Peter, although I can't confirm from personal experience as I've not owned either (yet), from what I've seen of full resolution images online, I can't see a significantly noticeable difference between the Zeiss and 24L II from f/2.8 and above. But, at f/2.8 and below, edge to edge sharpness is less important in my opinion as the subject is more often than not in the centre and it gives you the opportunity to isolate it better. OK, not as much as a lens 85mm and above, but better than f/2.8. Plus, the wider aperture gives you more creative flexibility. That's what's making me go for the 24L II.
However, having said all that, I'd be interested to hear anyone's opinion who has or had both and can make direct comparisons.
I'm just not that good at MF when it matters. I'm sure the Zeiss is great for landscapes or anything else where it's on a tripod and you can use LV, but I like the flexibility of the 16-35 and I love the colour and contrast of the 24L and obviously it's low light performance.
I have tried MF and grabbed an EG-S screen for my 5D2 but it just wasn't doing it for me on anything that wasn't static.
I seem to be finding more opportunities to use the Canon 24 TSE II over the Zeiss Distagon 21. Often a bit of shift to keep verticals straight or tilt to capture more foreground is more constructive than the sweeping type vista the Zeiss 21 does so well. But that said, I am not giving up my Zeiss, its got lots of "wow" power!
Mike K
We're asking for a choice of three or four different tools - the adjustable tool (16-35) is broken - and the "job" for the tool undefined.
I would have to go with the fourth option - Canon EF mount WA - and choose a Zeiss 17-35/2.8 "N" - I'm hoping this one is not broken at 21mm - very high Zeiss like IQ.
Z 21 - a fixed FL landscape tool - use a prime IQ zoom(s) for landscape
Sir_Loin wrote:
Peter, although I can't confirm from personal experience as I've not owned either (yet), from what I've seen of full resolution images online, I can't see a significantly noticeable difference between the Zeiss and 24L II from f/2.8 and above. But, at f/2.8 and below, edge to edge sharpness is less important in my opinion as the subject is more often than not in the centre and it gives you the opportunity to isolate it better. OK, not as much as a lens 85mm and above, but better than f/2.8. Plus, the wider aperture gives you more creative flexibility. That's what's making me go for the 24L II.
However, having said all that, I'd be interested to hear anyone's opinion who has or had both and can make direct comparisons....Show more →
Glenn, while I agree with your view of 24L, I am not really traumatized by a possibility that the Distagon might have better IQ, or some aspect thereof, at comparable aperture values.
Hell, I suspect that next to 21 f/2.8 ZE, our beloved 24L does look and feel like Fisher Price is making it. Don't lose no sleep over it either.
I have rented the 24/1.4 II but have bought the 21 ZE and the 24 TS-E
The extra width of the 21 makes the difference for me as a walk-around nature / landscape lens. The TS-E is fantastic for slow composed landscapes from a pod but the 21 to me was the better choice for a walk about lens.
My style of shooting does not need AF and I find the extra width to open a few more compositional opportunities over the 24. I used to use the 24 TS-E mk I as my walk around but wanted the extra stop of the Zeiss for dusk/dawn shots. I now use the TS-E mk II and find i still pick the Zeiss when trail exploring.
If you are most interested in landscape then the Zeiss is my choice. The AF and extra 2 stops of the 24/1.4 is a better choice for general shooting in low light situations though.
The lack of AF on the Zeiss doesn't really mean much, because, unless you shoot at something which is less than 8' away and fairly wide open, you have such huge DOF that everything is pretty much in focus. I call this my P&S mode: set my aperture at f:5.6, focus to infinity and pull back just a fraction, and shoot.
Lack of speed,yes, I can see that, for those shooters where that matters more than for me, because I vey seldom use it in-house.
Otherwise, for almost all its owners, it is just the lens that delivers "Wow!" shots day after day after day... its colours and microcontrast are quite different from any Canon's.
PetKal wrote:
Which WA lens would you buy out of those shown above, assuming that you can have only one of them, and why ?
No question the 16-35mm f2.8L II. Its a MUCH more versatile lens and optically it is close enough to the Zeiss so as not to warrant giving up the huge convenience of a wide zoom range. Distortions on the 16-35 are easily corrected in Lightroom or PS. If selecting a prime in this range I might as well pick the 24mm f1.4 because it has a huge advantage in speed, enough that its worth giving up the zoom. I own the TSE and while its a good lens it has a limited purpose (for me) so I dont use it as much but when I need it, nothing else will do.
The only application where I would pick the Zeiss over all other lenses listed is if I were using the lens for video. cant beat a manual focus lens for that and image imperfections are harder to correct in video post production so you want the best lens possible.
PetKal wrote:
If we didn't peg 16-35L at 21mm, then many folks would choose the zoom because it's a zoom......since we are allowed to have one lens only
PetKal wrote:
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.
at landscape aperture the 24 1.4 II does quite well at the edges
for pure landscapes the 24 TS-E II may be best of all since you get tilt control
I had the 16-35II but sold it, have the Zeiss 21mm and love it and will never sell it, but my favorite wide angle focal length is 24mm. While I'd like to have the 24L II, I have the 24 TSE II, which among all of these wide angle lenses is my favorite, simply because of IQ.
Peter I own two of them (not Zeiss ), both are great lenses. 24II very sharp and fast replacing 35L on my 1D4. 16-35II used mostly as superwide on FF and having great colors/contrast output, better than any L I own in this. Corners not as sharp at F2.8 on 16-35II, but OK. I could sell one of them, but don't know which one? Both are in place if you like shooting wide! Some examples you might saw already:
I have both the 16-35 II and the Zeiss 21mm (and the 35). My vote is for the Zeiss 21mm, the 16-35 is a good lens, but can't compete with the prime. It's sort of my 16-20mm and 22-34mm lens now. :-)
