How do guys like the 21 ZE for city architecture? I keep reading about the mustache distortion, but haven't seen good examples of it yet - do you have any? I currently shoot 24L II and 50/2 ZE on 5D for city architecture. I like the 24L IQ and focal length, but would like to have a matching Zeiss to the 50/2 so that the photos have the same look. I'm eying the 35/2 as well, but it would not be wide enough and probably too close to the 50/2.
Edit: I have also decided on the 100/2 for flowers and nature. I wonder how the 21ZE and 100ZE work together for that purpose. I usually don't carry more than 2 lenses anywhere.
pkupcik wrote:
How do guys like the 21 ZE for city architecture? I keep reading about the mustache distortion, but haven't seen good examples of it yet...
I would say the whole distortion thing is a complete BS. Some crazy dudes came up with it,
so they have something to get excited about instead going out and shooting some pictures
they clearly don't know how...
Look, on a straight horizon line you can see it. But I presented many sunset beach photos
here and nobody complained about it... All those are shot with my 21 ZE, does the horizon line
bother you here: http://www.lightandpictures.com/ElMatador/ ?
This is one shot from Florence I just worked a bit more on, the clarity is simply amazing...
snowboarder wrote:
I would say the whole distortion thing is a complete BS. Some crazy dudes came up with it,
so they have something to get excited about instead going out and shooting some pictures
they clearly don't know how...
Look, on a straight horizon line you can see it. But I presented many sunset beach photos
here and nobody complained about it... All those are shot with my 21 ZE, does the horizon line
bother you here: http://www.lightandpictures.com/ElMatador/ ?
I took out my ruler and some of those shots were not 100% straight
The combination of great sharpness/micro-contrast/depth of field makes the 21mm f/2.8 lens in my opinion an excellent candidate for architecture/landscape. If you want/need straighter lines, get a PC-E (or Canon's equivalent term) lens
Thanks guys. I'm certainly not the guy who looks for 100% perfect geometry, just want to make sure it's not something obvious or distracting or requiring a lot of post processing. The samples posted by philber and snowboarder seem perfectly fine to my eye. Perspective aspects don't bother me as they are what they are and TS lens would be an overkill for me.
philber wrote:
I have taken well over one thousand shots with my ZE 21.Only one was really unusable as such because of mustache distortion. Maybe 5% were affected if you know where to look. And, in any case, it can easily be cured with PT Lens, a 25$ piece of software.
Hereunder is one shot where I can see it. Is the shot ruined?
On the other hand if you don't like the keystoning that comes with a conventional 21 mm lens for this sort of photography, you need a tilt-shift lens, such as Canon's excellent 17 TS-E or 24 TS-E. But then say goodbye to Zeiss colours and 3D...
Hope this helps ...Show more →
I can't even see it in this shot and wouldn't have known it if you hadn't said it was there. Maybe it's more obvious on larger sized images or prints but I've only seen a couple of shots where I could see it at all. Seems like more of a tempest in a tea pot to me.
BennyR wrote:
I know the 21mm seems to get the most praise. Is the Zeiss 28/2 as good?
IMHO, the 28 is much more a wider 35 than a longer 21. And it is less well corrected than either, again IMHO. But the very learned John Black likes his, among other highly competent shooters, so I don't claim to speak for everyone.
There are multiple sources of distortion not just the mustache distortion. Snowboarder's shot has too much keystoning for my taste and is slightly rotated with verticals not vertical. Philber, posted a building shot in another thread where we were talking about the mustache distortion and besides the mustache distortion there was obvious distortion in the corners of the shot where archways/doortways were misformed looking.
The amount of mustache distortion and distortion near the edges of the frame depend on how close you are to the building.
Obviously, the amount of all the distortion you are willing to settle for is a personal decision.
You can downplay all the distortion talk that you don't want to hear. Denial is a powerful thing.
I bet if you give any architect the choice between having a lot less distortion in the shot vs. having better microcontrast he would pick the former.
I've got John's 28 now and I like it. However, I find myself using the 21 and the 35 more since I got the 21. I agree with you about it being more of a wider 35. The 21 is so good that I find myself looking for places to use it when I might have used the 28 otherwise.
Great shots guys! I really appreciate the knowledge learned from this forum.
The ZE 21 is a great lens. There are many applications for it, only limited by your imagination, landscape, architecture, street shots, enviromental portraits whatever.
The point here is it depends on your purpose. If you are into real estate photography, where perspective distortion is very important, then the TS-E 17 or 24 are brilliant lenses.
When color and rendition are important, the ZE 21 is an amazing lens.
Previously I had purchased the EF-S 10-20mm for a 20D, for landscapes. The lens was sharp, and technically a very good lens, but I could not PP the colors I saw on the day into my final image on the screen. The lens color wise was incredibly flat and boring. I had opted then for L primes, with a great improvement.
With the ZE range of lenses, I am finding the zeiss lenses express the color and feeling, that I experience at the time of taking the photograph.
Personally for me, it is more important, than the technical correctness.
wayne seltzer wrote:
There are multiple sources of distortion not just the mustache distortion. Snowboarder's shot has too much keystoning for my taste and is slightly rotated with verticals not vertical. Philber, posted a building shot in another thread where we were talking about the mustache distortion and besides the mustache distortion there was obvious distortion in the corners of the shot where archways/doortways were misformed looking.
The amount of mustache distortion and distortion near the edges of the frame depend on how close you are to the building.
Obviously, the amount of all the distortion you are willing to settle for is a personal decision.
You can downplay all the distortion talk that you don't want to hear. Denial is a powerful thing.
I bet if you give any architect the choice between having a lot less distortion in the shot vs. having better microcontrast he would pick the former....Show more →
I think I'm taking crazy pills, can someone (with permission) take a 21ZE photo and circle all the band aspects of it, distortion wise.. I really can't see anything that would lead me to believe it's not a good lens for architecture, er would lead me to believe that an architect client could pick out the distortion... I may be wrong, and honestly it's cool if I am.. As I have no idea what mustache distortion is anyway... But would like to know for future reference, because I'm thinking about the 21ZE in the near future. Wayne any help would be fantastic!
philber wrote:
On the other hand if you don't like the keystoning that comes with a conventional 21 mm lens for this sort of photography, you need a tilt-shift lens, such as Canon's excellent 17 TS-E or 24 TS-E. But then say goodbye to Zeiss colours and 3D...
Hope this helps
Absolutely agree. But I personally hate the TS-E corrected images.
Most of the time people go straight to the extreme and make all the vertical lines
perfectly vertical and parallel - this has nothing to do with "real" or "natural".
It's very technical looking and I simply hate it. To me my image is a perfect amount
of perspective which matches what my eyes saw there on that day.
Try to experiment with your eyes a bit and tell me if you see the world the way
a TS-E lens shows it. If used properly to compensate A LITTLE bit for the lack of space
for example - you might be too close to the building you want to photograph - then
I'm OK with it. But most of the time I can't stand those shots.
Exactly the same way I dislike an overused macro look with a selective focus plane.
Suddenly everybody does it with the new TS-E lenses because they can...
Add to this what Philippe said: a boring Canon look which is the opposite of what we all like...
Another example, is the perspective strong here? Yes. I was just so close to the massive
building my picture shows it. If the perspective was corrected, the building would look
much smaller and the picture wouldn't represent what I saw there.
I agree getting close and taking a shot which shows the scale of the building is cool, that is why I got a TS-E 17 but taking shots like this above with a regular wide angle pointed upward and getting all this keystoning screams tourist to me. I started a thread on keystoning a couple months back and some people don't mind it. Just funny how some people are so sensitive to the smallest amounts of CA but are ok with gross distortion.
Converging verticals are fine for more abstract type shots. Using a pano-head and stitching is one way to get rid of the keystoning while still using a non-shift lens.
Adam, I will try to find Philippe's shot that shows it and I wasn't the only one who commented on it.
I was perfectly content with my Canon lenses until I read this entire thread. I am amazed with the depth of the images. Tell me you all spent hours in post processing
I do have a couple of questions... If I want to buy a new ZE lens (21mm), where do you suggest, B&H? What is the chance of getting a bad copy? Has anyone experienced a problem? I am concerned if I will be able to exchange it (I think B&H will do it).
Uh-oh! Somebody send out the SWAT unit - ronone10 just got bit by the Zeiss bug!
Canon "L"s are really good lenses. They really are - and do a lot of things really well including AF, large aperture - wides & etc. After using most Zeiss lenses the best you can be with Canon is "content". As far as "time in post" - you need minimal post with great lenses - let the lens do the work!
wayne seltzer wrote:
I started a thread on keystoning a couple months back and some people don't mind it. Just funny how some people are so sensitive to the smallest amounts of CA but are ok with gross distortion.
CA is a lens error; distortion, except the curvilinear type, is not. In fact, I would not even call keystoning distortion. Just funny how some people are so sensitive to keystoning but are ok with a road that narrows towards the horizon. It's precisely the same phenomenon.
Yes, if you read my earlier post I say that there are different distortions, some lens based and some perspective based. Just was trying to make a point that some people obsess over the smallest amount of CA in a shot and softness in the corners at the 100% pixel level but then take an architecture shot of a building and have gross distortion on parts of the building and think it looks great.
A road narrowing towards the horizon is a lot more acceptable than a keystoned building even though they are a similar phenomenon. Do a survey.
