randyp01 wrote:
Looking to purchase another wide angle lens. Sticking with Zeiss. I'm replacing a 17-35 2.8 Contax N and I've found that I shoot more towards the middle of the lens when reviewing my footage. Either the 21 or 25 will suit my FL needs.
Why is there a need to replace the N17-35? Those 2 lenses are not that small compared to the zoom.
OneAnt wrote:
Just very different lenses, imagine the disappointment many landscape togs would suffer if the 21 had the render of the 25 or 35. Its why a 140 flavors icecream shop always has a 21mm vanilla.
...very rich flavours these two newer Zeiss and yet the 15 is a lens that compliments the 21 and its the newest design (and double cream). I guess you see the new 25 and 35 as upgrades but I see them as very different lenses. In OPs question I thought hard about the usefulness and it came down to subject and FL and the possibilities. I desperately want the 24 but would never think twice about trading my 21, not the same lens and not as simple as one is better than the other but for a use and at a FL then one becomes better suited ....but it doesnt make the other old and useless. OP has got two great choices.
I'm just grateful that the 15 is just a wee bit too wide for me but will fall about all over the place if Zeiss make something longer then the 100 and I suppose they are certain to do that ....and especially if I beg.
To add more confusion to the mix, I shot at 21mm and 25mm yesterday during a commercial shoot. I kept finding that for environmental and establishing that 25mm wasn't enough and for people shots that 21mm was too far.....gah. The convenience of a zoom......
As a Contax zoom kind of person (35-70 and 100-300 are my mainstays at long FLs) the N17-35/2.8 (and their later effort, the Sony-only ZA 16-35/2.8) look unconvincing to me, MWP.
Poor corners mostly is why, but poor performance generally outside a great centre area, and huge filter rings and 900 gram weights don't help. How do you find the 4% distortion and heavy decline in fine detail works out on the wide end? The only decent (prime competing) wide zoom for FF seems to be Nikon's 14-24, which is unacceptable for other, very obvious reasons.
I guess in a balance of utility (not missing the shot with a lens change) and performance, I'll reach into the bag and work the bayonet mount.
There is no ideal UWA zoom at the moment. I do agree the weight, bulk and filter size are no good. But there isn't any f2.8 UWA that is small enough to make me think maybe I should change to that. Do remember that this one zoom covers the focal length of 5 Zeiss lenses - 18/3.5, 21/2.8, 25/2.8, 28/2 and 35/2 (a combine weight of ~3kg). A 95mm filter option is better than bulbous front elements. So is not all bad but a perspective of half full or empty.
IMO, this zoom is as good as it can get on FF. The Contax N 17-35 is no prime and will not give you what the ZE21/2.8 can do wide open. I find the zone B and C improve considerably when stopped down. For landscape, cityscape done at f8, it is just as good. There are LoCA wide open under high contrast conditions but under these conditions, most lenses will probably suffer the same.
The strength of the lens is definitely AF and FL versatility with Zeiss signature rendering. Of course, this lens falls outside the scope of OP's choices. I am making a passing remark in my previous post.
wayne seltzer wrote:
+1
Well said!
Yep, 135 or 180 z* Sonnar coming next for sure.
If I can cautiously venture a prediction on the possibility of a tele lens, about which I asked Zeiss many moons ago in the hope they will pit something against the superb Red Dot Apo teles. Their CP.2 range is now featuring a 135mm/2.1 as well as a superspeed 85mm/1.5, and since these are essentially the same designs as the Zx range it/they may appear in the lineup soon also. A little short for me though, as it is close to the 100MP I plan for down the line. But that is also the Zeiss way, two focal lengths close to each other, each with definite differences in character and application. The superspeed 85mm version is interesting as a possibility of being an 85mm/1.2 in Zx, or at least an updated 1.4, given they have had the 85mm/2.1 (?same as existing Zx 85/1.4 optically) since their inception. Like back in the Contax RTS film era, these days are definitely a great time for Zeiss afficionados.
Martin
Sorry I went a bit off the thread topic.
