Zeiss 21mm lens (?)

Advice please;

I've seen many landscape images taken with the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (ZE) lens on full-frame and I'm very impressed.

How might the likes of the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L lens compare against the Zeiss quality wise I wonder? I appreciate it's cheaper to buy.


Would like to hear any experience/thoughts/ad​vice please.


Regards;
Peter

It is an awesome lens, period. I use it on both a 5d2 and 5d3 and it is easily one of my two go to lenses. The other being the Zeiss 35mm 1.4. I shoot landscapes exclusively and manual focus is not a problem. The only advantages the 17-40 have is that it is a zoom and it has autofocus, for me it is a non issue though. I own six Zeiss primes and four tilt shift lenses. The zeiss optics are great, and the color rendition is beautiful.

You won't be dissaappointed!

Shiba

macvisual wrote in post #16219619
Advice please;

I've seen many landscape images taken with the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (ZE) lens on full-frame and I'm very impressed.

How might the likes of the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L lens compare against the Zeiss quality wise I wonder? I appreciate it's cheaper to buy.


Would like to hear any experience/thoughts/ad​vice please.


Regards;
Peter

not much of a comparison, zeiss is easily better on FF, zoom is a lot more flexible though which could be even more important potentially....

I'm a Zeiss fanboy. 'Nuff said. Put any Zeiss lens on any Nikon/Canon sensor and it shines.

Let me qualify my statements first - I have owned both at the same time with different copies on two seperate occasions and when I buy another UWA, it will definitely be the Zeiss. I absolutely love that lens.

The 17-40 is not that impressive wide open and/or right at 17mm where the ZE21 doesn't even get that much sharper stopping down from f2.8, it's great wide open. But, when you start comparing apples to apples using 21mm on the 17-40 at typical landscape apertures like f/8-f/16, the differences between the two lenses are far less apparent. Sure, the Zeiss is still better...but you really have to know what you're looking for to see the difference. Since I've owned multiple copies of each lens and I can honestly say that anyone who tries to tell you different is either captivated by the skill in the ZE21 thread or trying to justify their purchase.

Now, don't take that last paragraph out of context - the ZE21 is still the better lens. If you need the fast aperture for nightscapes/starscapes​, it's the clear winner. It's build quality and wonderful MF ring are to die for. And, when it comes right down to it, it still has slightly better IQ even when you're comparing at 21mm and f/11, but not nearly like some on this forum would have you believe.

So, the point of all this is to give you as objective of an opinion as you're likely going to find on this forum. Many people who buy the ZE21 would get nearly identical results from a 17-40 and have saved themselves a boatload of money. Depending on how you want to use it, you might be better off with a 17-40. If you decide to go with a ZE21 anyway, enjoy it - it's an AWESOME lens.

^^You forgot to mention the T coatings which help control flare. Something the 17-40 can't do.

I sold off my 17-40 in favor of the Zeiss 21 and wish I would have done so years ago. It's razor sharp wide open and the results are phenomenal, corner to corner. I liked my 17-40 and it held me over for years but the corner sharpness is sad...not as bad as the 24-105 which I also dumped. Center sharpness is closer between the two but the Zeiss just has some indescribable quality about it that I really enjoy. I still think the 17-40 is a great lens given the price but the Zeiss will squash it.

I love the Zeiss 21mm.

Like you, Peter, I had watched the 21mm ZE thread for a long while, but I just didn't feel like I could justify having the two excellent TS-E wide-angles and the Zeiss 21mm, but I finally went for it. And now it has become my favorite lens for wide-angle landscapes. Something about the way it renders color really appeals to me.

I don't have the experience MNUplander has with multiple copies of anything - and no experience with the 17-40mm at all, but my TS-E 17mm and 24mm II lenses are very sharp highly regarded lenses. They're fantastic - especially the 24mm II. But, if I don't need to tilt or shift, I have developed a decided preference for the Zeiss 21mm because I prefer the results better.

And one more note, I see that you do a lot of great flower photography (nice stuff!). Zeiss lenses also have fantastic minimum focus distances. At f/2.8 focusing the Zeiss 21mm on near subjects offers a lot of creative fun as well.

I am selling a couple of lenses this week (including my 50/1.2L) and I was wanting something wider than my Sigma 35. For money reasons, I have been considering the Voigtlander Color Skopar 20/2.8 pancake-ish lens (which I thought would be nice for trekking around lightly). But selling these lenses means I can consider the Zeiss 21. I wouldn't have even considered it, but Roger on LensRentals made a comment about the Zeiss I read recently that led me to believe the Zeiss 21 is pretty incredible. The Voigtlander sure has its faults on full frame, but it is very small. I am not sure how often I can't just use a backpack so small isn't as appealing as incredible. Hmmm. This thread has me intrigued. I think I'll spend some time in the lens sample forum now.

macvisual wrote in post #16219619
I've seen many landscape images taken with the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 (ZE) lens on full-frame and I'm very impressed.

If an image impresses you online, you are impressed with that photographer, not the lens. Getting the two confused can lead to dissappointment when buying expensive gear.

MNUplander wrote in post #16221038
Let me qualify my statements first - I have owned both at the same time with different copies on two seperate occasions and when I buy another UWA, it will definitely be the Zeiss. I absolutely love that lens.

The 17-40 is not that impressive wide open and/or right at 17mm where the ZE21 doesn't even get that much sharper stopping down from f2.8, it's great wide open. But, when you start comparing apples to apples using 21mm on the 17-40 at typical landscape apertures like f/8-f/16, the differences between the two lenses are far less apparent. Sure, the Zeiss is still better...but you really have to know what you're looking for to see the difference. Since I've owned multiple copies of each lens and I can honestly say that anyone who tries to tell you different is either captivated by the skill in the ZE21 thread or trying to justify their purchase.

Now, don't take that last paragraph out of context - the ZE21 is still the better lens. If you need the fast aperture for nightscapes/starscapes​, it's the clear winner. It's build quality and wonderful MF ring are to die for. And, when it comes right down to it, it still has slightly better IQ even when you're comparing at 21mm and f/11, but not nearly like some on this forum would have you believe.

So, the point of all this is to give you as objective of an opinion as you're likely going to find on this forum. Many people who buy the ZE21 would get nearly identical results from a 17-40 and have saved themselves a boatload of money. Depending on how you want to use it, you might be better off with a 17-40. If you decide to go with a ZE21 anyway, enjoy it - it's an AWESOME lens.

This is fantastic advice.

Zeiss' 21mm f/2.8 is a superb lens. This has been my favorite and most used lens over the past 4 years. I chose to buy it because I needed a wide angle lens with highest image quality. This Zeiss prime has excellent resolution, colors, contrast, and beautiful bokeh. The most common complaints that people have about the Zeiss lens are: price, hard to fix distortion, and vignetting. I tried the 17-40 f/4 and realized that f/4 was too limiting for me and while the image quality was good, it was not great. However, I think it's a great value lens, especially if one shoots at f/8 often. I do not. I guess my only complaint about the Zeiss lens is that I wish they had made it in their current mounts sooner.

JustinPoe wrote in post #16221854
If an image impresses you online, you are impressed with that photographer, not the lens. Getting the two confused can lead to dissappointment when buying expensive gear.


This is fantastic advice.

I agree that if an image impresses, it may be the photographer, but lenses do have different characteristics and a large sample size of images from several different photographers becomes quite helpful in assessing the overarching rendering qualities of a lens. I was extremely impressed with the the numerous Zeiss 21 images I reviewed for many months prior to buying mine. Doing so did not "lead to disappointment" for me.

jdizzle wrote in post #16221131
^^You forgot to mention the T coatings which help control flare. Something the 17-40 can't do.

you're saying the 17-40L is prone to flare? I don't think so.

David Arbogast wrote in post #16222035
I agree that if an image impresses, it may be the photographer, but lenses do have different characteristics and a large sample size of images from several different photographers becomes quite helpful in assessing the overarching rendering qualities of a lens. I was extremely impressed with the the numerous Zeiss 21 images I reviewed for many months prior to buying mine. Doing so did not "lead to disappointment" for me.

If an image impresses, it IS the photographer.

I think you kinda took what I was saying and ran the other way with it though. Expensive equipment can lead to disappointment if you expect it to automatically produce excellent results.
YOU weren't let down because you did your homework and you knew exactly what you were looking for.

I agree 100%, lenses have different characteristics. The Zeiss is sharper in the corners, has better microcontrast, has a better build quality... the list goes on. That's why it's often the lens of choice for skilled landscape photographers. The keyword there is skilled though. The Zeiss 21 will yield better results in the hands of a skilled artist. I've seen terrible shots with the Zeiss 21 and amazing shots with the Canon 17-40L but that doesn't mean that the 17-40L is better.

Really though, don't sell yourself short. The Zeiss didn't find that perfect composition, you did. The Zeiss didn't find that perfect light, you did. The Zeiss isn't doing the work, YOU are.

I'm not trying to build a case against the Zeiss 21. I'm just trying to keep things in perspective for the OP.

I wanted to argue with Justin, but the more I thought about, the more I realized that he's largely correct. I bought a Zeiss 24/1.8 for my Sony NEX 5N and initially my photos were so-so (this was late 2011 or early 2012). So I started reading up on composition and I watched post processing tutorials while switching to Lightroom. I started viewing the settings on Flickr of photos I liked. Every chance I got, I was reading a book or watching YouTube tutorial videos (and this was typically late at night after my family was sleeping - I'd stay up hours, though). Slowly, over the course of a year, my images really improved to the point where I was liking much of what I shot instead of sifting through 30 - 50 photos to find 1 I liked. I started getting much closer to realizing the potential of the lenses I used. But my early shots were not too far off of my shots with a kit lens. And even now, my shots with a standard kit lens have improved so much more even though I barely touch a kit lens.

I would never recommend buying a very nice lens to someone who is still trying to learn photography (and I mean, learning the basics like exposure and light and composition - not that we ever stop learning, mind you). Of course my anecdote is just that, but it helps illustrate how much work goes on behind the scenes to realize the potential in a very good lens - a lot of studying and a lot of practice. And then a lot more of both.