Zeiss 21mm lens (?)

I own both. I bought the 17-40 as one of my first lenses for 5D, and used carefully it gave me very good results. Contrary to earlier suggestions, I find it to be very good at controlling flare, it is sharp in the center, and stopped down focused close it gives corners that sharpen OK in post, but only stopped down. More distant details in the corners are a bleary mess. If it is grass close in the foreground you might be OK, if it is clouds you might be OK, if it is tree branches farther away, forget about it. I pretty much use the lens at f/11 period. I took many pictures that I like a lot.

I make large prints and ultimately I became dissatisfied with the level of detail the 17-40 was able to give, so I bought the Zeiss 21, and it does what others say it does. For landscape I still use it stopped down, but it is sharp without excuses.

It is also f/2.8 and can isolate foreground from background in a way that I was frankly never tempted to try with the f/4 zoom.

The 17-40 is light weight and versatile and it can do 17mm, the Zeiss 21 is big, heavy and 21mm only. If I were going to Europe, I would probably tale the 17-40 and leave the 21 home. To me, the ZE 21 cannot replace the 17-40, but if 21mm is what you want, the Zeiss is for sure better.

ed rader wrote in post #16222104
you're saying the 17-40L is prone to flare? I don't think so.

It does flare. Are you saying that shooting into the sun it's not prone? The 17-40 L was my first UWA lens and then later understood it's weaknesses ala soft corners and flare. Then I moved to the 16-35 II which was slightly better but, still not perfect. The Zeiss 21 doesn't exhibit those flare circles and creates a star burst much better than Canon's UWA zooms. The two L lens that I can think of that's similar is the 24 L 1.4 MK II and 24 TS-E II.

seanlancaster wrote in post #16222266
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.

I understand where you're coming from but, when you realize the difference in how well Zeiss renders it just might change your mind. Although, I've been through this with other members on this forum who say they don't see the infamous microcontrast.

jdizzle, I do realize how well the Zeiss renders as I've viewed images on Flickr from this lens for the past hour. I've had other Zeiss lenses in my past. But if I had shot with the Zeiss 21 before I learned post processing and composition and stuff . . . well, even the Zeiss 21 and all of its good qualities wouldn't have helped me look impressive with my camera very often. My point is that it takes a good photographer to realize the potential in a lens like the Zeiss 21 AND there is a lot of potential (e.g., I believe in the Zeiss 3D pop).

JustinPoe wrote in post #16222145
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 agree with all you wrote...I wasn't intending my post to be contrary. I just wanted to defend the value of lens image threads. I also like what you've written in your second reply too. Good stuff!

Hey guys GREAT replies, very much appreciated, and excellent advice, thank you!

More head scratching, more homework, keep the replies coming.......

Great stuff;
Pete

Well, I just checked out the Zeiss 21 at DxOMark and it scores very average (particularly compared to the Canon 24/1.4 - and I realize there is a significant difference between 24 and 21). Hmph! And then there is Roger Cicala's review, which reads, in part:

So the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 is probably the perfect landscape length lens on full-frame sensor it seems....

Debatable I know.

seanlancaster wrote in post #16222856
jdizzle, I do realize how well the Zeiss renders as I've viewed images on Flickr from this lens for the past hour. I've had other Zeiss lenses in my past. But if I had shot with the Zeiss 21 before I learned post processing and composition and stuff . . . well, even the Zeiss 21 and all of its good qualities wouldn't have helped me look impressive with my camera very often. My point is that it takes a good photographer to realize the potential in a lens like the Zeiss 21 AND there is a lot of potential (e.g., I believe in the Zeiss 3D pop).

You just have to try it out yourself to understand. Looking at photos and reviews don't help.

jdizzle wrote in post #16223686
You just have to try it out yourself to understand. Looking at photos and reviews don't help.

Looking at photos helped me.

David Arbogast wrote in post #16223789
Looking at photos helped me.

Sure it did.

jdizzle wrote in post #16223686
You just have to try it out yourself to understand. Looking at photos and reviews don't help.

Looking at photos helped me, but it was nothing compared to how it was when I rented it and shot with it for a week, I was blown away at the quality...the only thing I don't like about this lens is its price.

How does it compare to the 16-35 II?

davidfarina wrote in post #16224248
How does it compare to the 16-35 II?

The 16-35 is more versatile, however, the Zeiss is sharper corner to corner, and it has microcontrast (the 3D pop).

KhaledA wrote in post #16224372
The 16-35 is more versatile, however, the Zeiss is sharper corner to corner, and it has microcontrast (the 3D pop).

wow, for a wideangle the 16-35 performs damn well!