I recently decided to replace my Canon wide angle zoom lens with a fixed prime lens. I shoot mainly portraits and it’s worth bearing this in mind as you read this out of the box review. My decision to go prime for my super wide shots was an easy one to make.
The Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 ZE attached to my Canon 5Dmk2
When I’m shooting with my 16-35mm I nearly always end up at the 20mm mark. I find that the 16 – 18mm settings adversely stretch the scene or my clients legs. I used to own a 20mm f/2.8 Nikkor many years ago and I loved it. More recently I owned a Hasselblad H2 with a Phase One P25 back and I shot using just 3 prime lenses for all my work, weddings and portraits over a period of 3 years. I love to compose my shots using my feet, and so the exciting journey of finding a replacement lens began.
Top tip: If you don’t know what focal length to choose when going prime, tape up your zoom at say 24mm for a few shoots and see how you get on. If you find yourself regularly needing to zoom out a bit you can re-tape the lens at 21mm. I use electricians black insulation tape. It stretches into the nooks and crevasses and leaves no residue when it is removed.
The Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 ZE on my Canon 5D mk2
Manual focus on a super wide lens is fine for me because I tend to pre-focus my wide angle shots anyway. I’m often shooting from ground level or above my head so pre-setting the focus is an ideal way of shooting. When focusing the Zeiss I can make use of the focus confirmation green dot in the viewfinder too.
With this in mind I needed an autofocus lens that has an AF/MF switch or a manual focus lens with a CPU for my TTL work. My options were fairly limited. In the Canon line up I could choose from the fabulous 24mm f/1.4L, or the less well specified 20mm f/2.8 lens. So I decided to broaden my horizon and research the Carl Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. I looked at the deadly dull MTF and transmission curves and the shock was the illumination across the frame at f/2.8. It showed outrageous vignetting and this excited me. I’ve always found optical vignetting looks much better than that created in Lightroom or Photoshop. If I was shooting landscapes this factor might put me off the Zeiss optic although I expect there are very few landscape shooters that work at f/2.8. Another point of note was the edge to edge sharpness that just never seemed to drop off even wide open. Chromatic aberration was fairly non existent too so I thought it was time to dig deep and give the lens a go. I’d had enough of the techno twaddle and wanted to shoot pictures.
The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L mk2 (with it's zoom ring taped up) next to the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8
I was not going to be able to hire this lens for a weekend so I turned to the world marketplace for optics called Ebay. Don’t ask me how it happened but I ended up bidding on and winning two of them. Only one has arrived so far, the other one coming from the States is due with me by Wednesday. The great thing about Ebay is you can re-list lenses and get pretty much what you paid for them, even more if you trade globally.
First observations: The lens was well packed and its box was sealed with a hologram sticker bearing the serial number and metaphorically speaking the DNA of the Zeiss brand. Although the lens is made in Japan it feels like a German lens with it’s precision machined brass barrel, silky smooth focus mechanism and the tingle it gives you just holding it. I’m not talking about an electric shock, I’m on about the buzz you get handling something special. A decent Mont Blank pen and a new Rolex both deliver that same buzz.
The front view of both lenses with their lens hoods on
The Zeiss lens is weighty for it’s size and that caught me by surprise. At 620g it is lighter than the 630g of the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L mk2 but only just and as the Zeiss 21mm has physical dimensions of about 2/3rd that of the Canon zoom, it feels substantial.
I set up a studio shot to check my copy of the lens performs as it should and I couldn’t help comparing it with my Canon at the same time. I had to move my black sticky tape a bit because my guestimate setting of 21mm hadn’t been quite right. It’s still not perfect and the Exif tells me I shot at 22mm. I chose a subject distance that I tend to shoot at and popped the camera on a tripod. So here are the results at f/2.8 and f/8. Please bear in mind I will be shooting with this glass for the foreseeable future so over the next days, weeks and months you will be getting many real examples of what this lens is capable of in the real world.
Zeiss at f/2.8
Canon at f/2.8
Zeiss at f/2.8 100% crops - Great central resolution and reasonable edge clarity but with about 1 stop of vignette. The vignette effect is almost completely gone by f/4
Canon at f/2.8 100% crops - Good central resolution but soggy edges with halation and lifted shadows.
Zeiss at f/8
Canon at f/8
Canon at f/8 100% crops - This lens is fine in the middle of the frame but suffers from soggy edges and is lacking in detail at the corners. Compare the wooden beam in the top left quadrant and the box in the bottom right quadrant with the Zeiss results below.
Zeiss at f/8 100% crops - clean sharp edges with plenty of detail
Click on the main pictures above for the full frame images and make your own judgments on what you see. It is not entirely fair on the Canon zoom lens to be comparing it with a prime lens but the Canon lens is the one in my bag being replaced, so I felt it okay to compare. The Canon shows far better illumination across the frame but suffers from a slight loss of resolution at the edges. The Zeiss pictures lead the viewer in and are nearly 3D in their rendition. I was not expecting such clarity and focus of subject. The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L mk2 lens at mid zoom is a great performer in the central region and is only just beaten by the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 prime lens in my opinion. At the edges and into the corners is where the Zeiss really shows up the Canon.
I am not a pixel peeper by nature and once I have established that a bit of kit is up to the job I just get on with the picture making process. I can confirm that the 21mm f/2.8 Zeiss distagon is now part of my lens line up. At the end of the day it’s what you shoot with the lens that matters. A great lens wont make a bad photograph any better but it will inspire confidence in the shooter and deliver edge to edge clarity in the picture.
Please feel free to comment on the pictures or write up as you feel fit. Damien.
Great post, thanks so much for your time and effort.
Thanks Boyd.
Thank you for your review.
I am quickly becoming a Zeiss fan. This review and comparison just confirm what I have been reading and seeing. In fact, i sold my 16-35L II just yesterday, and will be purchasing Zeiss soon.
Thanks Pratyush,
You may be interested to read my latest post about zooms V primes.
Cheers, Damien.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
link again: it should work ..
[url]http://www.homer.sk/photo/mf_lenses_gallery/000-d21-1/IMG_9905.jpg[/url]
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
FULL RES copy — :) all rights reserved, of course :)
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.
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.
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 …
Mmmmmmmm…. I lurvee this :)
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.
Carl Zeiss is quite expensive and was considering the EF 20mm f/2.8. Any thoughts?
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.
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.
Hi Alberto,
I’d say from experience that the Canon peaks at about f/5.6 and as you say the Zeiss looks fab right from f/2.8
Hi Sean,
Good points raised. I have a Nikon 14-24mm and it is fantastic. I’ve never tried it on a Canon, I understand it will function correctly and focus to infinity an adapter such as this one perhaps.There’s a comparison of the Nikon 14-24mm with the Contax mount version of this Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 here. I’ll happily be sticking with my Zeiss glass for my figure in the landscape portraiture.
I have just made a similar purchase except I went for the Canon 24mm F1.4 L II. I found the 16-35 does indeed perform very well in the centre of the frame but it is the edges of the frame where the prime is clearly better.
I have also not been entirely happy with the edge distortion of the 16-35 in the 16-20 range, I am contemplating the Canon 14mm f2.8 L or the new 17mm TS/E as an ultra-wide, perfect for stunning interior and venue shots as well as big groups in confined areas.
The Nikon 14-24 is also a well regarded ultra-wide and will work on Canon mount with the appropriate adaptor.
Sean
That Zeiss at f2.8 looks as sharp as the Canon at f8 isnt that crazy?