Any sample images of the Zeiss 21mm vs Canon 16-35mm?

I've seen some great samples on the Lens Sample Photo Archives of the Zeiss lenses and I'm considering reshuffling my lenses to acquire the 21mm, 50MP, and 100MP in particular.

I'm thinking of selling my 16-35mm f/2.8L mkII for the Zeiss 21mm but I'd like to see if anyone has some direct comparison images shot with these two lenses in particular (obviously with the zoom at the 21mm setting). I'm not worried about the lack of AF nor the loss in focal length between 16mm and 21mm. Basing my decision primarily on image quality.

Happy with my 16-35mm, just not really happy with it. Thanks so much in advance.

I have never owned the 16-35 but did have a nice copy of the 17-40. The 21ZE just blows every wide angle I've had or used away.Heres one I took last week in Destin FL.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

Nick

Seems to me like if you're willing to put up with the MF, mind as well just grab the TSE for the added benefits.

The one thing I will say about the Zeiss lens, the build quality trumps Canon two-fold. I mean it's not even a contest. Beautiful lens if you've got the money, well worth the price.

View_Finder wrote in post #11170268
direct comparison images shot with these two lenses in particular (obviously with the zoom at the 21mm setting).

The prime looks significantly sharper in the corners, but in the center the zoom is only slightly softer.

Zeiss at f/2.8 vs. 16-35 II @ 20mm f/2.8

Stan43 wrote in post #11170875
I have never owned the 16-35 but did have a nice copy of the 17-40. The 21ZE just blows every wide angle I've had or used away.Heres one I took last week in Destin FL.

Thanks for the sample! The corners look great. I had the 17-40mm f/4L before my current 16-35mm and I suppose my expectations for the 16-35mm were perhaps too high because, in hindsight, that 17-40mm performed very close to this one. Shame I didn't have both at the same time to put both to the same test.

The Fox wrote in post #11170943
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

Nick

Thanks for the link, Nick. More information the better so I will continue to study the points and comparisons noted on that site. Thanks again.

Csae wrote in post #11170989
Seems to me like if you're willing to put up with the MF, mind as well just grab the TSE for the added benefits.

Honestly I hadn't even considered the TSEs. I'll have to go through those threads in the Archives to see if those might be a good fit for me. Appreciate the comment.

realmike15 wrote in post #11171024
The one thing I will say about the Zeiss lens, the build quality trumps Canon two-fold. I mean it's not even a contest. Beautiful lens if you've got the money, well worth the price.

I handled a few different Zeiss ZE lenses at the local shop and I do appreciate the build. I shoot my nature/wildlife primarily manual focus anyway and I've yet to find a Canon lens with a manual focus ring that I like. The 500mm/300mm/180mm all have rings that are too loose and have that tiny "gap" when changing focusing direction which makes critical focusing more difficult than it has to be. I had the 35mm f/1.4L and I had the same complaint with that one (focus ring). The Zeiss lenses remind me of the lenses I used to use with my Contax film SLRs and also the lenses I still have for my medium format.

Daniel Browning wrote in post #11171169
The prime looks significantly sharper in the corners, but in the center the zoom is only slightly softer.

Zeiss at f/2.8 vs. 16-35 II @ 20mm f/2.8

Thanks for that link, Daniel. Very convenient way to see the clinical differences between the two. I'll keep playing around with the settings and different lenses.

Here's a shot out my back porch just moments after I made my original post. I think even on this web image you can see how ugly the corners get. Yeah it was shot at the widest setting (16mm) on a full-frame. But it was stopped down two stops and I know three stops would have improved it.

But having to stop down two to three stops with an "L" lens is unacceptable in my book.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I can't compare it to the 16-35, only to the 17-40L and the Tokina 12-24 which I had for a while on crop. While both those lenses are very good, particularly for the money, the edges were the sore spot. Colors on the L nice and contrasty, whereas the Tokina was a bit warmer. Edges when printing large were noticeable.

The Zeiss I feel is great not only for it's sharpness corner to corner (even at 2.8!), and extreme sharpness at f8, but because the color and rendering is really and outrageously great. I shoot on "Faithful" for my LCD preview because it leaves the image as close to relative colorimetric and accurate as possible, and when I see what pops off the screen of my camera from this lens I smile every time. Love this lens.

I did what you are considering: selling everything except for my 24-105L (for moving subjects) and switching everything to MF Zeiss glass. Just have the 100 MP to go.

I have the 16-35 L II and would much rather have the Zeiss 21mm. After using the 16-35 for a while, I am thinking that a zoom at that range is really not necessary as this would usually be used for landscape or very wide photos. I think to get equivalent results to the Zeiss lens, you would have to stop down the Canon lens a couple of stops. At f2.8 the Zeiss lens results I have seen are just incredible, and this can be confirmed in the chart here. If you play around with the chart I posted, you will find that you might have to go as high as f11 to get something that is as nice than the Zeiss prime at f2.8 !!!

http://the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=0

Thank you, dmstraton, for your reply. I've read a lot about the "Zeiss rendering... 3-D like effects... micro-contrast...." characteristics of the Zeiss lenses and have no doubt that there must be something special that can be easily seen but not so easily described.

spear wrote in post #11172229
I have the 16-35 L II and would much rather have the Zeiss 21mm. After using the 16-35 for a while, I am thinking that a zoom at that range is really not necessary as this would usually be used for landscape or very wide photos...

Thanks, spear. I see that you also have the 24-105mm. I find that I use the 24-105mm over the 16-35mm because of the IS on the former. I also think that the 24-105mm performs very well and so using the 16-35mm, other than for the 16-24mm range, isn't that much more advantageous. In fact, I have no hesitation in shooting the 24-105 wide open whereas the 16-35 must be stopped down.

I know people make a living using the 16-35mm (mark I and II), but it just seems that this focal range at f/2.8 is just a bit too fast and too wide for Canon at this time.

View_Finder wrote in post #11172309
Thanks, spear. I see that you also have the 24-105mm. I find that I use the 24-105mm over the 16-35mm because of the IS on the former. I also think that the 24-105mm performs very well and so using the 16-35mm, other than for the 16-24mm range, isn't that much more advantageous. In fact, I have no hesitation in shooting the 24-105 wide open whereas the 16-35 must be stopped down.

I know people make a living using the 16-35mm (mark I and II), but it just seems that this focal range at f/2.8 is just a bit too fast and too wide for Canon at this time.

All I can tell you is that I paid a hefty price for my 16-35 MII (locally is much more expensive than you can get it from Amazon) and after playing around with it I now realize that it simply is not the tool for my needs. I had wanted a good landscape lens and now I realize that the the Zeiss 21mm would have been a much better addition to my lenses. With landscape you want absolutely crisp IQ throughout the picture and the Zeiss really delivers in that department.

As for the 24-105 ... I use that lens a lot and it is the lens that is usually on my 5DII. It is very versatile and covers a very useful range ... I do wish it was f2.8 though. I thought about getting the 24-70mm f2.8, but without IS it is really not a lens I would want, since at 70mm the IS would be very useful. I heard it is coming out but that could be just a rumor.