I am debating considerably between these two lenses and know the obvious differences, but after some searching i haven't found any example/comparison photos.
Does anyone in here have experience with both? Pros/cons?
I like the close focus of the F2 but i also love the microcontrast/colours i see in the zeiss.
I am looking at either for travel.
I have never owned both at the same time, so I don't really have any comparison images. What I can say with absolute certainty is that when I owned the Olympus, I was never really happy with it. I didn't like the colors and contrast, and the sharpness was nothing special. I even bought a second copy just to make sure the first wasn't "bad".
Owning the ZE 21 is a whole different story. The IQ is stunning and you know why it is worth carrying a lens that is 3-4 times the size and weight of the Oly.
If you buy a Zeiss 21mm, the only thing that will disappoint is the weight.
I am fine with distortion if i didn't want it i'd buy a tilt shift lens.
The price is not THAT much more than a mint condition 21 f2 actually and that's why i'd like to hear more opinions since i don't want to end up disappointed.
Given how good the OM 28 f/2 performs, if the 21 f/2 is at least as good I'd be tempted. And the size is amazing. Compare a OM 21/24/28 f/2 to a Sigma 20/24/28 f/1.8.
I've never had an Olympus 21/2. I do have an Olympus 21/3.5 and the Zeiss 21. The Olympus is a great lens for the size and price. The Zeiss is the only UWA I've had that I go looking for things to shoot with. It's simply spectacular. It is big and heavy and I'll manage it.
While we're at it then, the Canon 17-40 F4 weighs 600g. It's not as fast but may be more versatile with 17mm on the short end. It's pretty cheap, too.
I wouldn't hesitate about getting this lens if it wasn't for the IQ on 5D2 that I'm not impressed with. While like Nikon 14-24 F2.8 is clearly a stellar optical performer, its weight and more importantly cost put it outside my capacities for travelling.
I'm with Ed, I like the olympus 21/2 and for much the same reasons. I don't have a problem with the color, but it does have a different look than the zeiss lenses. Likewise I haven't found the sharpness a problem.
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) I've never tried the Zeiss 21mm so I really can't give you a comparison. It does seem that the Zeiss is a strong performer and I suspect that it would come out on top in many respects in a head-to-head test with the Oly 21. I'm not sure what the margin of victory would be though.
my friend pointed out that 82mm filter thread size of the zeiss makes it nearly impossible to find quality, reasonably priced, moderately dense ND filters, should your landscape photography require them.
JimU wrote:
my friend pointed out that 82mm filter thread size of the zeiss makes it nearly impossible to find quality, reasonably priced, moderately dense ND filters, should your landscape photography require them.
Using a Cokin P type of filters will be more versatile.
Or tilt-shift like the 17L, or deal with infrared and ultraviolet. And on and on and on.
I guess Zeiss is stellar and Zuiko is just great. But only in this FL!
jotdeh wrote:
While we're at it then, the Canon 17-40 F4 weighs 600g. It's not as fast but may be more versatile with 17mm on the short end. It's pretty cheap, too.
I wouldn't hesitate about getting this lens if it wasn't for the IQ on 5D2 that I'm not impressed with. While like Nikon 14-24 F2.8 is clearly a stellar optical performer, its weight and more importantly cost put it outside my capacities for travelling.
Thoughts?
The Oly 21/2 beats the 17-40 in terms of sharpness in my experience. The 17-40s extreme corners never get particularly sharp but are acceptable at f8-f11. With that said, the 17-40L is still an incredible lens overall (colors, AF, contrast, build, weight, price).
