Zeiss 21mm lens (?)

davidfarina wrote in post #16224648
wow, for a wideangle the 16-35 performs damn well!

Agreed, it really depends on what you need: super sharpness corner to corner: Zeiss, but if you want versatility of zoom, and AF the 16-35 is a great choice.

davidfarina wrote in post #16224648
wow, for a wideangle the 16-35 performs damn well!

The 16-35 II is certainly better over the 17-40 if you need f2.8, slightly better corner performance, slightly better flare control.

Pano done with the 16-35 II.

^Gorgeously rich hues.

I have not had my 17-40L show flare yet, even shooting directly into the sun and with bright stage lights (backlit).

While the 17-40L is not super sharp in the edges/corners, it is still a very sharp lens wide open in the center of the frame. I will use mine wide open without question. Many times you don't need super sharp corners anyway. If you stop down to f/8 or f/11 the edges look really good at 17mm (see examples below). While not the same detail as the 24-70 II, it still is very good for the money.

I really love using my 17-40L... I had one before but optically, it was quite poor. My new one is a keeper, though. Perfectly centered copy at both ends of the zoom range, very sharp wide open... I am very happy with it.

I would only let it go for something like a 14-24 f/4L...Mmmmm


Some of my shots from the 17-40...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/invertalon/8724​996382/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/invertalon/9443​778467/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/invertalon/8965​228220/

David Arbogast wrote in post #16225093
^Gorgeously rich hues.

Thanks. Singh Ray Color Combo CPL.

Never used the ZE 21 and won't have the funds to pour that kind of money into a manual prime for a long while. But just to chime in on the 17-40L, its corners are fairly weak at 17mm and quite weak anywhere near wide open (f/4-f/5.6). Combine the two (17mm @ f/4) and the results are simply abysmal near the extreme corners. But then, it can be argued that the ZE 21 doesn't get you 17mm anyway, so that's not a fair comparison. Basically, what I mean to say is that I agree with MNUplander: used at 21mm and f/8-f/11, the 17-40L is fairly sharp corner to corner, gives great color and contrast, and doesn't flare much.

Is the ZE 21 better under the same conditions? I'm sure it is, based on samples and testing. But the 17-40L is "good enough" for almost any application at 20-28mm stopped down.

If I were going to drop mad dough on a manual focus UWA, it would without a doubt be the Nikon 14-24mm over the ZE 21.