Thanks Scott. Your conclusions match mine, only I returned the Zeiss 15 when I found almost all my images had to be tilted upward for composition and I got the leaning tree problem. I got a 16-35 for its versatility and the times when I could use 16mm with minimum upward tilt. The 17TSE or Samyang gets the rest of my UWA work.
You are correct, the Zeiss 15 is a great night lens. I am tempted to repurchase, but I have a feeling night work is going to move towards guided systems and I think I will not go there.
What I really want is a 14 shift only lens that's as sharp as the 17, and f4 will be fine.
Scott Stoness wrote:
What do you suggest for a better cropping - I could use DPP to process and then open photoshop and go actual pixels and then crop and post.
DPP has a trim tool for cropping That would be a good way to go and skip any PS step.
Also, make sure that any DLO or other optimization is turned off.
Testing is more difficult than most people imagine. It requires strict control, and nailing down every variable and tracking down the cause of every anomaly. Jim knows something (more than a little) about this from his career as a scientist.
Is it my imagination, or do the corner crops of 24 TSE2 / Z21 (that Jim showed) look sharper than the center crops that Scott showed? By time the images went through two different software (converter and Aperture) and resizing, there are just too many variables.
I tend to use UWA lenses (at least those wider than let's say 21mm) for more intimate landscape....small to midsize waterfalls in the woods, etc. (Maybe it's from being the part of the East Coast that I'm from....just don't have the grand size that you see in other parts of the country and/or world.) So most of my shots are not far off level, trying to work some interest into the foreground. I don't tend to use grads, so the Zeiss fit my needs nicely.
I'm sure this will come as blasphemy, but for $150 the Marumi polarizer (in my testing) is a quality solution. Unfortunately it takes some hacking to combine n ND (for example) with a CP...but the result is still a small and fairly light solution.
I understand the flexibility of the TS-E is hard to beat, but so far I've been very happy with the Zeiss 15/21 solution. As I'm sure there are a ton more of happy 17/24 TS-E users.
Appreciate the effort you put into this comparison Scott!
Monito wrote:
... do the corner crops of 24 TSE2 / Z21 (that Jim showed) look sharper than the center crops that Scott showed? By time the images went through two different software (converter and Aperture) and resizing, there are just too many variables.
Maybe... My test images have no PP, except as described. In this case, only Auto-contrast, no sharpening or other stuff either in ACR when importing the RAW file, or in CS PS6 when doing alt-shift-ctrl-L.
tsdevine wrote:
I'm sure this will come as blasphemy, but for $150 the Marumi polarizer (in my testing) is a quality solution. Unfortunately it takes some hacking to combine n ND (for example) with a CP...but the result is still a small and fairly light solution.
-Tim
After doing some research I think the Marumi polarizer is the only reasonable option out there if you want to avoid vignetting. I asked Zeiss about their current polarizer filter and they confirmed that it does vignette. They indicated that they will have a slim solution available soon, but given that the Marumi has received good technical reviews I would buy the Marumi even if Zeiss comes out with a slim CP.
Wow, love Zeiss but I'm glad I didn't spend the $500 and find out it vignettes. I can confirm the Marumi doesn't, at least at stopped down. I have not tried it shooting wide open.
To create a ND/CP combo, I had to mount the ND glass inside the front of the CP. Even with a Marumi CP/Slimb B+W ND combo I'd get vignetting. Once I put the glass inside the front of the CP, there was no vignetting.
A while back I did an informal test of a Zeiss, Singh-Ray, Hoya HD and Marumi CP in 82mm. Other than color differences, I didn't notice too much difference in sharpness, resolution, etc. I know there are some that wouldn't consider putting a $150 CP on the front of a $3000 lens....but the Marumi is s pretty good product.
-Tim
B Landau wrote:
After doing some research I think the Marumi polarizer is the only reasonable option out there if you want to avoid vignetting. I asked Zeiss about their current polarizer filter and they confirmed that it does vignette. They indicated that they will have a slim solution available soon, but given that the Marumi has received good technical reviews I would buy the Marumi even if Zeiss comes out with a slim CP.
I prefer not switching filters too often with the Zeiss 15/2.8 because the front lens is very near the surface of the filter. One mistake and your front lens can be scratched.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Scott,
Did you consider getting the Canon 14mm f/2.8L II instead of the Zeiss?
Yes I did but from all my research:
1) The zeiss 15 had better ca, and better resolution
2) The zeiss 15 had a hard stop at infinity which made night photography much easier
And I was buying the lens mostly for night shooting.
I relied on digilloyd.com a lot to reseach the conclusion.
With the integrated hood, it's hard to get the filter too far misaligned...so far I haven't had any snafus. I do think I'm going to end up wearing the paint around the inside of the hood from threading the filters.
The most I'll be switching between is a CP and CP/ND combo, and how much depends on how lighting changes.
-Tim
wiseguy010 wrote:
I prefer not switching filters too often with the Zeiss 15/2.8 because the front lens is very near the surface of the filter. One mistake and your front lens can be scratched.
tsdevine wrote:
With the integrated hood, it's hard to get the filter too far misaligned...so far I haven't had any snafus. I do think I'm going to end up wearing the paint around the inside of the hood from threading the filters.
The most I'll be switching between is a CP and CP/ND combo, and how much depends on how lighting changes.
-Tim
A bit of a revival but it's worth noting that Zeiss are offering to remove the built in hood to allow use of 100mm filter systems with a suitable 95mm adapter ring. http://lenses.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/service/modification_distagont2815.html
Probably not the cheapest way to achieve the possibility but at least warranty won't be voided.
Bob
I do a lot of night shooting (auroras and such) and to me, the 17 TS-E's lack of vignetting wins the 2.8 aperture by a big margin, it's so nice to have an almost evenly lit night sky with wide open apertures, even if it's an f/4. My previous night lenses were Samyang 14, Zeiss F-Distagon 16/2.8, and Zeiss 21/2.8 but I am now preferring the slower f/4 TS-E for it's relative lack of vignetting. I will admit though, it's not good to have the moon or anything that bright in the frame with the 17 TS-E, it can flare like crazy.
I own personally today the 17 TS-E + 24 TS-E II and previously owned the 21ZE. I have had the 15 ZE on loan for testing, and my experience is that 24 TS-E II was the absolute king of uniform image quality, and the 17 TS-E and 15 ZE were equals in sharpness. I had the 15 ZE on loan before I finalized my purchase of the 17 TS-E to figure out which would suit me better and I figured I would get a lot more usage out of the TS-E, and haven't looked back since. Although the 15 ZE is definitely the coolest lens I've ever seen. I figure if Batman were a photographer, he'd have the Zeiss 15/2.8 Z*.
I chose the Z15/2.8 based on its ability to be filtered. I have the TS-E24II but I thought that the TS-E17 would frustrate me but I'm sure one will end up in the bag one day.
I think Zeiss should dig out some centre grads for these lenses....my Z135/2 loses over 3 stops in the corners when used wide open.
kiddik -- You clearly state my objection to the Zeiss ZE wide angle designs, and why I sold my ZE 21/2.8, when I owned it and the 24TSE II (plus the versatile 16-35L II). I found daylight shots to have excessive vignetting (or white-hot centers), making balancing the center to the edges very problematic and time consuming, or else just throwing in the towel and accepting the dark sides. I'm sure I'll eventually purchase some more ZE WA lenses, but I'm extremely happy with the 17TSE and 24TSE for now. If I want vignetting, I can get it much more inexpensively with the Samyang 14/2.8 and that 16-35L!
I'm surprised the corner performance is equal..since the TSEs dont really have 'corners' like that of a standard lens design (at 0/shift - 0/tilt of course)
Thanks for taking the time to compare.
Whilst these comparisons are interesting they have nothing at all to do with each other. The 17mm is a different focal length to the Ziess, the TSE lens is a highly specialised tilt and shift where as the Ziess is the benchmark rectilinear super wide angle. A better comparison would be the Canon 14mm to the Ziess 15mm.
But for myself the comparison I would like to see is the Rodenstock 23mm mounted on a Sinar arTEC with P45+ back in comparison to the TSE 17mm on a 5D MKII or III (although the only problem is the Phase One back is much higher resolution), until Canon gets off it's backside and releases a camera with similar resoultion.
