14L vs 18Z vs 21Z

I need a bit of help and advice regarding these lenses. I have a pending sale on my 17-40 and I want to pick up a wide prime....

The lens archive for the 18 is only two pages. Is this lens not so popular vs 21? Why?

Any experience or recommendations on these lenses? I don't mind MF so the AF on the 14 is no factor. This will be used a hyperfocal/small apertures mostly.

I understand the 14 is "way wider" but is it necessary in your experiences? Does the width make it better than the "Zeiss quality?"

etc...

Higs, buy the samyang 14. its your best option.

kevindar wrote in post #13210537
Higs, buy the samyang 14. its your best option.

any concerns with distortion on it? i have read it looks nice but may not be as straight.

for architectural shots you have to correct distortion. For landscape, is often not visible. there is an ACR profile for 5d2 that I use, and I know PT lens also corrects it (25 bucks as a plug in). I like the ACR profile, b/c Its a very easy part of my work flow.
the lens has amazing sharpness wide open, almost No CA, good color and contrast, and has decent flare characteristics. If the focal length works for you, its truly an amazing lens.
It is easily as sharp (sharper) than 14L, it does have a little more vignetting, by f 5.6 its about 1.6 stops vs 1 for the canon. at 2.8 the corners are as sharp as canon gets at f8. center sharpness at every aperture matches or exceeds canons.
If the focal length works for you, its a no brainer.

I did try a 14L - I really didn't like the extreme corner stretching I saw in the images.

I think the reason the ZE 18 is less popular is that it's comparatively slow (f/3.5) and it has about 3 stops of vignetting on a ff camera. It needs to be stopped down to f/8 before vignetting disappears which limits its usefulness in many applications. It also exhibits some lateral colour - you can correct this in post processing but it's more work.

The ZE 21 is widely regarded as one of Zeiss' crown jewels. The price tag might tell you this too. 21mm is quite wide and the focal length also works well on a 1.3 or 1.6 crop.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13210385
I don't mind MF so the AF on the 14 is no factor. This will be used a hyperfocal/small apertures mostly.

I understand the 14 is "way wider" but is it necessary in your experiences? Does the width make it better than the "Zeiss quality?"

I agree, for the 14mm focal length the Samyang (Rokinon, Bower, Vivitar) is a much better buy. It is fully manual and the distance scale is always way off. I just calibrate mine to infinity, which works for just about everything. Its remarkably sharp considering its an economy lens. Whether the UWA is necessary or not is an artistic decision for you to make. For most the answer is no, but it depends very much on the subject/composition.

I use PT Lens to correct for distortion of the Samyang 14 in post, its a simple $25 program.
I also use PT Lens to correct for the mustache distortion in the Zeiss 21 images during RAW conversion. profiles are provided for both lenses.
As far as overall image quality, of course the Zeiss is better, but the emphasis on microcontrast and color richness seen with most Zeiss lenses is an individual prioritization. If cost is not a serious barrier, there is one other option: Canon 17 TSE is on the IQ level comparable to that of the Zeiss 21 and has the flexibility of the tilt/shift lens movements. You can flat stitch TSE shots to get an image with an effective width wider than 14mm.

Mike K

I use LR so do you have experience correcting these lenses with that? Also, I could get the samyang and just keep my 17-40..... Great. Budget is sort of like 2k plus or minus 2.... Tse might be just outside that.

I'm all for the Zeiss 21 but, if you're on a budget, the 14 Samyang is a good suggestion.

Well, I dont think my budget exempts me from anything but the tse. My main criteria is wide with minimal distortion but I really don't want to fool around with a tse anyways. I just want a wide but straight lens. Of course, color and micro contrast are great, which is why zeiss is in the list.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13211617
Well, I dont think my budget exempts me from anything but the tse. My main criteria is wide with minimal distortion but I really don't want to fool around with a tse anyways. I just want a wide but straight lens. Of course, color and micro contrast are great, which is why zeiss is in the list.

The 17 TS-E is your lens if you want minimal distortion.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13211155
I use LR so do you have experience correcting these lenses with that? Also, I could get the samyang and just keep my 17-40..... Great. Budget is sort of like 2k plus or minus 2.... Tse might be just outside that.

I don't have the samyang yet, but I've been told that there is a profile for it in LR.

The 14L doesnt do much for me - it doesnt offer much over the Samyang 14mm to justify the price tag of the "L", IMO. And, the ZE 18 is one of the "weaker" ZE offerings - the classic Zeiss "look" just isnt there with that lens - the sharpness, micro contrast, and "3D" look arent as pronounced with the lens as with other ZE lenses which make the price hard to justify.

Of the lenses you've mentioned, the ZE 21 is the clear winner in my book - just a phenomenal lens to use from the images it makes to ergonomics to build. I have this lens and absolutely love it - Im constantly blown away by the images it produces.

But, the canon TS-e lenses rival it in IQ except in micro contrast and if you truly need distortion free images and/or would benefit from the TS movements, they take the cake over the ZE 21. Ive tossed around picking up a TS-e 17 and a 1.4x to replace my 21, but I just cant get over how much I love the ZE "look" yet.

And as mentioned, the Samyang 14 is a fantastic budget option.

Well, if I can correct the 21Z in post it will also make for a faster setup vs the tse, right? In that case I would get the 21....especially if the 21 look cannot be replicated easily in post with the tse.

I am not getting paid for photography with a UWA so I am not sure the extra investment in the tse would be worth it anyways.

Now it's between the Samyang 14 and the Zeiss 21.....unless of course there are strong recommendations to just keep the 17-40..... lol.

Higgs, you can always buy the zeiss and see how it works for you. the lens costs the same as 16-35II, lacks autofocus, takes same size filter. comparing the lens to canon at 20mm, the zeiss has more vignetting, more distortion, and about same CA. at f 5.6, at least according to photozone, the mtf resolution for zeiss and canon for zone center, border and extreme corners respectively are
ziess: 3513, 3147, 3006
canon: 3464,3105, 3068
So lets see. with zeiss you get the name, the slightly better built, not sure about weather sealing, and of course they 3D look and amazing colors that cant be reproduced by processing (from looking at images from the web, I am yet to figure out what that means, but never owned the lens.
With canon you get: Autofocus, Weather sealing, excellent 16mm-20mm, and 22mm-35mm.
Tough choice, I know.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #13213418
Well, if I can correct the 21Z in post it will also make for a faster setup vs the tse, right? In that case I would get the 21....especially if the 21 look cannot be replicated easily in post with the tse.

I am not getting paid for photography with a UWA so I am not sure the extra investment in the tse would be worth it anyways.

Now it's between the Samyang 14 and the Zeiss 21.....unless of course there are strong recommendations to just keep the 17-40..... lol.

Im just an hobbyist myself so I can sympathize with the difficulty of your choice. But, Ill put the bug in your ear that you could probably get both of those for the price of one of the TS-e lenses.