Okay.....first off this is a non scientific comparison of the 16-35 II and the Zeiss 15mm. The two shots were taken 3 days apart...and the framing is slightly different. Both processed through DPP with the same settings, didn't bother with trying to match color (or do anything with color...it's WB straight out of camera.) The big gray block is there since I'm posting files at 100%. (Not that these are that great....but...)
Both shots are at f/11. Canon on the top, Zeiss on the bottom.
It's hard to find any fault with the Zeiss in this comparison IMHO. The Nikon 14-24, Canon 17 TS-E, Samyang 14 and Canon 14 L would be much more competitive I would guess.
From look of it I would say its on par with 17 TS-E, except this is Zeiss with its look and Canon is Canon.. (without look, but still one of best wide-angles).
Samyang is I think quite sharp, but not perfectly accros whole frame and its quite a bit more "curvy". No idea about rest, but I dont think any zoom can touch this..
Lighting was a little tough for this shot but I rally liked the water rolling over the rocks in the foreground.
http://www.devine.us/img/s2/v60/p1201598746-5.jpg
No no no, please stop! This image pulled me over the edge and I ordered one from a delaer in Norway who had at least one in stock. The perspective really works here.
carstenw wrote:
The test results on the NEX-7 are not really relevant for these lenses, except perhaps the Samyang. No one buys a massive 1500 Euro or 3000 Euro super wide for crop camera use, when there are better native or other options.
But what if you have the lens and the camera anyway? How will they work together? The exceptionally high center resoultion of the 15 suggests that it will work well with cropped sensors. It will be interesting to see how it compares with a Distagon 21 on a 21-24 MP full frame camera.
Really two quite different lenses due to AOV. D15 falls away steadily, ZE/F D21 is very even across the whole frame, but the D15 starts out very high at image centre. This works fine as the centre is often the furthest point in the composition (like the image above), the edges and corners closest with higher magnification to offset the decay in MTF.
A great shot, TS, great clarity and colour/contrast in difficult lighting - a Distagon hallmark. The low distortion is such a wide kind of fools the eye into thinking its FL is longer.
philip_pj wrote:
Really two quite different lenses due to AOV. D15 falls away steadily, ZE/F D21 is very even across the whole frame, but the D15 starts out very high at image centre. This works fine as the centre is often the furthest point in the composition (like the image above), the edges and corners closest with higher magnification to offset the decay in MTF.
A great shot, TS, great clarity and colour/contrast in difficult lighting - a Distagon hallmark. The low distortion is such a wide kind of fools the eye into thinking its FL is longer.
Yes, it it clear than just a few mm from the centre at 25 lp/mm the D21 Z* on FF will pull ahead from the D15 at 40 lp/mm on APS-C, at any aperture.
What interests me about the D15 on APS-C is the lower distortion (and to get rid of the moustache shape), and the possibility of even lower CA than the D21 Z* on FF. I have learned to appreciate absence of color aberrations more than highest possible MTF in the corners, as long as they don't fall into the "blurry" category like the D 2/25 Z* does in the extreme corners.
Guess I was correct in naming the thread "support group" way back when.
-Tim
alundeb wrote:
No no no, please stop! This image pulled me over the edge and I ordered one from a delaer in Norway who had at least one in stock. The perspective really works here.
Seems like the ZF.2 mounts are harder to come by. There's a guy over on dpreview who ordered back in March (similar to me) and he's still waiting as well. Only difference is the mount.
