Canon L vs. Zeiss glass

Dimitris wrote in post #13441304
I would like to see how people will focus their 135mm f1.8 manually. I have difficulty getting the 35mm f1.4 in focus.

That is true, although manual focus is half the fun I think people could do the drive by shooting and pray for a decent shot for me, i cant really tell when its sharp, but i still shot regardless!

p360 wrote in post #13443094
But 28/2 is one of my favorite Zeiss. 25/2 would be too close to it in focal length.

If I end up selling 28/2 for it, then I am closer to 21/2.8.

I think I’ll just stay put.

Just an FYI. The 25 f2 is supposed to better at controlling distortion. Once I get a copy, I'll let you know if you should sell that 28 or not.

Dimitris wrote in post #13441304
I would like to see how people will focus their 135mm f1.8 manually. I have difficulty getting the 35mm f1.4 in focus.

No problem with that.
Porst 135/1.8 - think Zeiss should no be worst to focus.

x_tan wrote in post #12856297
Seem 85L has more detail than Zeiss 85.

They're different beasts. The Zeiss isn't so good up close and wide open, but the 85L is just the opposite. The Zeiss 85 doesn't get great reviews, but for what it's good at (portraits and longer), I think it probably excels. I have both the Canon 50L and Zeiss 50 MakroPlanar and this is what I find. I didn't like the 50 1.4 (Canon or Zeiss) for their up close and wide open performance.

Garry Gibson wrote in post #13430435
I just made a decision to buy a Zeiss 21 2.8.
I borrowed a 24TSE II from Canon CPS and it was wonderful, but I know
how lazy I am sometime and I wondered (being honest with myself and all)
how many times I would go through all the motions of setting up the lens
to get the absolute most out of it.
I found a used 21 2.8 for $1500 and that little price difference put me over the edge.

Especially for landscape photos, I don't think the manual focus is a big deal
at all. The focus confirmation works really well and as everyone says the lens
is like a fine tuned machine.

As I look at my shots of the 21 2.8 and the 24 TSE they seem comparable to me
both excellent, both much sharper at f4 than my 24-105. The other thing is, the 21 MM
seems to be much wider as I am composing than the 24 was. ( I know, I know
only 3mm, but it just seems that way.)

I think it comes down to what you shoot. Things that don't move, I would recommend
the Zeiss to anyone, stuff that moves.... AF would be important.

Just one more thing, when you look at all the photos of the 21 in the reviews, it looks
very big. It isn't really, takes up very little space in my bag.

Also, just as a for what it's worth. Those of you like me who shoot two bodies
like a 7D and a 5D. The 7D and the 21 will offer you a nice Zeiss 33.6 f2.8 lens
which does expand your lens capabilities.

Sorry for running on, but this was a big decision for me and I like my choice.

Wider focal lengths get wider fast. The 15mm difference between a 35mm and 50 isn't optically huge, but obviously 15mm off a 24mm is very huge. Logrithmic?

The Zeiss 21 is the same size as the 16-35II. It's also a lot heavier. Bothe are good performers, but the Zeiss has better edges wide open, and all that great micro contrast. For landscapes, I'd go for primes, like the 21ZE, but for street, primes are tougher.

Kiwimochi wrote in post #13429195
Is it just the collection mentality, why is that we need 18/21/25/28/35 ? aren't they so close to each other?

My habit has been to skip focal lengths, i.e. 19, skip 21, 24, skip 28, 35, skip 50, 85, skip 100, 135, etc. These days I'm just the opposite: 21, skip 24, 28, skip 35 (but I have one...), 50 (there isn't just ONE good for both close, wide open AND longer focus stopped down...), skip 85, 100, skip 135. As I found most Canon WA offerings lacking in magic, I went Zeiss. I come from a disappointed Nikon guy with 15 lenses to lover of Leica glass, and only 9. I don't think everyone can really "see" the difference sometimes. You have to love things like harmonics.

Someone mentioned the 17tse. it's MUCH wider than the 21 ZE and really not nearly as sharp as the 24tse, which is probably sharper than the 21 ZE. But sharpness isn't everything. There's color rendering, etc. Someone also commented that the 18ZE is bleah, so maybe reason enough for the 17TSE. But like many ZE lenses, I think its more a matter of proper purpose than being crap. The 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 get a lot of crap from reviewers that look at charts.

(Sorry for the 3 in a row; I just discovered this thread and it's very interesting to me.)

people always rag on the 85 ZE for close ups and wide open but i love the dreamy look it gives. first is at 1.4, second is at 1.6. both were shot using liveview i believe

I have owned (or still do) the following Zeiss lenses:
21
35 f/2
50MP
100MP

Generally I find Zeiss images to have a "darker" mood - kind of difficult to put my finger on really. My favourite is the 50MP purely for the amount of detail and versatility.

Here are a couple of crops I made from my Canon 17-40 and Zeiss 2/35 - I must stress this is not scientific at all but does indeed highlight the differences I sometimes see in the Zeiss glass.
The Zeiss image was much larger as it was part of a stitched panormama so the resolution on the Zeiss image was higher to start with but that only accentuates the difference that was already there. Both were focussed correctly even though the Canon sort of doesnt look like it and the only processing was a resizing & sharpening script in PS:

Canon:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

nice work bespoke. liked #1

bespoke wrote in post #13488956
people always rag on the 85 ZE for close ups and wide open but i love the dreamy look it gives. first is at 1.4, second is at 1.6. both were shot using liveview i believe

I agree, very dreamy. Thats exactly why I'd like to add it to my lenses. The 100 ZE is not dreamy, at all, but brutally honest. Maybe not the best portrait lens, whereas the 85 is, like you said, dreamy. Damn, I have too many lenses already.