Yakim Peled wrote:
Yep. When you quote only part of what I said no wonder it sounds silly. It's size and weight advantages when compared to the 14-24/2.8. Now, the obvious optical reasons to prefer the Zeiss over the Nikon would be......
..... colour, contrast, lack of any CA, excellent flare-control, the ability to use filters .......
photomadnz wrote:
LLoyd has been a lover of the CZ21mm ever since the original and then the ZF came out. He raves on and on about it. Funnily enough if you are a subscriber, he pits it against the likes of the 14-24 zoom and in alot of the tests the zoom wins! .
I read somewhere that he uses the 1DIII for his zeiss reviews, maybe that is why?
Received my ZE copy on Monday and used it for the first
time today on a job (a building contractors machines).
I have never seen anything better coming out of my 5Dmk2.
The interesting thing is the images don't look all that superior
on screen but printed the quality is very clear.
Great addition to my kit.
I think the FOV difference and manual focussing make it very hard to compare the two. Both are plenty sharp.
This is a unprocessed wide open shot with the 24 TSE II on a 5D II:
EXIF:
Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Shooting Date/Time 9/30/2009 4:11:03 PM
Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/640
Av( Aperture Value ) 3.5
Metering Mode Evaluative Metering
Exposure Compensation 0
ISO Speed 100
Auto ISO Speed OFF
Lens TS-E24mm f/3.5L II
Focal Length 24.0mm
Image Size 5616x3744
Image Quality RAW
Flash Off
I did a few comparison shots of my ZE21 and the 16-35mk2 today. Neither lens is sharp in the extreme corners at f2.8 but the Zeiss is better with much less CA (really next to none on the ZE). At f5.6 the ZE21 is sharp in all but the very tip of each corner while the Canon is a bit better than wide open but not close to the Zeiss. By f11 the two are pretty close. The Zeiss is sharp right into the extreme corner tip and the Canon is almost as good. Any difference is only apparent at 100% on my monitor. The Canon still shows substantial CA stopped down.
My test wasn't perfect of course but I used a 5D2 at infinity focus with mirror lockup and cable release at ISO 400 to keep the ss up due to the wind. My 16-35 is due to go back to Canon for a cleaning after going through the Grand Canyon on a raft with me and I'll ask to have it calibrated then too. I doubt it will improve much but it never hurts to try.
NCAndy, i suspect you're not testing wide open corner sharpness properly. If that's really what you want to measure, then you should be focusing for the corners. The reason your corner sharpness improves so dramatically is that the corners eventually become in focus. The ZF/ZE 21mm is almost critically sharp all the way to the extreme corners wide open.
Valorin wrote:
NCAndy, i suspect you're not testing wide open corner sharpness properly. If that's really what you want to measure, then you should be focusing for the corners. The reason your corner sharpness improves so dramatically is that the corners eventually become in focus. The ZF/ZE 21mm is almost critically sharp all the way to the extreme corners wide open.
Probably so. I just took a picture from above my house of the view. The corner crop was of tree branches top left. This is the scene as shot, in DPP, faithful with 3 sharpness. No other corrections. Resized for posting.
I'm greatly relieved to see confirmation of my strange findings over at 16:9 . . . for some reason, the Distagon 21s I've had the pleasure of working with over the years have all manifested a weird 'f4 glitch', where the outer image circle drops in resolution compared to f2.8 and f5.6.
This was such an unlikely outcome that I could only conclude the testing procedure was at fault. But then it happened again . . . I still have no explanation. But Klaus' testing shows the 'Extreme' area of the image circle dropping slightly in resolution from f2.8 to f4: out of trend, and contrary to expectation or precedent.
Any other users notice this, or am back in the lonely 'Zone B Dip' crazy-club?
wiseguy010 wrote:
..... colour, contrast, lack of any CA, excellent flare-control, the ability to use filters .......
The pictures I've seen and the people I've spoken to suggest that the Nikon is very good WRT the first three parameters so I can't see any advantage to the Zeiss here, at least not a substantial one. CA is indeed better in the Zeiss but it's not that bad either in the Nikon and anyway, it's easily correctable in PP. Filter usage in the Zeiss is indeed easier (as you don't need to buy a filter holder, rectangular filters etc.) but at 82mm, it's not that cheap either.
So where does it leave us? With better flare resistance and better CA. Well, you're right here but are they really enough when put against the Nikon zoom advantage? Its horses for courses, as it always is, but it's far from being a clear cut victory for the Zeiss.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Filter usage in the Zeiss is indeed easier (as you don't need to buy a filter holder, rectangular filters etc.) but at 82mm, it's not that cheap either.
What are you talking about? Easier? It's a normal lens I can use all the filters I have with,
82mm since the introduction of 16-35L II lens has been the "normal" size, all my
filters are 82mm.
Now tell me how I can use a polarizer with the 14-24 zoom?
philber wrote:
The Zeiss ZE is also a native Canon mount, avoiding the need for an adapter and stop-down metering, which are required for the Nikon.
Of course, one of the main advantages.
That contest is not even close to me. Large, awkward Nikon zoom lens I can't use
with a polarizer vs Zeiss 21 ZE... Hmmm, let me think about it
It's strange how a Nikon 14-24 zoom became a Canon landscape lens. I'm sure Nikon
introduced it as a reporter's lens, fast AF etc, and that's why no filters wasn't such a big deal.
Now it's used with the adaptors and some home made filter frames...
It worked when there was nothing good on the Canon side, but now we have the new
sharp wide Canon lenses and the Zeiss...
As snowboarder mentioned, the use of a polarizer, I like to use a polarizer when I do waterfall photography...so that really steered me away from the 14-24... The 24 TS-E II is tempting, but it's a lot more money..not as wide. I'm sure having the tilt and shift option is nice at times, but I'm happy with the Zeiss. Like snowboarder says, I have the 16-35 II since it came out and I've sort of standardized on 82mm. (Which I now the 24 TS-E II uses as well.) I haven't had too many opportunities to shoot the Zeiss since I got it....but the stuff I have done just blows me away. (Especially borders and corner compared to my 16-35 mk II.)
Bit of tension developing. Quite funny! I use a 5d2 and a 1ds3 with live view at 100% to do my focusing and then to release so it is mirror up. I dont think its fair to pit the 14-24 against the 21 necessarily either as I use filters all the time for my landscapes. To the wiseguys on here I think you should buy whatever focal length you require. If you are after the best across the field and ultimate sharpness with other control then get the 24mm. If you think Im wrong then put your own money where your mouth is
photomadnz wrote:
Bit of tension developing. Quite funny! I use a 5d2 and a 1ds3 with live view at 100% to do my focusing and then to release so it is mirror up. I dont think its fair to pit the 14-24 against the 21 necessarily either as I use filters all the time for my landscapes. To the wiseguys on here I think you should buy whatever focal length you require. If you are after the best across the field and ultimate sharpness with other control then get the 24mm. If you think Im wrong then put your own money where your mouth is ...Show more →
I had planned to buy a Nikon 14-24 to use on my 5D2 and even bought a 16-9 adapter for it but came to the realization it just wouldn't work for my needs. So I went with the ZE21 and will keep the 16-35mk2 also. I might eventually add either the 17 or 24 TS-E as funds allow.
The decision ZE 21 vs N 14-24 depends much on its intented use; for architecture shots, including interiors, the N 14-24 is way more versatile, as I might need to go at 16 -18 mm, sometimes.
I will add the TSE 24, still this year: in terms of wide I have my dreamteam, then.
Someone else, with different needs might be very happy with the ZE 21.
That's fine for me, too
Yes, I've just received my ZE21 yesterday. Initial shots look great. I will compare with my 16-35mk2 over the next few days. First impressions on my 1DSmk3 is that the ZE21 performs considerably better at f2.8 - 5.6 that the 16-35. I will still keep my 16-35mm due to its flexibility.
I would also like to own one of the new ts-e lenses at some stage.
magiclight wrote:
Yes, I've just received my ZE21 yesterday. Initial shots look great. I will compare with my 16-35mk2 over the next few days. First impressions on my 1DSmk3 is that the ZE21 performs considerably better at f2.8 - 5.6 that the 16-35. I will still keep my 16-35mm due to its flexibility.
I would also like to own one of the new ts-e lenses at some stage.
magiclight, it sounds like we're on the same plan. I found it takes my 16-35mk2 until f11 to approach the ZE21 at 5.6. I would like the 17 TS-E but until there are a functional filters for it I'll wait.
