The zoom at stuck at 21mm loses its flexibility. I'd choose the Zeiss because of it's excellent edge performance and I'd prefer the wider view over the 24L II.
However if it were an potion I'd vote for the Nikkor 14-24mm
I'd buy the 24/1.4L II because I would use an AF very wide ultrafast lens a lot more than a MF ultrawide fast lens. The 17-40L and Voigtlander C-S 20/3.5 SL II keep me happy at around 20mm, at least for now. OTOH, I don't often shoot very wide in low light.
The Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 is more designed for landscape while the 24 Mark II is more for low light shooting. They have different types of application, at least for me. Now, if we are talking about the 24mm TS-E Mark II, then we are closer, short of the slightly wider Zeiss. Several years ago, the Contax version of the Zeiss 21mm was peerless for its performance. It fetched > $4K during its heyday. Sadly, under the current condition, I would take a TS-E lens, either the 24 Mark II or 17mm over the Zeiss at this point. That's me, of course, and you are entitled not to agree with me .
Has to be the Canon 24L II for me (I am planning on getting it in the next few weeks). Why? I want a fast wide angle lens in my arsenal, it's Canon, it's autofocus and from what I've seen, the images it produces have a unique look. I've heard a lot about and seen plenty of images from the Zeiss, but I'm not convinced it's substantially better than the Canon. It's slower and it's manual focus for about the same money. Not for me.
(Just waiting for the Zeiss camp flak to start raining down! )
One question I have in my mind is as follows: Is the Distagon IQ that good that it might offset some other features lacking such as extra large aperture and no AF ?
(I think that most people would agree with the assertion that the lens is built well. )
However, can Distagon ZE be viewed as a "killer" WA lens when it comes to IQ, from wide open onwards, when compared to the Canon's best ?
(If you wish, you can also add the TS-E 24 to the mix.)
PetKal wrote:
One question I have in my mind is as follows: Is the Distagon IQ that good that it might offset some other features lacking such as extra large aperture and no AF.
(I think what most people would agree with the assertion that the lens is built well. )
However, can Distagon ZE be viewed as a "killer" lens when it comes to IQ, from wide open onwards, when compared to the Canon's best ?
(If you wish, you can also add the TS-E 24 to the mix.)
My opinion (based on having used all lenses in question) is a resounding NO.
In particular, comparing the Canon 24 TS-E II to the 21 Distagon, I am very confident in saying that IQ wise (sharpness, color, contrast), the 21 Distagon has no advantage (even with extreme pixel peeping) over the TS-E II. Furthermore, the Distagon actually has more distortion. If you need the FOV of a 21mm lens, then the Distagon makes sense, if you can live with the FOV of a 24mm lens, then the 24 TS-E II is a no brainer (for me anyway).
Comparing to the Canon 24 f/1.4 II is a bit more difficult. As Joshua says, these lenses were meant for different purposes. The Canon sharpness up in the corners very nicely once stopped down. It doesn't have the distortion of the Zeiss, but it does have some field curvature. Still, I personally wouldn't give up AF to pick the Zeiss.
The easiest is the 16-35, there's no way I'd take a 16-35 permanently fixed at either 21 or 24 over any of these other lenses.
I think the Zeiss 21 was peerless a few years ago, but Canon has done a respectable job shoring up their UWA line (with the 17 TS-E, 24 TS-E II and 24 f/1.4 II) albeit at a significant price premium.
That will depend on a lot of things, Peter. If the distagon was a 24 mm, I would say no. For landscape, the difference in FOV is greater than the FL numbers suggest. And you cannot "step back a few steps" to include 20% more clouds in your image, as one example.
So I am left with comparison with the zoom for IQ, and then it depends again. The distagon is exceptionally well corrected for CA, and while software tools can also do that to some extent, it does have an impact on sharpness. The 16-35 II gives more CA when stopped down to f/5.6 than wide open. And, as you may have noticed, I buy some lenses for "eternity", and the 16-35 II is not such a lens for me.
Further, the ZE lenses are compatible with focus confirmation in the viewfinder, without that I would not be able to focus manually, so I am not a hard-core alternative optics user. Only Canon or ZE for me
PetKal wrote:
One question I have in my mind is as follows: Is the Distagon IQ that good that it might offset some other features lacking such as extra large aperture and no AF ?
As you would hear in Prime Ministers question time in the UK:
"I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago"
What some testers and users have suggested is that, compared to Canon's lenses, the Distagon maintains more of a uniform high grade IQ accross the entire FOV.
.
