Yakim Peled wrote:
Both have AF. And I will be happy to see how the 21/2.8 fairs against the 16-35/2.8 II in a real world test. So, for the EF mount I see no reason to get excited.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
The old 21 f/2.8 trashes the 16-35 II, so I'd expect to see the same or better from the new 21. Very exciting to me all of the announcements. The build quality of these lenses alone is wonderful and worth the price of admission.
I don't feel happy with my Canon 85 f1.8, so I will be trying out a Zeiss 85 f1.4. It will be available in a month, more or less, for some 1350€. I will then report back to this board.
StevenPA wrote:
Slaughters? Obliterates? Embarrasses? Which adjective would you like to use?
In real world photography, there is no better 21mm lens. Period.
...for SLRs. The rangefinder Biogon designs match the 21mm Distagon and are perhaps even better. Unfortunately there are no full-frame rangefinder sensors, so you can only see that in a film comparison with all the attendant problems.
StevenPA wrote:
Slaughters? Obliterates? Embarrasses? Which adjective would you like to use?
In real world photography, there is no better 21mm lens. Period. The 16-35 II may have improved corners, but they still can't touch the Zeiss.
+1
Anyone who doubts this has never used the lens. Anyone who has used the lens will tell you the same thing. The CZ21 is the most remarkable lens I have ever owned. By a long, long shot.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Trashes? Did 16-9 published such a comparison? Did others?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
16-9 did a comparison in a roundabout way. They did a Nikon 14-24 review, comparing it to (among others) the Zeiss 21 and the Canon 16-35II. The rankings were like this, and in no uncertain terms:
Zeiss 21 > Nikon 14-24 > Canon 16-35II.
So yeah, the Zeiss trashes the Canon. Wide angle just doesn't seem to be Canon's forte.
It's not that I don't believe you but as these lenses are extremely rare in Israel I have to rely on internet tests. Thus, comparative pictures would be nice. If you don't have them, it's O.K. but I just wondered if anybody has ever tested both side by side.
fourfa wrote:
...for SLRs. The rangefinder Biogon designs match the 21mm Distagon and are perhaps even better. Unfortunately there are no full-frame rangefinder sensors, so you can only see that in a film comparison with all the attendant problems.
You mean the 2,8/21mm ZM Biogon? Definitely a sweet lens.
As for film, I don't know, I don't see any problems with it... I recently went back to shooting film.
just that comparisons via film usually end up being comparisons of $600 consumer scanners, not $2000 lenses. it's certainly easier to test gear in the digital age.
Yakim Peled wrote:
It's not that I don't believe you but as these lenses are extremely rare in Israel I have to rely on internet tests. Thus, comparative pictures would be nice. If you don't have them, it's O.K. but I just wondered if anybody has ever tested both side by side.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
I can post some FF crops (including edge/corners) from the CZ21 later which will not need any 16-35 II crops to compare to. It'll be all too obvious.
Naturally. But look at the MTFs for both lenses. The Biogon is better, no question, but it's _very_ close, and the Biogon isn't limited to a retrofocus design, which makes the Distagon even more impressive.
[edit] I have no interest in M lenses, but I just had a look at the MTFs for their Elmarit 21/2.8. Speechless...
fourfa wrote:
just that comparisons via film usually end up being comparisons of $600 consumer scanners, not $2000 lenses. it's certainly easier to test gear in the digital age.
Ahh, I see what you mean. True. As long as you compare apples to apples, at least. It's when you start comparing apples to oranges that things take a serious turn south fast.
DoubleNegative wrote:
You mean the 2,8/21mm ZM Biogon? Definitely a sweet lens.
That, the Contax G-series 21mm, the Leica and C/V 21mms, and heck the 43mm for the Mamiya 7. all from the same biogon design family as I understand it.
It's hard to get excited about Zeiss lenses unless you know it's history and/or have used their lenses in the past and know how they performed. It's almost like an acquired taste. The fact that you would compare a Sigma lens to a Zeiss lens is quite shocking .... but forgivable if you don't know what the Zeiss name stands for.
Yakim Peled wrote:
For 50mm, the new Sigma 50/1.4 looks sharp enough at f/1.4. For 85mm, the 85/1.2 II looks sharp enough at f/1.2. Both have AF. And I will be happy to see how the 21/2.8 fairs against the 16-35/2.8 II in a real world test. So, for the EF mount I see no reason to get excited.
What I like about the Leica lenses is that they are mounted on a M8 body…..
StevenPA wrote:
Naturally. But look at the MTFs for both lenses. The Biogon is better, no question, but it's _very_ close, and the Biogon isn't limited to a retrofocus design, which makes the Distagon even more impressive.
[edit] I have no interest in M lenses, but I just had a look at the MTFs for their Elmarit 21/2.8. Speechless...
Are you talking about MTF charts for the new ZE 21? Where did you find them? I don't find them on the German Carl Zeiss site.
I know about the Zeiss history but it is not a part of my buying decisions. And that Sigma has performed excellently in several respectable online testers.
Please take note that I do have 18 years of shooting experience with Canon L and primes so it's not that I don't know what is a quality lens.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
bobbytan wrote:
It's hard to get excited about Zeiss lenses unless you know it's history and/or have used their lenses in the past and know how they performed. It's almost like an acquired taste. The fact that you would compare a Sigma lens to a Zeiss lens is quite shocking .... but forgivable if you don't know what the Zeiss name stands for.
.