I find that, when I shoot outside (cityscape/landscape), I usually set my aperture at f:5.6, which is IMHO where it is at its best, focus to infinity and then pull back just a bit, and, unless I am shooting at less than 3m, I am in point-and-shoot mode (sharpness from 3m to infinity). Very similar to what Luka does except for the aperture, where I get even more DOF due to my stopping down.
Of course that is not a "Zeiss" trick, theoretical DOF being lens-brand-and type-independent, but that mitigates very much the disadvantange of not having AF.
alundeb wrote:
Peter, are you trying to convince yourself that you don't need an UWA prime? How about the collector's instinct?
One thing not yet mentioned about the ZE 21, it has 82 mm filter threads, limiting the selection of filters.
Alundeb, if I have to invent a use for a high quality lens, I'll do so.
Hell, I have shot BIF and butterflies and flowers and such with 15mm FE.
82 mm filters are not a problem for those of us who own 16-35L MkII already....we know what's out there.
wickerprints wrote:
And people who make vague statements about "rendering" and "Zeiss look" and "flatness" and don't post objective, accurate, side-by-side comparisons under identical shooting conditions are (to put it nicely) saying nothing meaningful.
Test charts exist for a good reason--when done properly, they are objective. So what kind of credibility are we to put in such claims like "Zeiss look?"
Thank god you're saying only meaningful things.
Clearly you just love canon and never used the zeiss, so it's impossible to say/do anything that will change your opinion.
You talk like I'm a huge zeiss fanboy, but I just wanted to give my objective opinion after owning one of canons best wideangles too (that ts-e24II).
I was sceptical too before I made the switch you know.
Test charts show sharpness, so what? There's so much more to a lens than just sharpness.
Why is it that people often only pay attention to technical details instead of the general look of a photo?
