I own both. The Zeiss is very nice, but I wouldn't sell my 16-35L II. In fact, I would get rid of the Zeiss before I considered selling the 16-35. The 16-35 is one of my most used lenses. I seldom use the 21/2.8.
I own a 16-36 II, but have never owned the Zeiss. I would suspect the Zeiss blows away the Canon in IQ, but you loose the zoom and AF. I was going to buy the Zeiss 21, but bought the Canon TS-E 24 II instead and I'm glad I did. Amazing lens! The IQ is incredible and you have the T/S feature.
I'm the opposite, have both.....use the Zeiss whenever I can. Rumor has it Zeiss may come out with a 15mm or 16mm prime....if that happens I imagine I'd be selling the 16-35 II and going that route.
It is nice to have the flexibility of a zoom. But if I can have 16/21/35 covered with Zeiss primes, I'd probably be happy.
Aside from the flexibility of the zoom, any AF lens is heaps better than a MF lens especially if, like me, you like to shoot on the fly and seldom use a tripod. I had the Nikon 14-24G and LOVE the IQ but MF got the better of me, so I sold it and bought a 17-40L and 24L II and never looked back. FWIW, I am using my 17-40L a lot more than my 24L II because of the zoom range. Zoom + AF will give you tons of keepers.
Gunzorro wrote:
I own both. The Zeiss is very nice, but I wouldn't sell my 16-35L II. In fact, I would get rid of the Zeiss before I considered selling the 16-35. The 16-35 is one of my most used lenses. I seldom use the 21/2.8.
I am with gunzorro, though I dont own the zeiss. That much said, one is not inherently better than the other. it really all depends on your needs. the canon is quite good at 21mm f11, if that where you will be shooting landscapes. it really comes down to you and what you value most.
If you want higher performance but also still want the flexibility a zoom gives you, why not the Nikon 14-24? It's not quite as good as the Zeiss overall, but it is darn close and in some ways better (no complex distortion, no cyan corners).
user222 -- Yes, the 24TS-E II is what further complicates my relationship with the 21/2.8. They are very close to the same image size and magnification, and the IQ is at least as good (if not better) in the 24 (certainly less distortion). Add to that the ability to shift to produce wider panoramic composites, and the 24 can actually act like a 14mm for narrow panos, or blocked into a grid it rivals UWA medium format quality. So, between my 16-35 and the 24TS, the 21/2.8 is often the odd-man-out. That is why I consider it not vital in my useage. Don't misunderstand, the 21 is a wonderful lens, but it is limited depending on your approach.
I recently picked up my first manual focus lens (zeiss MP 50/2). In fact, that's what spurred my interest in the 21mm. Had to laugh because...one of the 50 MP reviewers on FM said "Once I bought the 50 MP...I purchased the Distagon 21mm within a week." That's kind of the position I found myself in...hah...
After my first day out with the 50 MP, I was impressed by all the focus hits! Much more than my former 50L with AF (still like that lens though too, just different).
I'm still in the honeymoon phase...but I am manual focus convert for sure.
helimat wrote:
The Zeiss blows the zoom out of the water at 21mm. But not as good at 16 or 35mm...
Exactly. Different tools. If you can get along with a fixed 21 and manual focus, grab the Zeiss. Otherwise, the Canon 16-35 mkII is your tool of choice. For me, I prefer the flexibility of a zoom and auto focus. But your shooting needs may be different.
I'd rather have the TS-E 24 II alongside the zoom than the ZE 21. More flexibility, especially for producing big prints (stitched panos via simple shifts, for example) and for some of the architecture and cityscapes I shoot. But if you're anticipating a lot of handheld use, then the nod goes to the zeiss.
I had the 16-35 II, but sold it for the Zeiss 21mm and am very happy. Also have the 24mm T/S II, and very happy with that. If I get another zoom to go with these primes, it will be the 17-40mm because of lighter weight, smaller filter, lower cost, and comparable quality at my shooting apertures.
