Help me out on the wide end

Easy - 24L II and Sigma 50mm

JelleVerherstraeten wrote in post #10995232
I just ordered the Zeis 21 for my 5D2.

This?

Why did you chose it over the 24LII? Focal length? Is there that much difference? Not got much (read: any) experience with Zeiss glass - educate me.

alpha_1976 wrote in post #10995249
Easy - 24L II and Sigma 50mm

Yeah? I see you have the 35L and the 24L. You not like the 35L? I'm thinking of renting one of them but not sure which. Ideally I'd rent both but I want to try and piss as little money up the wall with rentals as possible.

TSE-17 and the 24 mkII

windpig wrote in post #10995757
TSE-17 and the 24 mkII

Unfortunately the TSE-17L4 at £1938.99 is more than my budget on it's own

.mark. wrote in post #10995265
This?

Why did you chose it over the 24LII? Focal length? Is there that much difference? Not got much (read: any) experience with Zeiss glass - educate me.

I'll give you an answer in pictures. Open the image pair in separate tabs in your browser and flip between them.

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

Tip: Look at the trees on the left side.


The 24L II is an amazing lens but the Zeiss 21 is broadly considered to be the best ultra wide angle lens ever made - it's in a completely different league. Having said that, the Canon is an f/1.4 lens which makes it suitable for low light photography while the Zeiss 21 is a f/2.8 lens and is typically used as a landscape lens.

.mark. wrote in post #10995960
Unfortunately the TSE-17L4 at £1938.99 is more than my budget on it's own

I understand. I've to the TSE24II, the 24LmkI and the 16-35, only thing I'd do over would be getting the 24LmkII, it was available when I bought the mkI version, but didn't want to spent the extra $400. I like the versatility of the 16-35.

The 35L is one of Canon's best wide lenses for full frame. For wide landscape I'd go with either the Zeiss 21 ZE or Canon TS-E 24 II. If you're used to prime IQ on the 5D2 both of Canon's wide zooms will likely disappoint you.

@denoir - nice comparison shots. Gotta love that 21 ZE!

.mark. wrote in post #10995276
Yeah? I see you have the 35L and the 24L. You not like the 35L? I'm thinking of renting one of them but not sure which. Ideally I'd rent both but I want to try and piss as little money up the wall with rentals as possible.

I like 35mm focal length and 35L is is good lens but 24L II beats 35L in colors/contrast straight.

Wow just been checking out the Zeiss 21mm 2.8 sample thread and there are some stunning images in there. Clearly some very talented guys but that lens looks great...

the 16-35 is such an underrated lens, once you have that kind of coverage its difficult to replace, its the only zoom ive kept in my switch to primes. i have a 16-35 and next one up is a 50 1.4, love them.

EmmaRose wrote in post #11003105
the 16-35 is such an underrated lens, once you have that kind of coverage its difficult to replace, its the only zoom ive kept in my switch to primes. i have a 16-35 and next one up is a 50 1.4, love them.

It's a great lens for what it is. It's just not sharp enough in the corners for some.

If I had the money, I would be tempted to get one of the Zeiss Lenses too. The only drawback seems to be that they are manual focus only. I am sure you have would have to master that skill before you could really appreciate the lens. In all of the picture comparisons that I have seen between Zeiss and Canon L lenses, The Zeiss' seems to win out.

The Samyang 14mm does seem interesting. Honestly though, the only reason that I looked at is because its the only ultra wide prime besides the Canon 14mm L (that I could find). The Samyang is in a world of its own. From what I understand, there are no electrical contacts for communication with the body. So... I guess it is manual focus only and I am not sure if you would be able to change the aperture. All things considered, it seems to have pretty good value.

tjbrock42 wrote in post #11004243
If I had the money, I would be tempted to get one of the Zeiss Lenses too. The only drawback seems to be that they are manual focus only. I am sure you have would have to master that skill before you could really appreciate the lens. In all of the picture comparisons that I have seen between Zeiss and Canon L lenses, The Zeiss' seems to win out.

The Samyang 14mm does seem interesting. Honestly though, the only reason that I looked at is because its the only ultra wide prime besides the Canon 14mm L (that I could find). The Samyang is in a world of its own. From what I understand, there are no electrical contacts for communication with the body. So... I guess it is manual focus only and I am not sure if you would be able to change the aperture. All things considered, it seems to have pretty good value.

OK so the Samyang is 100% manual - focus & aperture. What about the Zeiss? Is that just MF? Will I get focus confirmation with either?

I am not really 100% sure about either one. I am just trying to recall things that I have read. The manufacturers websites as well as those of retailers might have more information regarding your specific questions. Sorry, I couldn't be more help.