Is the Zeiss 21mm 5 times better than Rokinon 14mm?

I know the Zeiss 21mm is a better lens, but it costs 5 times as much as the Rokinon 14mm, is it worth the extra investment? I of the know the better build and FOV difference. I have wanted the Zeiss 21mm for some time now but could not seem to pull the trigger, $1800 new is quite an investment. I just bought the Rokinon 14mm lens and figured I would give my try at manual focus on a less expensive lens first. Will it be worth the extra $1300-$1500 to upgrade to the Zeiss 21mm later or is everybody going to have a different view and/or reason to upgrade or not.

It's really up to you to decide whether the Zeiss is worth 5x the asking price.

I've never used the Rokinon 14mm lens so I can't comment on IQ or build quality.

I did have a chance to use the Zeiss 21mm and it's everything I expected it to be. Excellent IQ and the build quality is second to none. For me, it's worth every penny of the $1800 asking price. It's as good of a lens as they come.

I'm sure you understand the principle of diminishing returns, right?
Because of the diminishing returns, each photographer gets to decide for himself at which point on that scale he will make a purchase.

Surely you don't think that the Zeiss should be 5 times better if it costs 5 times as much?
Consider major league baseball players. There are a bunch of scrubs on the waiver wire that will bat .240 Teams could sign any of them for around $300,000 per season. Does that mean that if they pay a player $600,000 they should realistically expect him to bat .480? Surely not. If there was a player that batted .480, he would command in excess of 30 or 40 million dollars a year!

These same principles apply to not only camera gear, but to just about everything in life.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15510732
These same principles apply to not only camera gear, but to just about everything in life.

Nail on the head! Only you can decide what anything is worth to you.

For example, I really have no use for a car and probably wouldn't want to drive one even if given for free, but some people depend on being able to drive around, and some people just want the best. A car doesn't take nice photos, so I can afford to think about camera purchases on such a scale that just the lens may cost as much as the whole kit of another person, because it's worth it to me.

Only way you can really tell is if you try that lens out yourself, at a local store, for example; rather than just from comments of people on the internet.

If your an amateur photographer ( with your Rokinon ) and you're up against a pro photographer ( with a Zeiss ) for a magazine cover, that tiny bit of improvement against another very expensive lens means, he/she gets the cover shot, and you get page 174 then you'd probably want the Zeiss to compete evenly next time.
Do you rely on your pictures to make a living, that may be a deciding factor for you.......

No. Certainly not better. You are comparing a 21mm with a 14mm. Even if you were a pro photographer, lighting and post-processing possibly has a greater implication than just the lens. The Rokinon has excellent optics based on the images people have posted on its thread.

Do I still want the Zeiss? You betcha. But not for the reasons as stated above.

The 15mm Zeiss is around $3000, that is almost 8 times the cost of the Rokinon and nearly the same focal length.

jkokbaker wrote in post #15511673
The 15mm Zeiss is around $3000, that is almost 8 times the cost of the Rokinon and nearly the same focal length.

But I thought you said it cost 5 times more. Now I am confused.

jkokbaker wrote in post #15510176
I know the Zeiss 21mm is a better lens, but it costs 5 times as much as the Rokinon 14mm, is it worth the extra investment? I of the know the better build and FOV difference. I have wanted the Zeiss 21mm for some time now but could not seem to pull the trigger, $1800 new is quite an investment. I just bought the Rokinon 14mm lens and figured I would give my try at manual focus on a less expensive lens first. Will it be worth the extra $1300-$1500 to upgrade to the Zeiss 21mm later or is everybody going to have a different view and/or reason to upgrade or not.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15511696
But I thought you said it cost 5 times more. Now I am confused.

The Zeiss 21mm is 5x as much, but the Zeiss 15mm is 8x as much.

Rokinon 14/ 2.8 should be compared to Zeiss 15/ 2.8. It is not appropriate to compare them to Zeiss 21 because of the focal length difference.

14 and 21 are very different focal lengths. I don't think anybody going one way or other because of quality. I had both but ended up selling Rokinon but kept ZE21. Only because 14mm was too wide for me and preferred 21mm focal length.

Is Canon 400mm f2.8 20x better than Samyang 8mm fisheye? Hmm, decisions, decisions...

pulsar123 wrote in post #15512436
Is Canon 400mm f2.8 20x better than Samyang 8mm fisheye? Hmm, decisions, decisions...

MP-E 65mm, clearly.

It ends up in You.

The problem is that the issues you find in the Rokinon may not be addressed by spending 50% or 200% more money. You may have to spend 5X the price to get rid of the issues.

So either you tolerate the weaknesses or you spend the $$ to get a lens that is better. In my lens collection, I've done a bit of both.