Comments on: Carl Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 compared to Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L MK2

By: damien

damien — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 22:22:55 +0000

Thanks Stew for your feedback. I’m still as happy with my 21 as ever. Perfect for people pictures wide open at f/2.8, Damien.

By: Stew

Stew — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:00:13 +0000

Thanks for your time on this… good review and answers my questions definitively. I use the 17-40 and have been looking for a better solution. I’ve owned the 17-40 for 7 years and it’s served well in a professional capacity. But over the years of use, it seems to be getting too soft for my liking. I too end up around 20mm all the time. I use to own a Nikkor 20/2.8… and loved it!

By: David Baker

David Baker — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:38:10 +0000

Thanks for the review. Looks great. I use a 17-40 mostly around the 20-24mm range at f/8-16. I’d love to rent a Zeiss to see the difference before making a purchase.

By: damien

damien — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:41:27 +0000

Hi Mudakas, Get the right lens for the job. Don’t get hung up on pixel peeping. The pictures you shoot should be far more important than the kit you use to take them. I used the Canon 16-35mm for my wedding work and I wouldn’t have had it any other way. AF, the convenience of a zoom and a bit extra width at the wide end. Wedding pictures rarely go big enough to consider the 16-35mm below par. Now I shoot portraits and I’m happy composing with my feet I can cope with MF and a fixed lens. Regards, Damien.

By: mudakas

mudakas — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 00:26:46 +0000

I am trying to decide between Canon and Zeiss myself but after printing your photos I can not see difference looking from a distance… and before that almost pulled the plug to get Zeiss. Now I am confused again.

By: stanley

stanley — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:26:21 +0000

link again: it should work ..

[url]http://www.homer.sk/photo/mf_lenses_gallery/000-d21-1/IMG_9905.jpg[/url]

By: damien

damien — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:11:35 +0000

Hi Stanley, I’m sure there are lots of people who will want to see if the Contax or Canon version of the 21mm is best but I’m pretty sure they will both be fantastic. It’s not really the subject matter of this blog though although it would pull in loads of viewers. Your picture link is dead:( Feel free to re submit it using the update comment facility. Cheers, Damien.

By: stanley

stanley — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 23:05:22 +0000

Hi Damien –

you’re shooting weddings with Zeiss 21? That’s great! I have got the Contax 21 version — if you’re open to do some side-by-side comparison, let me know!! If think it would be great to have an article on your site like this..
I live South-West. Let me know – my email address: info@stanleyhomerphoto.com – thanks..

here’s one example in Winchester Cathedral — my favorite city
Camera: EOS 5D MarkII, tripod, f/11 – no HDR .. PP in LightRoom
http://www.homer.sk/photo/mf_lenses_gallery/000-d21-1/IMG_9905.jpg

By: damien

damien — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:28:33 +0000

Hi Stanley, Zeiss claim the new lens is an improved version of the Contax 21mm but I don't have a Contax lens or camera for comparison. I'm very happy with my copy of this lens. See some more full res images here. Damien.

By: stanley

stanley — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:21:32 +0000

Hi there : I suppose that the Contax Distagon 2.8/21 must be even better than the new Zeiss version of 21 .

Otherwise — thanks for these examples ! They clearly show all details …

By: Jamie

Jamie — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:28:21 +0000

Mmmmmmmm…. I lurvee this

By: martin

martin — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:37:41 +0000

Check for yourself but I reckon the Canon L zoom will outperform the 20mm f/2.8. So the Zeiss will be a mile better.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:45:08 +0000

Carl Zeiss is quite expensive and was considering the EF 20mm f/2.8. Any thoughts?

By: damien

damien — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:22:26 +0000

Hi Masden,

I’ve been shooting the 21mm today and wow in the real world the difference is image quality to my 16-35 is staggering.

Focusing is really fast and easy using the little green dot in the viewfinder without the need for much barrel movement. It only needs a few mm to find focus and the AF assist has nailed the vast majority of the images, in fact, as many as it would do on the Canon lens. I find the Canon lens can disappear off to the macro range and start again if it fails to get focus at first attempt in bad light.

Composing with my camera position rather than being a bit lazy with the zoom is the main time drain at the moment. But I’m already beginning to see in 21mm and it wont take long for this to become intuitive.

I’d be very happy to use this lens at a wedding but I don’t do PJ style shooting. I set stuff up and focusing is the quickest bit if you know what I mean.

My sharpness troubles today were from my 135mm f/2L because I’m used to the IS on the 70-200mm f/2.8L. I’ll need to get steadyier with that glass or use my monopod for more of my shots. I’ll give the 135mm some more time before deciding if it’s really the one for me. I could probably use it for 6 months and then sell it for exactly what I paid for it on Ebay such is the strong second hand market for quality Canon glass.

I’ll be posting my frames from this weeks shoots with the 21mm lens on Wednesday or Thursday and I’ll also link to the full size images as well, so you can see how I got on.

I know what you mean about the 24mm L series but I wasn’t interested in it as I already have a 24mm-70mm L lens and when this eventually gets traded for primes I’ll probably get a 35mm f/1.2 and an 85mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.2 to replace it. I’ll then end up with 21, 35, 85, and 135 and that seems fine for what I want unless a 135mm f/2L Mk11 IS comes out

Regards, Damien.

By: Masden

Masden — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:40:48 +0000

In real condition i would like to see the sharpness with all your ouf of focus images made from the zeiss manual lens.
Instead, the canon 16-35L af the avantage of the AF.

Last, you compare a zoom with a prime lens. the right one would be the 24mm 1.4 VS the zeiss.
But again in real condition the autofocus will be the priority. Just my wedding experience;

Thanks for sharing.