Zeiss 21 ZE or Nikon 14-24 + Adapter Conundrum

OK, yet another help me choose a lens thread but I am a little in need of ideas. Money is tight so I don't want to get the wrong thing.

At the moment I have a 16-35L (mkI) and Sigma 12-24. Both are good.

I am keen to get much sharper results, in most cases I will be on tripod using Live View so lack of AF isn't a biggie.

Option One - Sell both Sigma and 16-35 and get the Nikon 14-24 and adapter.

Option Two - Sell just the 16-35 and find cash to get the Zeiss 21 ZE.

Option Three - Keep Sigma, sell 16-35 and get 24-70 (sharper at 24mm than 16-35).

Option Four - Sell 16-35 and get the 24L mkII.

My 24-105L is up for sale on fleabay so that will hopefully add some cash.


Argh. Too many options..... Ideas on a postcard PLEASE

If possible find someone locally who can let you try a lens first to see if it works for you. The 21 is awesome but it is exactly 1 focal length. I understand the 14-24 is one of the best UWA zooms out there. In these situations I think renting a lens for trial will help or buy and sell them until you are satisfied.

Good idea but not possible to rent either of those two around here. Primes are fine, most of my work is done on the 35L.

Option 5: Sell both Sigma and 16-35L and get TS-E 17L.

Stitched it is wider than the Sigma, and has better IQ too when stitched. It also is better than the Nikkor. And IMO it is also better than the Zeiss. Just that the 17L doesn't do filters easily.

The 17L will give you a very nice prim setup, fitting with your current prime setup (17-35-85-200).

Kind regards, Wim

Wim, thanks! I had thought of that but it's soooo expensive. Maybe you have hit on something though. One of my favourite photographers was Arnold Newman and many of his photos look like they'd been tilted.

Off to do yet more research

I'd go with the Zeiss 21mm or one of canons new TS-E lenses.

I ordered the zeiss 21, but got to try the TS-E24II (because the zeiss wasn't in stock) and now I'm probably keeping the TS-E instead of the Zeiss (not really sure yet).

Both are great, the zeiss has that 3D zeiss rendering but with the TS-E's you can adjust perspective.

Good luck

I have the Nikon and it lives up to it's billing. I have never used the Zeiss, but I understand it is awesome as well. I vote the Nikon simply because of its versatility as a zoom. The whole Focus/Aperture thing is not that big of a deal, especially considering how good the IQ is out of that lens.

LamontSanders wrote in post #9271737
I have the Nikon and it lives up to it's billing. I have never used the Zeiss, but I understand it is awesome as well. I vote the Nikon simply because of its versatility as a zoom. The whole Focus/Aperture thing is not that big of a deal, especially considering how good the IQ is out of that lens.

What body are you using it on, is it easy to use?

I used it on my 5D2 until I sold it (several days) and a 1D3 until I sold it (again, several days...I just got the lens). On both bodies it was just awesome - 14mm is quite wide. It probably took me 20 minutes to figure out how to get it to work, but it really wasn't a problem. If you want to shoot landscapes, a tripod or monopod would be a good idea for the lens, but it can definitely be shot handheld. I recommend a body with live view if critical focusing is important (anything within about 10 feet of you...after 10 feet, set it to infinity + F/11 and it's probably sharp). I love it and when I get my 1Ds3 I can shoot you some pictures taken with it if you need any examples or anything. I hate being in "camera limbo" between buying/selling bodies!

Just wondering about this combo since I'm really considering it. I have my eyes set on the 17 ts-e but, I'm willing to try this option. Is converting this lens difficult to adapt to EOS? Thanks in advance.

jdizzle wrote in post #9421310
Just wondering about this combo since I'm really considering it. I have my eyes set on the 17 ts-e but, I'm willing to try this option. Is converting this lens difficult to adapt to EOS? Thanks in advance.

You need the G-EOS adapter from 16-9.net. Remove the rubber seal from the lens, attach the adapter, and off you go.

IMO, the TS-E 17 is sharper than the Nikkor at the same f-stops, however, has less vignetting at similar f-stops, has virtually no optical distortion, has consistent auto-exposure, is lighter, and is easier to operate.

The Nikkor is only 60 % of the price, or 2/3 if you add the adapter, is faster (F/2.8 vs F/4), and has 14-24. not only 17, although when two shifted shots are stitched horizontally, the TS-E 17 has the AOV of a 10.2 mm rectilinear lens, and vertically of a 12.8 mm.

The Nikkor was the best FF UWA lens out there for a while, but it has been bested by a few other ones by now . However, it still is an excellent lens.

Kind regards, Wim

Thanks Wim. After my disaster with the Zeiss 18, I've been really weighing my options.
Money isn't the issue but, a UWA zoom like the Nikkor is another option. After doing some more research and thinking, it looks like the 17 ts-e would be the better pick.

echo wrote in post #9270697
Off to do yet more research

Have you considered the TS-E 24L II? It's probably the sharpest lens I own, absolutely amazing.

timnosenzo wrote in post #9422028
Have you considered the TS-E 24L II? It's probably the sharpest lens I own, absolutely amazing.

I would consider that lens but, it's not wide enough for my needs. One big plus on the 24 TS-E is that it can take filters in 82mm. Something I wish the 17 TS-E had but, I'm willing use it w/o it and do some exposure blending.