New Zeiss Contax 21mm f2.8 ZE

[matt_bennett3]

<p>I have been researching for some time the various ultra-wide angle options, (to use on 5D II, 50D and Elan 7 bodies) since getting rid of my not-so-sharp older model of the Sigma 17-35mm HSM. It seems that the late model Contax Distagon T 21mm f2.8 is THE lens of choice for wide work - but of course it will set me back US$2500 second hand plus adapter costs. I am also reading rave reviews about the Nikon 14-24, which of course does not easily adapt to the Canon bodies. My question is, if I wait for the release of the Contax 21mm ZE (which will interact fully with the bodies apart from manual focus), am I guaranteed to get as good a quality lens in terms of corner to corner sharpness, low distortion and minimal CA etc as the original Zeiss Contax 21mm or is it a completely reworked lens which will have to run the gauntlet of being re-reviewed on its own terms? And does anybody have an idea of its release date? If you feel this is not the best way to go, feel free to recommend alternatives (Canon 14mm II?) - as far as I'm concerned, with this purchase, the wider the better. I want this lens to be AS SHARP AS POSSIBLE as it will likely be my workhorse for a long time to come. Money's probably a secondary consideration to IQ for this purchase. I do mainly landscape work. Cheers. M</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Matt, there are more than a couple of serious landscapers using the Nikon 14-24 on their Canons.</p>

<p>http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/nikon1424.php</p>

<p>It is not difficult or expensive.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>And Ziess are not all they are cracked up to be on occassions, they certainly carry a huge "exclusive" cost.</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=481&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[RickDB]

<p>Matt, the Contax Distagon T 21mm f2.8 is a superb WA lens - it could be fitted to the 5D without interacting with the mirror - question is, has anyone tried it on the 5D2?<br>

Cheers, RickDB</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The difference between 21mm and 14mm is absolutely huge so you also better decide which focal length is most important to you.  Having had a 17-35 you should be able to tell if you want wider or not.</p>

<p>I went from 17mm to 14mm and love it!  I used all my Nikon and Contax/Zeiss glass on Canon EOS film and digital SLRs before switching to Nikon DSLRs.</p>

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>The new ZE's are EOS mount no adapter required, it wont be out till 2009 some time.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>Another wide angle lens that is getting great reviews is the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8.  Check out Photozone's review.  I believe this lens is designed for crop cameras, but I read that full frames can use it from 15-16mm.  It has better test scores than anything Canon or Nikon has in this range and its about $580.  The 2.8 would be nice to have.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>None of us will know about the new Zeiss 21 without testing, but it could very well be different than the original 21.  The legendary Hasselblad Superwide (SWC) had to be reconfigured several years ago due to the unavailability of some of the special glass due to lead content.  The new lens was not as good as the old in the corners, as many who tried both have confirmed.  So, will the new 21 be in the same boat?  Who knows.....I can say that I have tried 2 of the old 21s and they are truly unbelievable compared to any Canon wide.  You have to see the results to believe it, shots taken on a tripod side 1 minute apart viewed side by side seem impossible.  It's as if the Canon were taken on a foggy day by comparison.  It takes no pixel peeping at all to view the major difference.  As for use, as long as it clears the mirror it's no sweat.  DOF is so wide that the lack of autofocus is completely irrelevant.  For what it's worth, I have seen recent sales of units significantly below $2,500.       </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Sounds good to me.<br>

&n

bsp;<

/p>

<p>Correct me if I am wrong, but I do get the impression there are no great

Canon-ma de wide angles excepting the 35/1.4. This may sound harsh, but my emphasis is on the word "great".</p>�

[davidclapp]

<p>I will certainly fly the flag for the 14-24, but I have just borrowed a 21mm Zeiss so look out for a comparison test on my website which I will be writing this week. I still think no matter what you do its the best multipurpose ultrawide zoom and covers a range of lenses (16-35II, 14 II, 24mm 1.4) and performs with fabulous results, BUT the trade off is manual focus manual aperture, which is not a biggy considering it's the only way I focus landscapes with all my AF lenses.</p>

[deans]

<p>Canon is coming out with an updated 24mm which you should also consider. You can find it on Amazon. It isn't cheap though.</p>

[jonny_mac]

<p>Check out the owner reviews on FredMiranda.  The 14 II has great reviews and you don't give up anything.  Sure you can get the 16.9 net adapter and do the Nikon but the trade offs were too much for me so I ordered the 14 II.  Perhaps only the extreme pixel peepers could tell the difference and I'd be surprised if you had a print from both that you would be able to tell the difference.  Stopped down, they look to be pretty darn close from the comparison.<br>

<br /> Also check "the digital picture" site for a review of the 14 II.  Yes, I'd call it "great" from the reviews at least.  As someone said, the difference between 21 and 14 is HUGE.  you may like the exclusivity of the Contax which that seems about all you are getting different, and if that is what you are after go for it.</p>

[matt_bennett3]

<p>Thanks all for your input. Scott, yes I had just finished skimming that article you linked to when I posted the

question, but had mistakenly thought you were limited in your aperture selection. The Nikon certainly seems

like the new definition of what's possible. I just cannot understand why Canon is so poor on the wides. (even though

the 14mm II is great, it's blown away by that Nikon) Even if Canon's lacking in ideas you'd think a bit of reverse

engineering should prompt some insights... John, to tell you the truth, I spent on hour yesterday afternoon wondering

if it might be time to sell all and convert to the enemy, starting with the 14-24 and the new D3X :-)... then I saw the

D3X price!<br>

To those who pointed it out - yes there is a huge difference between 21mm and 14mm and I certainly would be

aiming for the lower after using the 17-35mm. Armando, yes I have read so much about the high IQ of the 21mm, I

almost bought it but I hate paying more than the lens ever was new and I'm not sure it's wide enough - may leave me

wanting at times...</p>

<p

>David, thanks for all your indirect input into these decision-making processes, it really is much appreciated. I will ke

ep my eye out for that next review. Dean, looked at the Canon 24mm (looks even longer than its predecessor) but wo

n't be wide enough and my 24-105L has already got that covered, albeit at f/4. I definitely have a habit of keeping m y

eye on 'the-dig-pic" for all new reviews, the one for the 24mm II can't be too far off.<br>

 

I guess the truth is, wide landscapes at these focal lengths are largely going to be shot at f/11 - f/22 so performance w

ide open is probably not as important. Any opinions on the Leica R wides? Thanks again.</p>���������������

������������

����������������������

������������

������������������������

������������

��������

[jonny_mac]

<p>One more comment on the 14mm: read the last two comments on the link below before deciding</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00NhUS</p>

<p>'nuff said</p>

[matt_bennett3]

<p>Hi Jonny, thanks for that. I think I am coming to the same conclusion. It's a damn fine lens at any rate, the Canon, and will be largely used stopped down. I may lust after the quality of the Nikon but I'm not sure that I'll be missing out on too much with the Canon, not to mention the ease of complete system compatibility from the word go, along with filter usability. Cheers, Matt</p>

[RickDB]

<p>FYI - Searched the web but I couldn't find any reports of successful (or unsuccessful) use of an old Zeiss 21mm Distagon T* with Haoda adapter on Canon 5D2 - so I gave it a try and thankfully had no problems with mirror clearance at either extreme of focus on <em>MY</em> 5D2. Note, however, that I have seen reports that variability in build tolerances in the 5D (Mark 1) did result in mirror clearance problems.</p>