Believe it or not, I think the Tamron 14mm is really very decent on the canon FF DSLRs. The images are sharp. The color and contrast are not as great as the more expensive brands but the distortion is decent as well as corner sharpness. If you are going 21mm, the CZ is in my opinion the best all area super wide. Mark
Believe it or not, I think the Tamron 14mm is really very decent on the canon FF DSLRs. The images are sharp. The color and contrast are not as great as the more expensive brands but the distortion is decent as well as corner sharpness. If you are going 21mm, the CZ is in my opinion the best all area super wide. Mark
I'm getting conflicting reports about the Zeiss 15 3.5 clearing the mirror on the 5D, so I need to check. Is this one of the ones that sometimes clears and sometimes doesn't on the 5D?
that actually brings up an interesting point: which canon is the hardest to please, lens-clearance-wise? does the 5D hit the mirror before the 1Ds2? what about the 1Ds?
jfulton wrote:
Paul, that first is a BEAST of a shot! That's w-i-d-e!!!
Mark, I agree. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I really like a good, solid 28mm on FF
It takes a serious UWA lens to make the observation deck of Coit Tower look like the Zócalo! Have to agree that 28mm on FF is my ideal WA. By 21mm, the freak factor goes critical. I really prefer a fisheye at that point, rather than the rectilinear route.
Suze: my L15/3,5 (Zeiss lens in Leica mount) clears my 5D mirror fine. AFAIK, the ƒ2,8 version is more demanding in this respect (Guy's would not clear the mirror of the 5D he used to have, I believe).
Some shots with 15 + 5D below. I personally really like the colours from this lens. It has about a 110 degree FOV—so VERY wide. One of my favourite lenses, for sure. This is the only lens that can shoot a ceiling, floor and both walls of a rectangular building; there's one of my studio taken from a monopod, camera and lens up in the corner of the room, up where it meets the ceiling. Very low distortion, too. hth, KL
Kit,
When you have an opportunity you should use the Zeiss Distagon 15mm F3.5. It will give a different looks in terms of colors and saturation due to the differences betweent the Leica-Zeiss 15mm F3.5 Leica mount and the Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f3.5.
Pham Minh Son wrote:
Kit,
When you have an opportunity you should use the Zeiss Distagon 15mm F3.5. It will give a different looks in terms of colors and saturation due to the differences betweent the Leica-Zeiss 15mm F3.5 Leica mount and the Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f3.5.
-Son
This is due to the fact that Leica specified their own coatings be used on the filters in the built-in turret. Even thought it is a just a plain jane Clear/UV filter, it is a Lecia spec'd coating formula that massages the wavelenghts in a different manner than the Zeiss.
The Leica 15/3.5 is rare. Kit bought one of the last mint ones last winter. Chuck Jones saw some mint ones in some stores, but that was a while ago. There are ceretainly more Contax/Zeiss 15/3.5 versions floating around. Emanuele was asking for some shots as well.
In a perfect world, one photographer could do a side by side with both lenses. Kit- anybody offer you the CZ15/3.5 for you to compare with your L15/3.5? All I have now is the L15/2.8.
JJL: I would love to do a comparison of these two lenses. I find the colours from this lens remarkable; some the images have what I can only describe as a kind of dream-like quality. To some extent, this might just be a very beautiful flare effect!
If anyone in Australia has the Zeiss 15/3,5 and would like to do a side-by-side comparo (on a Canon FF body with the right adapter) I'm up for it. This lens (the Leica version) is one of my all-time favourites as I have mentioned, and it's one that I will never sell!
The 15mm F3.5 whether it is a Leica-Zeiss version or the Zeiss stand alone version is the only super wide angle lens that I have ever encountered that attenuated the CA to the point where it was unnoticeable.
I had the opportunity at one time to use them both, but I did not do a direct comparison between the two versions. However from my experience with these two lens, I noticed that the Zeiss stand alone version was more contrast and has a cooler look while the Leica has a more warmer look to it with lesser contrast but it was still very contrasty.
The biggest difference exist between the two lens is the physical make up of it besides the coating of the lens, which John Luke pointed out the mechanism for it (thanks John as always), but the aperature blade that was buit into these lens. The Leica-Zeiss version in Leica mount has the typical Leica aperature opening and that is the octagonal opening while the Zeiss stand alone version has the unique ninja star opening at the wide opening F-stops. This is what makes the bokeh to be very unique for the Zeiss lens, despite it is a very super wide angle with tremendous depth of field. This is the same reason why the Leica 35mm F1.4 is a very nice lens (Kurt has great experience with this lens) but the typical Leica aperature opening yields a less pleasant bokeh when compare to the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm F1.4. Thus, based on these evidences you can expect that your comparison will have these characteristics differences: 1) Color 2) Contrast 3) Bokeh
The 15mm F3.5 whether it is a Leica-Zeiss version or the Zeiss stand alone version is the only super wide angle lens that I have ever encountered that attenuated the CA to the point where it was unnoticeable.
I had the opportunity at one time to use them both, but I did not do a direct comparison between the two versions. However from my experience with these two lens, I noticed that the Zeiss stand alone version was more contrast and has a cooler look while the Leica has a more warmer look to it with lesser contrast but it was still very contrasty.
The biggest difference exist between the two lens is the physical make up of it besides the coating of the lens, which John Luke pointed out the mechanism for it (thanks John as always), but the aperature blade that was built into these lens. The Leica-Zeiss version in Leica mount has the typical Leica aperature opening and that is the octagonal opening while the Zeiss stand alone version has the unique ninja star opening at the wide opening F-stops. This is what makes the bokeh to be very unique for the Zeiss lens, despite it is a very super wide angle with tremendous depth of field. This is the same reason why the Leica 35mm F1.4 is a very nice lens (Kurt has great experience with this lens) but the typical Leica aperature opening yields a less pleasant bokeh when compare to the Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm F1.4. Thus, based on these evidences you can expect that your comparison will have these characteristics differences: 1) Color 2) Contrast 3) Bokeh
