Deciding to get the Zeiss 21mm need opinion please

i'm having a hard time picking an UWA lens for my 5Dc, i'm a portrait/wedding/perso​n shooting type. Not very often i shot for landscape but if i go travelling i will take the shot anyway. Every time i look at the zeiss sample images i'm amazed! every single picture i think its an amazing shot. just wow!

my question is for who own this lens,
1. do you guys missing the lower length of the other canon zoom lenses(16-35 or 17-40)? does it really needed to get to that lower length with that much of distortion(if i shot a person or two)?
2. is it that hard focusing to a person when shooting wide open in low light with Manual Focus @f/2.8?

and question for all
3. If you just focus shooting a person with an UWA lens what do you recommend? ZE21? 24LII? 16-35II? or just go with 17-40?

any recommendation is welcome, thx,..

paten wrote in post #11972604
i'm having a hard time picking an UWA lens for my 5Dc, i'm a portrait/wedding/perso​n shooting type. Not very often i shot for landscape but if i go travelling i will take the shot anyway. Every time i look at the zeiss sample images i'm amazed! every single picture i think its an amazing shot. just wow!

my question is for who own this lens,
1. do you guys missing the lower length of the other canon zoom lenses(16-35 or 17-40)? does it really needed to get to that lower length with that much of distortion?
2. is it that hard focusing to a person when shooting wide open in low light with Manual Focus @f/2.8?

and question for all
3. If you just focus shooting a person with an UWA lens what do you recommend? ZE21? 24LII? 16-35II? or just go with 17-40?

any recommendation is welcome, thx,..

Since you mentioned your only an occasional landscape shooter but primarily weddings & portraits the 21mm FL is not really suited for all three of these objectives.

Have you considered the Zeiss 35mm f2.0 ZE which could possibly fill your mentioned needs in just one lens plus the cost is only 1K

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_850_Distagon_3​5mm_T.html

The 35/f2 is sharp wide open and works fine for waist-up & full body portraits, plus can still capture some nice landscapes using the FF body.

Of course i just noticed you already have the 35L f1.4

For landscapes you cant beat the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 or the Canon 24L TSE II but you do pay a premium price for lenses that IMO are not suited for portraits.

Regards whatever your decision,

You ask a tough question and one that I was just this minute considering. After comparing the different reviews, I can't justify to myself getting the 21mm lens. It is a superb performer, especially in color saturation, but one can adjust saturation so easily in post-process these days.

It simply won't do for intimate or close portraiture. Your subject would have to be some distance away to avoid distortion of features. Although a bride with long train in a garden setting would work nicely--it would be sharp from edge to edge--then you have to ask yourself, how many brides really want to see themselves very sharply?

I have 5 zoom lenses that cover the 21mm setting over two formats, most of them are quite impressive individually, and the 17-55 and 16-35 both have f2.8. See my problem?

But it's only money--and that color, that sharpness! Oh, my.

Hi there,

The Zeiss is defintely a special lens but its not a miracle lens. There are some amazing shots in the lens archive but please remember that these will no doubt be some of the best shots taken by very capable photographers. You can still suck big time with this lens. I also get the feeling from your post that this may only be a "casual" lens for you for trips and the like. If so I would definitely think that some of the Canon L UWAs would suit you just fine. However if you really want the lens and the cash is not an issue then you wont be disappointed

In answer to your questions though:
1) no I dont miss the lower lengths but then its taken me a while to understand what I like to shoot and the 21 fits that bill. A 17-40 would no doubt be quite useful in certain landscape situations but I'm content sticking with the prime. Having said that however, I have just talen delivery of a Voightlander 20mm f/3.5 and the initial results look quite good. I dont think its up there with the Zeiss but its defintely good quality and the size/weight is a definite advantage to me. Hopefully I'll get round to posting some comparisons between the Zeis and Voightlander

2) I must admit I have never tried to focus on a perzon in low light with a 2.8 UWA. However I dont think it would be too difficult as the manual focus on the Zeiss is very easy to use. Depends on how "low-light" you mean...

3) if the person is still, any of those lenses you mention, whatever you're most comfortable with. If they're moving then an autofocus lens would be more advantagous.

Hope that helps.
Cheers.