Steve Spencer wrote:
As the photozone site makes clear you can't compare across systems like that.

its horses for courses, they' re made for different purposes, even they might be in a similar focal lenghts. That's why I like to have both - a prime quality shift and a prime quality non shift.

In real life, you don't care if the MTF is a bit higher or not, but how you get bloody big object in a small room on the sensor. In these moments, you like the day your bought the N14-24, cause you can just zoom out enough to get b. object into the picture

It's not directly in context of a single image's quality, but a shiftlens offers flatstitching, which makes it more versatile vs a prime. That might save your life, the day when you need a 2:1-ratio, and a big output, so you can't crop with a wider focal lenghts.



17 TS-E with the Canon 1.4 TE

I' ve the N 1424 and been testing TSE 24, TSE 17 and TSE 17+1.4 TC, at the same day and situation:
While both the TSE 24 or TSE 17 are fine - it depends quite much on the shooting style - the TSE 17+1.4 TC produces quite a noticable amount of CA and distortion; in 99 % of all cases, you can't correct that distortion.. resolution and contrast wasn't that bad, but not really good either, I never would spendt 3000 on that combo.

As I' ve the N 14-24 (with the weakr side at 24), the TSE 24 is for my needs just the best addition.

Another photographer with different needs might be very happy with the ZE-21 - I have no problems whith that, I 'm rather glad that we can chose

When we think back what the choices were not so long ago: no 17 TS-E, no 24 TS-E, no 14-24, no ZE 21, no 24L II. So let's not complain that we don't all agree on which one is best. Best is the choice we have...

phillipe (??)

I didn't mean to °harmonise° to the point of not seeing differencies betweeen these lenses; yes the' are some, but the use of it, especially between fix focus and shift plays here a bigger role than in other comparisons.

Touché. I would love to be able to afford all of them, like Boris, but most of us can only own 1 or 2 of these lenses. If you (like me) don't use ND filters I am not at all bothered by the fact that fitting a CP is both clumsy and expensive - but doable. Even if there is a filter thread on the 14-24 I would not be willing to pay $200 for a CP .... and only get part of the sky polarized. I would much rather use the grad filter in Lightroom which works 200% better than any CP - as you have total control over how much polarization to apply.

montespluga wrote:

As I' ve the N 14-24 (with the weakr side at 24), the TSE 24 is for my needs just the best addition.

Another photographer with different needs might be very happy with the ZE-21 - I have no problems whith that, I 'm rather glad that we can chose

Would become a heavy bag, don't you think so?

There's one thing that I apreciate much with DSLR - not beeing donkey anymore and carring heavy 4/5'-cams, another bag with film casettes, studio torches, etc... and I don't want o go back.

Corrcet me if I' wrong, but I think that polarizing filter dont work properly with UW.

Perhaps it is just me, but all the landscape and architecture samples from the Nikon I've seen so far looked boring and lacking presence.

I think the Nikon is a great lens, with great sharpness, vignetting, flare resistance and CA correction, I think it is excellent for sports and people photography, but for a landscape lens, the Zeiss Distagon and Canon TSE offerings are more attractive for me.

Mirek Elsner wrote:
Perhaps it is just me, but all the landscape and architecture samples from the Nikon I've seen so far looked boring and lacking presence.


I'm not talking about the Nikon in particular, but all these new computer generated designs are really great and seem to have great resolution and corrected aberrations.

But the reason I stick with Zeiss is something that a good friend of mine explains very well: Shooting with non-Zeiss lenses is like looking at the world through a window, while with Zeiss it's like you actually open the window and breathe the fresh air

I actually think this is very true. Zeiss lenses may not always be the best in resolution and corrected aberrations, but they always have this unbelievable clarity and 3D feel.

I have just spend 1/2 a day shooting with my new 21ZE and my 16-35mm II @21mm.
I must say of these two samples the Zeiss is superior all the way up to f11.

Blades of grass stand out as blades of grass on my lawn with the Zeiss. It seems to have extra zing compared to the Canon.

I did notice the far left hand side seems to be slightly soft with the Zeiss compared to the Canon which is annoying. I needed to focus into the left hand side to reduce this softness.

The Zeiss seems to hold a greater depth of field compared to Canon at the same aperature. I presume this is curvature of field at work here. It is most noticable in the foreground. Im not talking about pixel peeping here either it is noticable at 25% viewing magnification.

I have to say though the Canon zoom isn't a bad lens! I was rather suprised to see how good it actually was.

I found it to be very difficult to compare the lenses. You cant just focus both lenses at the same point in the scene as curvature will favour one over the other. e.g the Zeiss might beat the Canon but then if I focus the Canon slight closer the Canon catches up on the Zeiss.

magiclight
I'm not surprised at all about the ZE 21 beeing superior than the 16-35mm II @21mm, that could be expected.

the far left hand side seems to be slightly soft with
looks like a out out of axis, or a sensor offsett


Ed, another way of describing 3 D?
the N14-24 is closer in rendering colors and tones to the CYZ than the °normal° Canons, even L's. .

montespluga wrote:
magiclight
I'm not surprised at all about the ZE 21 beeing superior than the 16-35mm II @21mm, that could be expected.

Ed, another way of describing 3 D?
the N14-24 is closer in rendering colors and tones to the CYZ than the �normal� Canons, even L's. .

The ZE had better have better IQ than the 16-35 II. It is not cheaper, not lighter, not faster, so, outside from IQ, what advantage would it have to offset the absence of AF and the fixed focal length?

The new lens is spectacular. I have always been fond of the 21 and for good reason. It holds the corners sharp from edge to edge. One of my favorite seascape pictures I have taken was with the old 21 on a idsii. You can see it here:

http://icameradb.com/showphoto.php?photoid=45

I can post it here but I also want your feedback since the gallery software on the site above was written by me and not a pre packed gallery.

Thanks

Spectacular shot, Jorge! Yes, the lens is great, but that alone is not enough...

NCAndy wrote:
I did a few comparison shots of my ZE21 and the 16-35mk2 today. Neither lens is sharp in the extreme corners at f2.8 but the Zeiss is better with much less CA (really next to none on the ZE). At f5.6 the ZE21 is sharp in all but the very tip of each corner while the Canon is a bit better than wide open but not close to the Zeiss. By f11 the two are pretty close. The Zeiss is sharp right into the extreme corner tip and the Canon is almost as good. Any difference is only apparent at 100% on my monitor. The Canon still shows substantial CA stopped down.

My test wasn't perfect of course but I used a 5D2 at infinity focus with mirror lockup and cable release at ISO 400 to keep the ss up due to the wind. My 16-35 is due to go back to Canon for a cleaning after going through the Grand Canyon on a raft with me and I'll ask to have it calibrated then too. I doubt it will improve much but it never hurts to try.

I can post corner crops if anyone is interested.

I'd be interested to see corner crops. I need to do some formal testing, but so far my 16-35ii's corners are borderline acceptable, even at f/11.

Are you happy you bought the Zeiss in this case?

My ZE21 is noticeably better in the corners than my 16-35 II.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/836585/0#7788102

-Tim

Here is an example of a more than 100% edge crop from the ZE 21. Frankly, Laura, it better be "better" than a zoom like the 16-35, because, as it is not lighter, or cheaper, or faster, what else does it have to offer than superior IQ to offset what it doesn't have, i.e. AF and zoom flexibility?
Hope this helps.

Is this hand-held shot?
Amazing.....

Which shot are you asking about, Paul?

The last shot posted with tall, good looking buiding...

That opening seascape is quite nice, a real winner. The richness of the 21 detail is the best IMHO. The new Nikons and Canons have very high resolution, etc, but this 21 really paints a lovely landscape that I don't see in the new superwide Nikons and Canons. Some are describing them as clinically sharp, and maybe that's the correct description. The 21 is not so clinical.

Jorge Torralba wrote:
The new lens is spectacular. I have always been fond of the 21 and for good reason. It holds the corners sharp from edge to edge. One of my favorite seascape pictures I have taken was with the old 21 on a idsii. You can see it here:

http://icameradb.com/showphoto.php?photoid=45

I can post it here but I also want your feedback since the gallery software on the site above was written by me and not a pre packed gallery.

Thanks

Thanks to the people focusing on photographic quality rather than the usual suspects of metrics-based image 'quality'; and for the images that give the reader/viewer an excellent idea of what a lens actually delivers.