Zeiss 21 or 16-35 F4 IS

Hello everyone -

I have taken a break from landscape photography, using my 24-70 II when the opportunities came up - just an issue with free time/conflicting priorities. I'm considering adding a 100-400 II but have also tossed around the idea of a used 70-300L AND a ZE21 or 16-35 f4 IS so I could re-ignite my passion for landscape photography...what got me into this hobby to begin with.

I've always had an un-healthy affinity for the ZE21 because of it's IQ and it's wonderfully useful distance scale. A useable distance scale on a prime makes landscape photography so easy from a technical perspective - just a few different settings to remember for rough distance to nearest foreground object and you're done and onto the next composition. Very little time spent with Live View or focusing in general which I like when in quickly changing morning or evening light.

But, the 16-35 f4 IS is also appealing - IS, zoom and good IQ - but I'd be back to messing with Live View more than I'd like due to the nature of a zoom and I'm not sure how different the IQ would be.

I'm leaning toward the ZE21 (I've already admitted to having a biased relationship with this lens) but I wanted folks to have the chance to steer me clear of a mistake with good reasoning.

Thanks!

Heya,

You'd be hard pressed for someone to know the difference between the Z21 and the 16-35F4LIS once you print, large even. And that's the end result, right?

Ultimately, this is about you enjoying doing the captures. If you really have a thing for the Z21, then get it. The 16-35 is obviously more versatile, it's optically awesome. I would not even care about the IS frankly, what you're doing is tripod work most likely (I would assume) since you're doing late/early light often. Depends on subject really. Get the one you've always wanted. If you're not happy with it, trade it up to something else. Simple.

Very best,

Yes, the end result will be 20x30's or bigger. Sounds like the IQ really might be a toss up.

You're right, most of the time I will be on a tripod but when I'm backpacking I may appreciate the IS. If I'm out for a hike where the purpose is to backpack and camp for multiple days, I don't often bring a tripod due to pack weight. But, that's just a trip or two a year - the rest will normally be in lower light situations on a tripod.

I've owned the ZE21 before - that's how I fell in love with it, circumstances just caused me to change things up. If IQ is equal, I guess it comes down to personal preference for versatility vs. that awesome manual distance scale.

Thanks, Malveaux.

If you love one prime before, then why not buy another prime that is very good and amazing quality, i bought TS-E 24mm II then later TS-E 17, i couldn't believe how those two lenses can do, and honestly speaking, if you gave me the choice between Zeiss 21 and 16-35 f4IS and one of those TS-E lens then i will definitely go with TS-E, maybe it is not so perfect for hiking or backpacking, and it is manual, but with tripod for landscapes and architecture i can't think of anything better, even if i buy that Canon 16-35 f4IS it will never replace those two lenses or even one of them.

Thanks, Tareq.

I've had the 24 TS-e II before and while I agree tilt/shift capabilities open up so many possibilities and it had phenomenal IQ, I found them (T/S functions) tiresome in the field. I never found 24mm to be "quite" wide enough for my tastes so I was always shifting and stitching - compounded all the more when bracketing exposures. I couldn't leave tilt alone either, always trying to maximize my depth of field.

The end result was spending far too much time in Live View fiddling to get the focus just right. I like to be "on the move" when light is changing - gathering as many compositions as I can before the good light is gone.

On the other hand, the 17mm was so wide for me I couldn't justify the expense for the times I'd want that wide.

MNUplander wrote in post #17733937
Thanks, Tareq.

I've had the 24 TS-e II before and while I agree tilt/shift capabilities open up so many possibilities and it had phenomenal IQ, I found them (T/S functions) tiresome in the field. I never found 24mm to be "quite" wide enough for my tastes so I was always shifting and stitching - compounded all the more when bracketing exposures. I couldn't leave tilt alone either, always trying to maximize my depth of field.

The end result was spending far too much time in Live View fiddling to get the focus just right. I like to be "on the move" when light is changing - gathering as many compositions as I can before the good light is gone.

On the other hand, the 17mm was so wide for me I couldn't justify the expense for the times I'd want that wide.

Ok, fair enough and understood.

Don't forget the 3D-like 'Zeiss look' that comes from the prime in question's higher microcontrast. You won't get that with the Canon.

Last year, I bought the 24 TS-E II and wanted to use it to replace the ZE21. In the end, I kept bought of them. Although the TS-E 24 II is superior in term of IQ, it can't produce "crispy-look" that I like from the ZE21 SOOC.

However, after getting the 16-35 IS, I'm seriously thinking of selling the ZE21 again. This zoom lens is one of very few canon lens that renders quite close to my zeiss lenses (high microcontrast/contrast​, high resolution). The 21 may have little bit more saturated color though. Both are very close in IQ but the ZE21 has quite bad flare resistance (which I hate the most, can't even get a good sunburst without having huge ghost/flare in the middle of image).

MN.
Zeiss 21 or Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS?
Sounds like "Which do I buy first?"
Hard choice, Yes
Wrong choice, No.

despite the high flexibility of the zoom, the prime will define your style.

the prime will be better for nightscapes if you enjoy that sort of thing. That said, I have a set of zooms for landscapes even if the majority of my favorite shots have been made with primes

Nick5 wrote in post #17734984
MN.
Zeiss 21 or Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS?
Sounds like "Which do I buy first?"
Hard choice, Yes
Wrong choice, No.

You're killing me.

Charlie wrote in post #17735065
despite the high flexibility of the zoom, the prime will define your style.

the prime will be better for nightscapes if you enjoy that sort of thing. That said, I have a set of zooms for landscapes even if the majority of my favorite shots have been made with primes

This is what I struggle with - my mind tells me the 16-35 is the right choice but most of my favorite images were made with the ZE21 I used to have. I suppose this is why it comes down to being such a personal choice.

Although I don't have direct experience with either lens, the tests I've seen show them equivalent at 21 mm at f4 (or maybe a slight advantage to the EF 16-35). From what I read, the 16-35 f4 is better than the EF 16-35 f2.8 or the EF 17-40. Hence, if your experience with zooms was with either of these two... no wonder.

Obviously at 21 mm and f2.8 the Zeiss wins hands down. In any other focal length, the EF 16-35 wipes the floor with the Zeiss... (unless you buy more Zeisses...).

If I were strictly a landscape photographer, the f2.8 vs f4 would be immaterial, because most of the time I'd shoot at f8 for DOF and sharpness.

On the other hand, in landscape you can't zoom with your feet... If you are on one side of a canyon and you want to shoot something interesting on the other side,

a) If the framing requires, say a 35, you can crop the 21 mm shot and throw away resolution

b) If the framing requires 16 you are either SOL, or shoot a pano. A pano with a 21 mm is not necessarily trivial... Walking back to retrieve the 16 mm FOV... ah want cut it!

MakisM1 wrote in post #17735281
Although I don't have direct experience with either lens, the tests I've seen show them equivalent at 21 mm at f4 (or maybe a slight advantage to the EF 16-35). From what I read, the 16-35 f4 is better than the EF 16-35 f2.8 or the EF 17-40. Hence, if your experience with zooms was with either of these two... no wonder.

Obviously at 21 mm and f2.8 the Zeiss wins hands down. In any other focal length, the EF 16-35 wipes the floor with the Zeiss... (unless you buy more Zeisses...).

If I were strictly a landscape photographer, the f2.8 vs f4 would be immaterial, because most of the time I'd shoot at f8 for DOF and sharpness.

On the other hand, in landscape you can't zoom with your feet... If you are on one side of a canyon and you want to shoot something interesting on the other side,

a) If the framing requires, say a 35, you can crop the 21 mm shot and throw away resolution

b) If the framing requires 16 you are either SOL, or shoot a pano. A pano with a 21 mm is not necessarily trivial... Walking back to retrieve the 16 mm FOV... ah want cut it!

And what about if you put TS-E lenses there for landscapes?

Tareq wrote in post #17735404
And what about if you put TS-E lenses there for landscapes?

You will put a hole in your wallet, you can drive a truck through it!...

TS-E lenses are fantabulous for architectural photography, but I would not buy them for landscapes...

Not so much in this case. The Zeiss is only ~$200 cheaper than the TS-E 24mm. Although, right now it's ~$500 cheaper, maybe because of the oncoming Milvius, which has an expected price of ~$1850.

But anywise, the OP already said that TS-E's are out of the present question.