14L vs 18Z vs 21Z

Honestly, you're not wrong and these are all valid points - and Ill remind you that Im in love with ZE lenses...Ive two of them.

The so-called "3D look" is truly just a smoother transition from in focus to out of focus areas and its not even really noticeable in EVERY shot, but when its there it does indeed pop off the page. And, the colors - well, Im red/green color blind so Im not a good judge but I personally dont see anything about the colors that cant be replicated in post if you want to...after all, its just color, and we have many tools available to us for adjusting colors.

As for sharpness, the MTF charts are sort of misleading. Not because they are wrong or invalid - but because they dont address the perceived sharpness that is a result of the one feature about ZE lenses I cant get enough of - microcontrast.

My ZE 21 and ZE 50MP pick up an incredible amount of fine detail that no other lens Ive ever used could replicate. This is the reason I choose them over the AF "L" lenses.

kevindar wrote in post #13213515
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.

Fair enough. Again, I have not shot a ziess before, and there could be differences in micro contrast, and I agree that it plays an importance in detail and perceived sharpness.

MNUplander wrote in post #13213694
As for sharpness, the MTF charts are sort of misleading. Not because they are wrong or invalid - but because they dont address the perceived sharpness that is a result of the one feature about ZE lenses I cant get enough of - microcontrast.

My ZE 21 and ZE 50MP pick up an incredible amount of fine detail that no other lens Ive ever used could replicate. This is the reason I choose them over the AF "L" lenses.

I fully agree with this view.
Its my hypothesis that this higher micro contrast also is related to the deeper perceived "color" and "saturation" of the Zeiss *T lenses, but I have no proof of this.
Mike K

kevindar wrote in post #13213759
Fair enough. Again, I have not shot a ziess before, and there could be differences in micro contrast, and I agree that it plays an importance in detail and perceived sharpness.

Kevin, you must buy the Zeiss 21! Hehe!

Mike K wrote in post #13213926
I fully agree with this view.
Its my hypothesis that this higher micro contrast also is related to the deeper perceived "color" and "saturation" of the Zeiss *T lenses, but I have no proof of this.
Mike K

Shouldn't the images give you enough proof?

MNUplander wrote in post #13213694
As for sharpness, the MTF charts are sort of misleading. Not because they are wrong or invalid - but because they dont address the perceived sharpness that is a result of the one feature about ZE lenses I cant get enough of - microcontrast.

Actually microcontrast is represented on most good MTF charts. It's indicated by very high (near 100%) 10LP/mm lines and very good and consistently matched sagittal and tangential 40LP/mm lines. Most ZEs have a hint of undercorrected SA for smoother focus transitions.

There's quite a few Canon lenses with more technical "microcontrast" than the comparable Zeiss. For me the biggest deal with Zeiss is the well-damped manual operation and build, flare resistance, and less-yellow color palette than most other manufacturers.

I think OP would be best suited with a Samyang 14 and TSE 24 or TSE 17 and Sigma 12-24.

I have the Samyang 14/2.8, and don´t like its build quality. At the moment I have problems that I can not fix the wobbely front part. Some have problems with a stuck iris - but that is more a problem with the Samyang 85.

On my review webpage you could find Adobe Lightroom profiles for the 14mm.

Since a week I have a Zeiss 18mm/4 - with Contax/Yashica mount. Love its build quality, and I like the first test images. The Zeiss 21 seems to be much better, as far the experts on FM write.

ZoneV wrote in post #13216632
I have the Samyang 14/2.8, and don´t like its build quality. At the moment I have problems that I can not fix the wobbely front part. Some have problems with a stuck iris - but that is more a problem with the Samyang 85.

Well what do you think about this lens besides build quality?

I am so close on picking up this lens. The only thing stopping me is that it can not take CPL filters, which I think is very important for landscape and nature shots.

Julian, I am not buying any more glass for my canon until I see how the nikon d800 and canon 5d3 pan out. I already have nikon 14-24. a 36mp d800 which shoots full frame at 4, and dx at 8, with sony's better DR, Pro autofocus, Nikons better flash metering, full 1080P video. I will sell my 7d and 5d2, and all my lenses, and go with the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 vr, a sigma 85 1.4, a macro lens, and a wide prime. I think they make a 35 1.4. the only thing hard to replace is my 100-400L. Canon needs to step up on their next body. they realy realy do.

Optical quality is great for the money - as long as mechanics is proper aligned.
Distortion of this lens make it a nearly digital only lens - first really digital optimized lens

Which other 14mm lens for 24x36 accepts front filter?

If one uses and handle the lens like a baby it is probably long usable. If one use it like a tool, it will probably not work long.

kevindar wrote in post #13217994
Julian, I am not buying any more glass for my canon until I see how the nikon d800 and canon 5d3 pan out. I already have nikon 14-24. a 36mp d800 which shoots full frame at 4, and dx at 8, with sony's better DR, Pro autofocus, Nikons better flash metering, full 1080P video. I will sell my 7d and 5d2, and all my lenses, and go with the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 2.8 vr, a sigma 85 1.4, a macro lens, and a wide prime. I think they make a 35 1.4. the only thing hard to replace is my 100-400L. Canon needs to step up on their next body. they realy realy do.

I hear ya. If the D800 is true, I might give Nikon a try again.

If you have the money, go for the Zeiss 21. It's plenty wide and all the good things you've heard are true. By far the best lens I've ever used.

I want to see a 'telecompressor' for the TS-E 17, to shrink its image circle to fit on a full-frame sensor - 10mm rectilinear lens, anyone?

nfbuckeye wrote in post #13220891
If you have the money, go for the Zeiss 21. It's plenty wide and all the good things you've heard are true. By far the best lens I've ever used.

I'm thinking I will go that route. Thanks to all!