Jump to content

Which one to choose - Zeiss 21mm, TS-E 24mm, 16-35mm II?


Recommended Posts

<blockquote>

<p>I don't have the time to try all lenses extensively in the field. And I have a very long vacation coming up where I would like to have the right equipment with me. Thus, I am asking others for what they would do if they were in my shoes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>lensrentals.com<br>

See the results for yourself, then decide.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As to delivery at a hotel, I know that Calumet in Chicago has done it for me while I was on the road. If you think you want to do it, then contact the company of choice and talk to them ahead of time and find out how you can make it happen. They may just need something in writing from you before you leave. Calumet had no issue with it, but I have been buying from them for 30+ years. Just check and see who might accommodate you and what they require.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notes

 

Some prominent retailers refuse to ship to hotels. Don't count on receiving an expensive lens on the road.

 

The Lee holder system can be trimmed down to a single slot and they feature standard and wide angle versions of their

adapter rings. You can probably find a solution that works with the 16-35 II. For polarizers any thin one should do. It's I'll

advised at 16 mm but from 24 to 35 mm it should work fine. At least you have the option unlike with the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I concur with Ray, just keep what you have. If you can put up with zoom lenses, then you have a nice range of focals for landscape. if you want to treat yourself, use the money to buy another 'once in a lifetime' trip so you can take more photos, or use it to buy a nice medium or large format kit to expand your landscape interest.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bastian, here are links to some photos that were taken with the 24 mm TS-E II lens on a 5D mark II. These are photos of historic structures rather than landscapes, but hopefully they'll give you a sense of what this lens can do. I'll post some landscape and cityscape shots for you in another day or two.</p>

<p>Please let me know if you have any questions.</p>

<p>http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Places/Historic-Pennsylvania/12715696_PzZRA#917143049_QGh2X-A-LB</p>

<p>http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Places/Historic-Pennsylvania/12715696_PzZRA#917140422_KfYJt-A-LB</p>

<p>http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Places/Historic-Pennsylvania/12715696_PzZRA#917144867_9xKa4-A-LB</p>

<p>http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Places/Historic-Pennsylvania/12715696_PzZRA#917137271_KKx7i-A-LB</p>

<p>http://www.dansouthphoto.com/Places/Historic-Pennsylvania/12715696_PzZRA#917141651_UhrSY-A-LB</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have the Zeiss 21mm and the Canon 16-35mm II. I rarely use the Canon lens after buying the Zeiss. The colors, contrast and the sharpness of the Zeiss is superior to the 16-35mm II. There is some distortion with the lens, but I use PT lens to fix if I feel its necessary. Sometimes the distortion adds character to the shot so I leave it alone. I have used a lot of different lenses but the Zeiss 21mm is hands down the best and most unique lens that i have owned.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>>>> I have the Zeiss 21mm and the Canon 16-35mm II. I rarely use the Canon lens after buying the Zeiss. ... I have used a lot of different lenses but the Zeiss 21mm is hands down the best and most unique lens that i have owned.</p>

<p>Same experience here using the Zeiss 35mm f/2, but coming from a 24-70 f/2.8...</p>

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I was in your shoes. I had the 16-35 MkII. While I appreciate the convenience of a zoom, my primary interest is image quality (and I'll zoom with my feet as much as possible). I bought the 24mm T/S primarily for IQ, and I'm finding I really like the tilt and shift features as well. I also bought the Zeiss 21mm, and it's now one of my favorite lenses. But that's just me; YMMV. BTW, I also have a 14mm and the Canon 24-70, so I feel I have the wide range pretty well covered for my needs.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For the same use, I'm seriously considering the EF 17mm TS-E. With my 24-105mm I find myself pretty constantly at 24mm and longing for a little more. That would argue for the 17mm TS-E or one of Canon's wider, high quality zooms.</p>

<p>I can't suggest the answer yet.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>But as to Zeiss Distagon ZE T* 21mm f/2.8 I don't recommend. It's less qualified than the later two. Just my pernal preferences</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jack, have you ever used Zeiss 21mm ZE? Or you simply added a comment to increase your post count?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nothing like a WA zoom for someone who is undecided about what you really need. The TS lenses have their place, but with software like DXO and Capture One that lets you adjust perspective in post rather than capture, the TS really isn't necessary. I have the 16-35II and love it. Buy a good tripod and head to attach it to - that will likely help your pics more than the exotic lenses.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The TS lenses have their place, but with software like DXO and Capture One that lets you adjust perspective in post rather than capture, the TS really isn't necessary.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'll have to disagree. I have plenty of images that I haven't been able to effectively "straighten out" with software. If you straighten the center of the frame the edges still bend in. If you straighten the edges, the center gets badly distorted. Plus, every time you correct perspective distortion in software you loose part of the image (on the edges) and some of the resolution.</p>

<p>Further, TS lenses don't just have shift ability (which can help with perspective distortion). They also have tilt/swing ability for cases where you need to alter the plane of focus.</p>

<p>If the software is working for you, that's wonderful. But TS lenses can do things that software cannot, and they can do things that software CAN to, but they do it BETTER.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For landscapes where you said speed is not required the best bang for the buck and great image quality is the Canon 17-40 F4L. This is a good match for your 24-105 and the 17-40 is much better at 24mm. I agree why get an overlapping expensive lens with the Zeiss or TS-E. If you were to get the TS-E I would go for the wider angle and get the 17mm where the TS-E will be even more dramatic. If you have the money get the 16-35 F2.8, but you can save a lot by getting the 17-40 which so many of the great landscape work I have seen is shot with the 17-40.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Do you still have the Nikon 14-24mm? Based on what I read online, this is an ultimative WA solution for Canon 5D. You may need to wait for the V3 version. But if you try hard enough, you may get one or earlier version before your trip.<br>

I have been doing research for the same situation as yours (amature, 5D, landscaping ...). The Nikon solution is my answer. I was thinking ZE21 and changed minder after reading a comparison of ZE and Nikon (I don't have a link on the computer I'm using now. A Bing search should get you there).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would get Zeiss 21mm, which is really sharp from wide open (and here you get even more flexibility as you can use it for portrait work as well - here is a wedding shot taken with Zeiss wide open http://www.prophotonut.com/wp-content/uploads/21mm/lovegrove_21mm_sw_big.jpg) and performs much better in corners. I also like how it renders. But is just me, as I like primes.<br>

16-35 MKII or 17-40 - little difference in between them. Both are very decent lens for landscape work.<br>

17 TSE - I personally would never use lens, which do not take filters for landscape work, because now and than you want to put a polarizer or ND grad.<br>

24 TSE - is very nice and sharp, I have seem some very good landscape done with this lens. Though I really don't see the point using this lens for landscape shots.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>In addition to my last post - Zeiss have an 18mm Distagon as well - not as nice as 21mm, but if you really want to go that wide - as option.<br>

@ David: I have seen many comparisons between Zeiss 21mm and Nikon 14-24mm - one of them http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/21mm-comparison.htm (also including both Canon zooms). In addition to that Nikon doesn't take filters - for me it is a major minus for landscape work.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<a href= "http://diglloyd.com/articles/ZeissZ/ZeissZ-21f2_8.html">Here is a mini-review</a> of the Zeiss

21mm f/2.8 by respected evaluator and photographer Lloyd Chambers. He also sells a more <a href=

"http://diglloyd.com/zf/index.html">comprehensive review</a> with much more information on the entire Zeiss family of ZE and ZF

lenses. Being extremely happy with my Zeiss 35mm f/2, I can see springing for the 21mm for specific uses in the future.

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...