon.... i will admit that a large part of the "wow!" factor for the C/Y version didn't come until i had used it.

ISO1600 wrote:
... I just said i have not seen any "wow that must be from a 21mm ZE Distagon!!!" shots yet, and i doubt i will. ...

It takes a lot of guts to say that, because if it turns out that it actually was a Canon EF-S 18-55 non IS, you have exposed yourself in a less than optimal way.

philber wrote:
Well, other great wide angle lenses also tend to cost 2000$ or more, like the Canon 24 TS-E and 17 TS-E, and the Nikon 14-24.
Now as to shots that I couldn't have taken with a lesser lens, it is all relative, of course. Because, strictly speaking, you are right, any lens can take the same picture providing it offers the right focal length, and it will give a pretty decent account of the scene that is in the viewfinder. And, certainly, cheap lenses tend to get better a lot faster than expensive ones, so the gap in quality is closing, whereas the gap in price is not, making each incremental improvement more and more expensive.
That being said, there is no way my previous WA prime, Canon EF 24mm f:2.8, a good lens in its own right, and offering very good value, could have done what ZE 21 did with this shot. It has to do with the DOF, and a learned member tried to tell me how Zeiss used the field of curvature in a clever way to get this sort of DOF...


Are you saying that Zeiss lenses have more or different DOF? Not arguing, just trying to understand.

haha people have been swearing for years that their Zeiss have more DOF. hahahaha

Functional DOF depends on more than just focal length. There's also sensor size, viewing distance, lens construction (types, arrangement, and number of elements), etc. So it is quite possible that one lens at focal length A has more or less functional DOF than another lens at focal length A when keeping other factors consistent.

I have to agree that in real world situations-- making photos-- it's not that the Zeiss has some kind of magic, and that 99.5% (made up number) of people could distinguish between identical photos made with the Zeiss or some other solid lens (not even another great lens).

Of course, that doesn't mean the Zeiss isn't special... it's one hell of a sharp lens all the way into the corners. I think that is noticeable for people who are looking for it. It's just that the vast majority of people aren't looking for it-- and even if they noticed it... it wouldn't make much difference in their overall valuation of the image.

I think that if we were honest with ourselves-- outside of a VERY small niche of mostly technical, scientific photography-- the pursuit of diminishing returns in IQ (sharpness, contrast, color, etc) are almost entirely internally driven.

We'd have to admit that, because outside of a small group of technically minded, IQ (relative term) obsessed people... this stuff doesn't really matter.

Even within the photography as art and photography as a documentarian's tool or photography as truth (a lie).... this stuff doesn't really matter.

But, I think, the pursuit of these diminishing returns for internal reasons (that is: we become obsessed with it) is valid enough.

And the Zeiss 21 has some very nice qualities.

justruss wrote:
I have to agree that in real world situations-- making photos-- it's not that the Zeiss has some kind of magic, and that 99.5% (made up number) of people could distinguish between identical photos made with the Zeiss or some other solid lens (not even another great lens).

I'll disagree with this statement. Most of the people who see my work (not tiny websize 1000px thumbnails shown in internet forums but real prints) generally prefer the photos taken with Zeiss lenses. And I mean "normal" people who know nothing about photography. Typical comment from them about Zeiss photos is that they give feeling of "being there" and not watching picture of subject. Of course I haven't done controlled test etc. but this comment is based on audience comments from last few years, after I started shooting with alternative lenses.

Recently I shoot "giving name to baby"-party (sorry about limited English vocabulary...) shooting with Distagon 2/35 and Planar 1.7/50. After seeing photos the mother asked why these photos look so different than photos I took at her wedding party (using Canon 28/1.8, 50/1.4 & 85/1.2LmkII mainly)? She said something like "these look much more real, like I could touch people in pictures". I could not identify any other reason except using different lenses, all photos were printed directly from Aperture with similar processing. She does not have any photography background, neither technical interest to photography. Of course I felt bad not having enough "balls" to do wedding with manual focus lenses based on the feedback, but at the time I didn't want risk of getting the important shots at wedding (I'm extreme slow with manual focusing).



Since this is supposed to be photo thread, attached few photos from last weekend. Hopefully this weekend I can take some daylight photos as well, the new lens yet has not seen sunlight... (very wet and dark in Finland this time of year)

Keikyä semetary - f/2.8 13s ISO100:

Keikyä Lions Statue - f/2.8 3.2s ISO100:

--
Samuli Vahonen
http://www.vahonen.com

I used to "look for it" (the difference), and i used to worry about corners and stuff, but then i started caring more about taking pictures and documenting my life while having fun. This is the whole reason i don't care much for "alt" stuff anymore, and shoot a D700.
I honestly think ZE stuff has just as much right to be posted in the Canon forum as EF-S stuff. It is native mount, after all.