Zeiss 21mm Distagon T* 2.8/21 ZE

Ok, when when when when? Best I could find is 1Q2009.

Nobody is interested in this lens? :eeek:

Zeiss is way too expensive for me. I don't really feel its much sharper than cheaper equivalents.

syntrix wrote in post #7027662
Ok, when when when when? Best I could find is 1Q2009.

I think Q1'09 is the most updated info out there.

This is, for me, the coolest, and most anticipated lens release for the Canon mount since the Voigtlander APO Lanthar SL 125 2.5 Macro. I can't wait for some people to get their hands on it, the distagon was a monster lens, putting every L to shame - and if the EF version is that good, whew.

FOX2PRO wrote in post #7027904
Zeiss is way too expensive for me. I don't really feel its much sharper than cheaper equivalents.

The 21 2.8 Distagon, like I said, makes L glass look like utter crap. I haven't seen any Canon lens that gives anywhere near the kind of edge to edge sharpness this lens can spit out. If the optics are the same, this should blow even the Nikon 14-24 out of the water (and the Nikon smokes all the wide Canon Ls).

Perry, also you don't have to stop down then meter! That is priceless for what this lens (ZE Mount) could be.


I see that I need to confront a fox, but even his post has many holes in it. He didn't specify what zeiss/factory/mount, etc. For all I know, he has some cheap sony digicam that has a "zeiss" logo on it.

Please keep this on topic to the specific lens at hand, and make sure to comment on the specific part at the end "ZE", which is the Canon EF mount with DSLR aperature control.

This could be the sharpest UWA on earth for canon mount. Time will tell though, and I'm probably going to be an early adopter.

^ You are absolutely right about the benefits that the ZE mount will bring, negating most of the disadvantages of the other mount versions. Who needs AF for UWA anyway?

Watch the Distagon destroy the 17-40L here:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/1740.​html
And then watch it thrash other wide angles here:
http://www.16-9.net/ultrawides/

I'll go further than your 'could be' and say that this lens will definitively be the sharpest UWA on earth for the Canon mount. It'll make the 14L, 16-35L, 17-40L, and 24L look like the old 18-55 non-IS kit lens. IF they've kept the optics the same.

Oh, I don't have to click. I'm just thinking sticker shock might be over $1600 But well worth the potential.

Damn, I want this now, especially with spring right around the corner! But THIS specific version will probably need some time for reviews and verdicts.

Just try searching "zeiss" here in the topics, you don't get many threads!

Dude that's still a lot cheaper than the 14L II. I wanna see this baby scream on a 5DMKII when it comes out.

Oh and heh, the link is pretty ridiculous. The Distagon makes the 17-40L look so bad, and that lens ain't bad!

Yeah, in my work the 17-40L is damn sharp and has excellent contrast.

I can only dream of this distagon for that much... I read a post where someone said it was on B&H for a short time for that much. But of course, it's not there now.

/me early adopter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BRING IT!

I also noticed that even on the new 50 ZE, there isn't even a lens sample thread. I did find a thread with one person's snaps, and that's about all.... but this is a whole different class.

Damn you perryge! I just clicked and that just reaffirms!

But there might be manu differences in the canon mount, but let's hope it's the same!

syntrix wrote in post #7028538
Yeah, in my work the 17-40L is damn sharp and has excellent contrast.

I can only dream of this distagon for that much... I read a post where someone said it was on B&H for a short time for that much. But of course, it's not there now.

/me early adopter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BRING IT!

I also noticed that even on the new 50 ZE, there isn't even a lens sample thread. I did find a thread with one person's snaps, and that's about all.... but this is a whole different class.

I think there'll be a lot more people who buy the Distagon. Canon just doesn't have anything that comes anywhere close. The ZE 50 1.4 and 85 1.4, lacking AF, are trumped in many ways by the other (often cheaper) options. Plus their optics are nowhere near as absurd as the Distagon.

I won't buy it because I don't need a 21mm prime, but hopefully this will show more people that L glass, while good - is nowhere near the best you can get optically. All of Canons lenses are compromises - they have no true APO lenses, nor do they have any wider lenses with good edge sharpness compared to the center.

Well, I was referring to the 85 f/1.4 ZE Planar. I tried it out, and it wasn't very impressive.

syntrix wrote in post #7028557
Damn you perryge! I just clicked and that just reaffirms!

But there might be manu differences in the canon mount, but let's hope it's the same!

I know eh? It puts the 17-40L to shame, in a huge way. You should try one for real world stuff though - I had the pleasure of playing with the C/Y version once, and I'm tellin' ya, Canon has no idea how to make a lens that good.

You think the Ls are sharp and good, then you see some crazy s*** like this and you think 'damn, this is what good optics are'. The Coastal Optics 60mm macro is another lens that just pulverizes the Ls optically.

FOX2PRO wrote in post #7028584
Well, I was referring to the 85 f/1.4 ZE Planar. I tried it out, and it wasn't very impressive.

Wrong thread mate.

FOX2PRO wrote in post #7028584
Well, I was referring to the 85 f/1.4 ZE Planar. I tried it out, and it wasn't very impressive.

We are certainly not discussing Planar's here. Please keep on topic.