Zeiss 21mm Distagon

MattyW

MattyW

Messages
2,930
Name
Matty
Edit My Images
No
I've been umming and ahhing about this lens for a while.
Whilst I know it will pretty much fit the bill for my landscape work, and should be a nic jump up from the 17-40mm (which I intend to keep if possible)
I was wondering whether anyone had experience of this lens for Astro. Specifically any coma. Obviously the 2.8 would be an advantage over my current f4, but it would be nice to hear some real world experience before I pull the trigger on this.
Any other comments on this lens are also appreciated, I've considered the 16-35 f4 but I'd really like the 2.8 for Astro use as well, and 21mm fits my shooting style I think.
Cheers
 
I was tempt d by the Zeiss 21mm as well but in the end I opted for the 16-35 f4 which is beautifully sharp and gives that extra 5mm at the wide end which was important for me.
 
I had one. It wasn't a good copy and very soft in the edges after a knock. I did get it fixed then it was perfect until a while where it went back to mushy corners.

Get a good more robustly made copy and it will be great
 
MattyW said:
I've been umming and ahhing about this lens for a while.
Whilst I know it will pretty much fit the bill for my landscape work, and should be a nic jump up from the 17-40mm (which I intend to keep if possible)
I was wondering whether anyone had experience of this lens for Astro. Specifically any coma. Obviously the 2.8 would be an advantage over my current f4, but it would be nice to hear some real world experience before I pull the trigger on this.
Any other comments on this lens are also appreciated, I've considered the 16-35 f4 but I'd really like the 2.8 for Astro use as well, and 21mm fits my shooting style I think.
Cheers
Click to expand...

From limited experience Zeiss is ultra sharp wide open. Same is Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS. Comparing the price and versatility I'd pick the Canon every single time.
 
macvisual said:
Hi Matty;

I owned this lens for a few months attached to a D800 about 18 months ago. Lovely glass alright, pure quality, but after using it I didn't think it was wide enough for me personally, here's a few images taken with the Zeiss 21mm glass.





Winter's morning by Peter McCullough Photography, on Flickr




Wide sky by Peter McCullough Photography, on Flickr




Glendevon hills by Peter McCullough Photography, on Flickr



Sorry they're mostly winter scenes.

Regards;
Peter
Click to expand...

Thanks Peter, the quality of the lens doesn't come into question, it seems to render lovely files. and the contrast looks great in the shots you posted. I'd need to keep my 17-40 for other purposes, so I'd still have access to the wider FL if needed.
Thanks for the examples though, kinda reinforces what I think!!

Buck said:
I was tempt d by the Zeiss 21mm as well but in the end I opted for the 16-35 f4 which is beautifully sharp and gives that extra 5mm at the wide end which was important for me.
Click to expand...

Its really tempting to go for the 16-35, but I really want to be able to shoot wider than f4. I've access to a Samyang 24mm f1.4, and have considered the 14mm f2.8, but its too wide really, and i'd rather stitch shots than distort at 14mm on ff.
The 16-35 is a very covetable lens, if only the 2.8 version performed as well as the f4

AndyWest said:
Check this guy out. He loves his 21mm Zeiss.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfhW84xfA6gEc4hDK90rR1Q
Click to expand...

Cheers Andy, I shall give that a watch when I get home!!!

ST4 said:
I had one. It wasn't a good copy and very soft in the edges after a knock. I did get it fixed then it was perfect until a while where it went back to mushy corners.

Get a good more robustly made copy and it will be great
Click to expand...

Sounds strange. Is it common to find such inconsistency with Zeiss. I've not heard much in the way of issues with their QC. Something to keep an eye out for I guess

LongLensPhotography said:
From limited experience Zeiss is ultra sharp wide open. Same is Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS. Comparing the price and versatility I'd pick the Canon every single time.
Click to expand...

Thanks, for sure the 16-35 would be the obvious choice, I was looking for a wider aperture though, or it would be a no-brainer to go for that. Encouraging to hear that the Zeiss is on point at 2.8 though, there seems not to be a wealth of info about its application for night shots.
 
ST4 said:
Here is an example of softness

http://1-stephen-taylor.pixels.com/featured/lagangarbh-stephen-taylor.html

Click the link and highlight sections of the image. Look at the middle. Tack sharp, look at the edges and they look out of focus.
Click to expand...

Useful way of looking at an image that Steve. V helpful. Did you get rid of your copy in the end.
Thats comparable to my 17-40 in the edges, not quite that bad mind, but definitely elements of it!
I'll bear this in mind with a view to the purchase. Thanks again
 
MattyW said:
Its really tempting to go for the 16-35, but I really want to be able to shoot wider than f4. I've access to a Samyang 24mm f1.4, and have considered the 14mm f2.8, but its too wide really, and i'd rather stitch shots than distort at 14mm on ff.
The 16-35 is a very covetable lens, if only the 2.8 version performed as well as the f4
Click to expand...

I agree. If the f2.8 had been as good then the f4 wouldn't have got a look in. The 16-35 f4 is a great IQ improvement on the 17-40 though.

If you go for the Zeiss you may well be OK in that the IQ will be spot on - I nearly went for one before I got hte 16-35 but I was persuaded by the flexibility that hte zoom gives me especially as in landscaping you cannot always physically get to exactly where you want to and that bit of extra wide reach or zoom can and does come in useful!

On the IQ quliaty side of the Zeiss, - there is always the risk that a few lenses/pieces of kit that are mass produced/tested are substandard (I know - they shouldn't be and Steve's example above shows how bad it can be) but with warranty etc. you can return etc. if it is not up to standard.

Good Luck and let us know how you get on.
 
I have the zeiss and love it, but only had limited experience of it so far. i got mine off the german eBay for £570 and it's mint, well worth looking on there from time to time.
 
MattyW said:
Useful way of looking at an image that Steve. V helpful. Did you get rid of your copy in the end.
Thats comparable to my 17-40 in the edges, not quite that bad mind, but definitely elements of it!
I'll bear this in mind with a view to the purchase. Thanks again
Click to expand...

Here's my Nikkor 16-35 full res

http://1-stephen-taylor.pixels.com/featured/first-light-at-montserrat-monastery-stephen-taylor.html

http://1-stephen-taylor.pixels.com/featured/autumn-mist-on-the-elan-valley-stephen-taylor.html

24-70 full res

http://1-stephen-taylor.pixels.com/featured/lochan-urr-reflections-stephen-taylor.html

Just much more consistent than my ziess copy
 
Buck said:
I agree. If the f2.8 had been as good then the f4 wouldn't have got a look in. The 16-35 f4 is a great IQ improvement on the 17-40 though.

If you go for the Zeiss you may well be OK in that the IQ will be spot on - I nearly went for one before I got hte 16-35 but I was persuaded by the flexibility that hte zoom gives me especially as in landscaping you cannot always physically get to exactly where you want to and that bit of extra wide reach or zoom can and does come in useful!

On the IQ quliaty side of the Zeiss, - there is always the risk that a few lenses/pieces of kit that are mass produced/tested are substandard (I know - they shouldn't be and Steve's example above shows how bad it can be) but with warranty etc. you can return etc. if it is not up to standard.

Good Luck and let us know how you get on.
Click to expand...

It was sent back, briefly worked then relapsed again. I'm pretty careful with gear but the odd knock can happen. My overall view is that good nikkor glass can survive the rigours of my landscape photography but this couldn't.

In saying that a good copy must be wonderful but I didn't get one :(
 
Buck said:
I agree. If the f2.8 had been as good then the f4 wouldn't have got a look in. The 16-35 f4 is a great IQ improvement on the 17-40 though.

If you go for the Zeiss you may well be OK in that the IQ will be spot on - I nearly went for one before I got hte 16-35 but I was persuaded by the flexibility that hte zoom gives me especially as in landscaping you cannot always physically get to exactly where you want to and that bit of extra wide reach or zoom can and does come in useful!

On the IQ quliaty side of the Zeiss, - there is always the risk that a few lenses/pieces of kit that are mass produced/tested are substandard (I know - they shouldn't be and Steve's example above shows how bad it can be) but with warranty etc. you can return etc. if it is not up to standard.

Good Luck and let us know how you get on.
Click to expand...

Thanks Adrian. Yes, I think an improvement in IQ would be advantageous at this point. The sensible side of me (if there is one) tells me to go for the 16-35 f4, but I love the way the zeiss renders, and the lure of 2.8 is very strong. I'll let you know!

Neil Burnell said:
I have the zeiss and love it, but only had limited experience of it so far. i got mine off the german eBay for £570 and it's mint, well worth looking on there from time to time.
Click to expand...

Thats where I had spotted one Neil. I'll deliberate over the weekend and pull the trigger next week.

ST4 said:
Here's my Nikkor 16-35 full res

http://1-stephen-taylor.pixels.com/featured/first-light-at-montserrat-monastery-stephen-taylor.html

http://1-stephen-taylor.pixels.com/featured/autumn-mist-on-the-elan-valley-stephen-taylor.html

24-70 full res

http://1-stephen-taylor.pixels.com/featured/lochan-urr-reflections-stephen-taylor.html

Just much more consistent than my ziess copy
Click to expand...

I can't look at your shots without wishing I'd gone for a nikon instead of my 5D3
 
MattyW said:
Thanks Adrian. Yes, I think an improvement in IQ would be advantageous at this point. The sensible side of me (if there is one) tells me to go for the 16-35 f4, but I love the way the zeiss renders, and the lure of 2.8 is very strong. I'll let you know!
Click to expand...

Get a good used copy and ask for sample raws and check the edges. If its good grab it.

I'm happy with my gear now though and zooms are useful.
 
Love this lens, had on my old canon 5d mkiii
Only fault it had, it wouldn't fit my Nikon :-(

When funds permit its high on my to get list
 
I too have one of these beauties. Maybe looking to sell, feel its not wide enough.

Pro's

Sharp as you like, even at 2.8.
Built like a tank, all glass and metal.
Micro contrast.
Colour Rendition.
Easy to focus.
Minimal CA.

Con's

Expensive.
Expensive to service.
82mm filters.
Moustache distortion (not exclusive of course) - needs PT lens to sort.
Corner colour shift - Cyan on mine, due to coating, needs cornerfix to sort.

Not sure re the comments on corner sharpness and how to judge its performance. From F8 my seems OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top