Canon 24L II or Zeiss 21 2.8

I want to hear some reviews when comparing Canon 24L II with Zeiss 21 2.8
Why do you choose one over the other one?
Thanks,

I did a quick comparison a while ago when I had both.

Open in new tabs in your browser and flip between them.
(TIP: Look at the trees/bushes on the left side)

Canon 24L II @ f/2.8
Zeiss 21 @ f/2.8

Canon 24L II @ f/5.6
Zeiss 21 @ f/5.6

Canon 24L II @ f/8
Zeiss 21 @ f/8

The focus was on the tree trunk of the tree in the foreground. Tripod, live view focus. Developed from raw using standard settings and resized the same way.

This of course only tells part of the story. The Zeiss is a f/2.8 lens while the 24L II is an f/1.4. The uses for them are quite different. If you need a fast low light prime go with the Canon. If you need a landscape lens, go with the Zeiss. Both are really excellent.

I shoot primarily landscapes so my choice was obviously the Zeiss.

If you're shooting landscapes, I'd take one of the tilt shifts - 17L or 24L, depending on your preference of focal length and requirement for filters. It's hard to beat the functionality of a tilt-shift for shooting things that don't move...

The TS-E 24 is awesome as far as raw optical performance goes. Still, I've found it to be similar in rendering style to the 24L II and I by far prefer the look of the Zeiss. The micro contrast and colors of the Zeiss are hard to beat. Tilt-shift can be useful but I see it mainly as a useful feature for architectural photography, not so much landscapes.

I chose the 24L II because I need a fast lens with AF.

I chose the TS-E 24L II over the Zeiss because I wanted tilt + shift movements.

I have the 24L. I never really considered the Ziess as this lens is my main lens and I wanted AF and speed.

I want to take landscape, indoor groups, full body portrait with landscape background. Debating whether AF or 1.4 will make huge difference. I rather have a good quality, sharp, good color rendition lens. Price is a factor as well. I really want to know the new 24L II's performance compare to the 21mm Zeiss.

They are both outstanding!
I prefer the Zeiss rendering, and hopefully with the new Zeiss lens profile updates to Adobe, the wave/moustache distortion can be easily addressed in post-processing. I haven't checked yet since I recently sold my Zeiss 21mm Distagon. I will probably end up purchasing another one in the future. The DOF on the Zeiss seems magically infinite at f8 or f11.

Do you need weathersealing, autofocus, and/or the two extra stops? Because the Zeiss is awesome except for these issues. If you're shooting indoor groups, I'd strongly consider the Canon lens.

I think AF would be beneficial if you're going to be doing portraiture at all. The ZE is an amazing piece of glass!

Had the Distagon, own the 24L.

For purely landscape, the Zeiss all the way, every day. I LOVE how it renders. Colors are to die for, and corner to corner performance is insane.

For everything else where I need AF and a faster aperture, the 24L. The 24L is no slouch at landscape either, but there's something special about the Zeiss.

I've been contemplating the same question. Currently, I am planning on buying the 24LII as my next lens, since I plan to use it for a mix of landscape and environmental portraiture. The big draw for me is what the f/1.4 can do for nighttime landscapes with starry skies. That said, I worry about vignetting and corner sharpness in this application and might be stopped down anyway. (Zeiss is still on my radar)

Zeiss 21. It's a piece of art.

the real answer is that as long as you get the II versions you can't go wrong with the TSE 24, 24L or ZE 21. The 24-70 @24 is certainly no slouch either. Mine's amazing.

plasticmotif wrote in post #10888847
the real answer is that as long as you get the II versions you can't go wrong with the TSE 24, 24L or ZE 21. The 24-70 @24 is certainly no slouch either. Mine's amazing.

Don't mean to steal this thread, but why are the Mark I's not good? I have the 24LI and from what I've seen it's not a night and day difference with the Mark II.

I might be mistaken, but the 24L Mark I seems to perform like the 35L, while the 24LII is a step up from both. Enlighten me.

I saw some tests where zeiss and canon 21 and 24L where really not far ..
Probably a lot of people like zeiss colours and micro contrast ..

But I choose 24L1.4II ... just because we can make picture zeiss won't be able to do, due to like of AF and poor aperture ...

IMAGE LINK: http://photos.corbi.eu …9-2/980689450_5CEsP-O.jpg

IMAGE LINK: http://photos.corbi.eu …9-2/989508774_e6vtE-O.jpg