Zeiss 15mm 2.8 Resolution Samples!

Here's the money shots!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0

Full article here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

IMO, this thing beats the crap out of even the 14-24 Nikon, especially at the edges.

I see virtually ZERO distortion from center to edge, no CA, great corners from wide open and get even better stopped down.

Once the filter situation is cleared up about this lens, I think it could possibly be one of the best UUWA lenses available!

Once again, the lack of edge distortion is just incredible!

Insane.

Man...totally pantses the Nikon 14-24, and it's got an incredible lack of distortion. Too bad it's $3000...

I've never used UWA-lenses enough to know what to expect from them, but to my untrained eye this is a very nice sample.

But how can there be almost no distoration? I thought that wide angle tilt shift lenses are the only WA-lenses that can produce shots with no distoration?

Ivann wrote in post #14106225
I've never used UWA-lenses enough to know what to expect from them, but to my untrained eye this is a very nice sample.

But how can there be almost no distoration? I thought that wide angle tilt shift lenses are the only WA-lenses that can produce shots with no distoration?

Unusual perspectives don't constitute distortion. Even with the widest lens, if there is no distortion, straight lines remain straight. If there is distortion, they appear wavy.

There does seem to be a lot of silence surrounding the performance of this lens.

Strange, considering it hands the 14-24 it's own a$$.
Along with any lens around 15mm ever made.

This is one of very few times where Ken Rockwell's enthusiasm for a product is justified.

Since my 16-35 stays at 16mm 99% of the time, this lens might be worth considering. $3000 looks very justified to me.

Canon_Lover wrote in post #14106962
There does seem to be a lot of silence surrounding the performance of this lens.

Strange, considering it hands the 14-24 it's own a$$.
Along with any lens around 15mm ever made.

This is one of very few times where Ken Rockwell's enthusiasm for a product is justified.

Since my 16-35 stays at 16mm 99% of the time, this lens might be worth considering. $3000 looks very justified to me.

I'm not surprised by the silence. For most $3000 is too much for a prime under 200mm. And most seem to really dislike UWA lenses. But, I'm with you, it's a powerfully good looking lens and I love UWA photography. Unlike every other DSLR lens at or around this focal length this one appears to be the least compromised...which sets the price. With respect to that, like you I don't find the price offensive.

Shadowblade wrote in post #14106240
Unusual perspectives don't constitute distortion. Even with the widest lens, if there is no distortion, straight lines remain straight. If there is distortion, they appear wavy.

Makes sense. Thanks for explaining.

Just for fun I did some other comparisons:

15 ZE vs 14 II
15 ZE vs 14 Samyang
15 ZE vs 17 TS-E

I wonder if stitched shots from shifted 17 TS-E shots would give the same FOV as the 15 ZE. I'd say the Canon 14 II is the closest native FOV to the 15 ZE. So is the 15 ZE 50% better than the 14 to be worth the 50% increment in price between the two? I'm a bit surprised over the differences in the 14 II and the 14 Samyang. I thought I've read reviews saying the Samyang was better than the Canon, so I was hoping to see an even match between the 15 ZE and the 14 Samyang. Quite surprised with TDP's results though. Perhaps Bryan got a bum Samyang?

Once you go Zeiss, it is impossible to not have a doubt in your mind if you leave! Z

Gojira1976 wrote in post #14110947
Once you go Zeiss, it is impossible to not have a doubt in your mind if you leave! Z

Yes it is.

They need some tilt-shifts, or a tilt-shift teleconverter like the Hasselblad HTS 1.5.

After all, people buy Zeiss for IQ and resolution. These are usually the people most likely to stitch images together to make them even bigger.

This is such an awfully wide lens. I'm sure the performance will be amazing but I just don't shoot that wide often enough to justify that price tag.

I would shell out good money for a tilt shift 21mm that accepts filters..... drool!

Hardcore wrote in post #14114174
This is such an awfully wide lens. I'm sure the performance will be amazing but I just don't shoot that wide often enough to justify that price tag.

I would shell out good money for a tilt shift 21mm that accepts filters..... drool!

If you're making shifted panoramas, even a 24mm tilt-shift is wider than a single 15mm frame.

Oh, and I'd kill for a line of Zeiss tilt-shifts, with >12mm of shift in any direction and tripod foot, adaptable to either Canon or Nikon mounts!

Hardcore wrote in post #14114174
This is such an awfully wide lens. I'm sure the performance will be amazing but I just don't shoot that wide often enough to justify that price tag.

I would shell out good money for a tilt shift 21mm that accepts filters..... drool!

2x digital zoom when paired with 36MP!

I am seriously contemplating this lens. I too shoot my 16-35 almost exclusively at 16mm. I love my 16-35 but this would really surpass that and it'd finally allow me to get rid of my last zoom