Doo-bop wrote:
I read somewhere that he uses the 1DIII for his zeiss reviews, maybe that is why?
Lloyd Chambers reviews lenses on a wide variety of bodies including the 1D Mark III and full-frame Canon and Nikon cameras. But what photomadnz stated is a misinterpretation of the test results. The Nikkor zoom does have advantages over the Zeiss prime, but any objective observer will concede that sharpness isn't one of them.
Regarding photozone's test results, it's interesting to note that the 21 mm Distagon is rated sharper across the frame (though only slightly) than the much-ballyhooed Canon 100 mm L IS macro! It even has less CA according to photozone (though I'd take their CA measurements with a grain of salt, because you can't measure CA in pixels). For a super-wide lens to beat a short tele macro across the frame at large apertures is nothing short of remarkable.
Of course the 21 mm Distagon also has many other strong qualities when compared to Canon lenses, not least of which its quaint lack of plastic.
kosmoskatten wrote:
I am starting to hope the Zeiss 21 will eventually come out in Alpha mount.
That head has really nice pop to it and the following shot has good depth separation of the elements in the image, which I find unusual in superwides.
I like your way of saying 3D
Unfortunately I believe that Sony's exclusivity deal with Zeiss goes both ways. Not only ZA lenses cannot be manufactured in other mounts, Sony does not seem to want ZE/ZF lenses to be available in ZA neither. Even the 85mm which exists in several mounts is a completely new design in the ZA version.
If any ZA primes are ever introduced, they will be new and Sony exclusive designs too.
I think that Sony would be crazy to introduce MF lenses on the ZA system. They have an exclusivity on AF Zeiss lenses, and that can swing customers their way who can't get "German-style AF lenses" easily on Canikon.
If there is a 21mm prime on ZA, I would expect it to be AF as well, even though AF matters so much less on a WA than on a telephoto.
But, who knows, marketing departments of major corporations can sometimes think in strange ways...
Phil, what I meant is that Sony doesn't want to use the existing Zeiss designs being sold under ZE/ZF/ZK in its ZA line. It wants the ZA line to be fully exclusive. I did not mean that these borrowed designs will be manual focus, they can be easily implemented for AF, especially with the screwdrive system because manual focus designs do not need any modification to become AF, unlike USM/SSM designs.
As for Zeiss itself adding the ZF line in alpha mount, that is absolutely out of question, as I have been told by Zeiss that they cannot compete with their own partner.
philber wrote:
I think that Sony would be crazy to introduce MF lenses on the ZA system. They have an exclusivity on AF Zeiss lenses, and that can swing customers their way who can't get "German-style AF lenses" easily on Canikon.
If there is a 21mm prime on ZA, I would expect it to be AF as well, even though AF matters so much less on a WA than on a telephoto.
But, who knows, marketing departments of major corporations can sometimes think in strange ways...
I have not tried the Canon 14, 17, 24 or the ZE 21, but my Nikon 14-24 is the best lens (in terms of IQ) that I have ever owned and easily beat the 16-35L II that I used to have. The color, contrast, sharpness, CA, flare control are all stunning. I wouldn't dream of replacing my Nikon 14-24 which can do the job of the above-mentioned 4 prime lenses. I will ONLY replace that lens if Canon comes out with their 14-24/2.8 .... and only if they able to match the Nikon in terms of IQ which is a tough act to follow. Without a doubt, Nikon has set a new benchmark for optics .... prime lens IQ in a zoom lens.
Just compared Photozone's resolution and vignetting charts and it looks like the Nikon 14-24 easily beat the ZE 21 .... so it appears that the Nikon zoom is better than the Zeiss prime .... No?
I would not say the 14-24 beats any of the other lenses here. In fact the 14-24 seems like it has more CA than the others. I have seen statements about how great the 14-24 is. But for Canon users the lens and adapter is an expensive option with a long waiting period to get the adapter from all accounts.
I still think the 17 TS-E is the most interesting lens of the bunch...
Maybe so, but the poster says "Regarding the quality there is not much difference between the 14-24mm, the 17mm TSE, the 21mm ZE and the 24mm TSE II in this situation" .... implying that the 14-24 zoom is prime quality i.e. 4 prime lenses in one!
I would not say the 14-24 beats any of the other lenses here. In fact the 14-24 seems like it has more CA than the others. I have seen statements about how great the 14-24 is. But for Canon users the lens and adapter is an expensive option with a long waiting period to get the adapter from all accounts.
I still think the 17 TS-E is the most interesting lens of the bunch...
Nov 14, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
bobbytan wrote:
I have not tried the Canon 14, 17, 24 or the ZE 21, but my Nikon 14-24 is the best lens (in terms of IQ) that I have ever owned and easily beat the 16-35L II that I used to have. The color, contrast, sharpness, CA, flare control are all stunning. I wouldn't dream of replacing my Nikon 14-24 which can do the job of the above-mentioned 4 prime lenses. I will ONLY replace that lens if Canon comes out with their 14-24/2.8 .... and only if they able to match the Nikon in terms of IQ which is a tough act to follow. Without a doubt, Nikon has set a new benchmark for optics .... prime lens IQ in a zoom lens.
Just compared Photozone's resolution and vignetting charts and it looks like the Nikon 14-24 easily beat the ZE 21 .... so it appears that the Nikon zoom is better than the Zeiss prime .... No?...Show more →
As the photozone site makes clear you can't compare across systems like that. Also they don't do any test at 21mm, so who knows. It is not at all clear the Nikon zoom is better.
Its certainly interesting that one photographer has access to all of these great lenses at one time!
Hopefully he will do more tests. Not to be critical of you Bobby, but I am always skeptical of users who invest in one particular lens and then declare that lens is better than all the rest.
Each of these lenses offer different pros and cons. Its great to actually have these options in the wide angle arena now though. I myself do not own any of these lenses. Choosing one includes many decisions like IQ, lack of CA, zoom range, cost, filters, and TS-E function. As a user and admirer of the TS-E function I am far more attracted to the TS-E options than the 21ZE or the Nikon zoom. Of course others will have different needs. I own and use the EF 16-35/2.8 II and it find it lacking in several ways, even though I still consider it a great lens. I would prefer the Nikon 14-24, but the adapter issue and my need for a great wide TS-E with superb IQ trumps the Nikon big time.
As the saying goes, "one size does not fit all"...
I do find the the 17TS-E produced the more interesting photo in that test as well. The other aspect to the 17 TS-E is that many users are finding that using the 17 TS-E with the Canon 1.4 TE produces better images at the resulting 24mm factor than the original version of the Canon 24 TS-E lens...
I would not say the 14-24 beats any of the other lenses here. In fact the 14-24 seems like it has more CA than the others. I have seen statements about how great the 14-24 is. But for Canon users the lens and adapter is an expensive option with a long waiting period to get the adapter from all accounts.
I still think the 17 TS-E is the most interesting lens of the bunch...
snowboarder wrote:
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?
You can't. Another point for the Zeiss. Great. Now look at the last sentence I wrote: "It's horses for courses, as it always is, but it's far from being a clear cut victory for the Zeiss." Look, I'm not anti-Zeiss or pro-Nikon. All I'm saying is that there are VERY good reasons to chose either.
And BTW, I - personally - lust for neither. I want the 17TS.
Steve Spencer wrote:
As the photozone site makes clear you can't compare across systems like that.
its horses for courses, they' re made for different purposes, even they might be in a similar focal lenghts. That's why I like to have both - a prime quality shift and a prime quality non shift.
In real life, you don't care if the MTF is a bit higher or not, but how you get bloody big object in a small room on the sensor. In these moments, you like the day your bought the N14-24, cause you can just zoom out enough to get b. object into the picture
It's not directly in context of a single image's quality, but a shiftlens offers flatstitching, which makes it more versatile vs a prime. That might save your life, the day when you need a 2:1-ratio, and a big output, so you can't crop with a wider focal lenghts.
17 TS-E with the Canon 1.4 TE
I' ve the N 1424 and been testing TSE 24, TSE 17 and TSE 17+1.4 TC, at the same day and situation:
While both the TSE 24 or TSE 17 are fine - it depends quite much on the shooting style - the TSE 17+1.4 TC produces quite a noticable amount of CA and distortion; in 99 % of all cases, you can't correct that distortion.. resolution and contrast wasn't that bad, but not really good either, I never would spendt 3000 on that combo.
As I' ve the N 14-24 (with the weakr side at 24), the TSE 24 is for my needs just the best addition.
Another photographer with different needs might be very happy with the ZE-21 - I have no problems whith that, I 'm rather glad that we can chose
When we think back what the choices were not so long ago: no 17 TS-E, no 24 TS-E, no 14-24, no ZE 21, no 24L II. So let's not complain that we don't all agree on which one is best. Best is the choice we have...
