Questions about Zeiss 21 f2.8

[NigelC]

Whilst waiting for my insurance money to arrive, I'm nearly convinced I should get a Zeiss 21 f2.8ZE instead of replacing my 17-40L (definitely rejected 16-35 II on price/quality equation as don't use 2.8 that often). The images I've seen do seem to have a "3D" feel about them although I haven't got a sample raw file I can print from to compare with 17-40 at same focal length. I have the 24-105, so probably can live without the longer end of the 17-40. Less is more!

I have two concerns. I've read in one blog that it's not that easy to focus manually on 5D2 ( I'll have grid screen) but I think that that was a generic comment on the whole Zeiss range - 21mm should have enough DOF not to be a worry? 
A more significant concern is the "moustache" distortion. I don't specialise in architecture (if I did I'd have a shift lens anyway) but a lot of general (non-landscape) pictorial shots do have rectilinear patterns that could be a problem. The test I saw in Photozone didn't indicate whether this is alleviated by stopping down. Also, how effectively do the lens correction tools in ACR 6.2/CS5 deal with this without softening the image to the point that the "Zeiss difference" is lost? Would this also be true of PTLens, which may have slightly better distortion correction tool?

The other big issue is cost. I'll have to fund extra over 17-40 by selling my 300 f4 IS which I think I'm only using once a year on average and getting 200/2.8 instead of replacing 70-200f4 IS (why do I need zoom if I've got 100 L IS ).

[dchew]

I don't notice a problem focusing with the 5DII, and in fact like the focus ring very much.  However, most of my shots are on a tripod with live view.

Regarding the moustache distortion, I noticed it right away, but the correction in LR/ACR essentially eliminates it.  See an example in my post here:
Notes on Creating Lens Profiles

And those images were corrected with my home made lens profile, not the "official" one from Adobe, which is out now.  I don't see any visual loss in sharpness before vs. after, nor do I notice it changing the "look."

The price is certainly an issue, but after a while that pain will subside and you will be left with a very nice lens.

Dave

[stever]

for the money involved, i'd recommend a subscription to didlloyd.com zeiss lenses

i haven't shot a zeiss 21, but looking at the test images, i don't see the mustache distortion as being much different from my 17-40 or Voigtlander 20 (which has about the same IQ as the 17-40 but less flare) - LR 3 does a pretty good job on the distortion, probably better than PT lens which i've been using.  the 17-40 and 20 are not bad at f8, but the edges are not nice at all at larger apertures.  Stopping down doesn't help distortion.  i agree that lot's of non-architectural images suffer with distortion - a subtle not-right or queasy feeling with prolonged viewing.

i chose a 200 2.8 instead of the 70-200 f4 because it was black and sharp.  it's sharper than the 70-200 - a bit - and is much happier with a 1.4x extender.  but i find that i'm not using it much and may add the 70-200 after all.

it comes down to what you're shooting and style - i frequently find that i don't have time to change lenses or can't move to where i'd like to be for the shot and fall back on the zooms.  i don't think manual focus should be a big issue with a 21mm, but if it's the only MF lens you have, you need to make the mental adjustment to focus it

[dchew]

+1 on the diglloyd.com.  Very much worth it for the info on Zeiss alone, not to mention the wealth of other info. 

Regarding the 70-200, I have the f/4 IS as well as the 90ts, 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8.  More and more the lenses in the bag are the 90ts with the 70-200.  If it wasn't for exif data I would not be able to tell whether the zoom or the primes were used, especially in a print.  The one exception is shooting wide open, not because of sharpness so much as the background.  To me, the one or two stops is the difference between nice and not so nice when a narrow dof is desired.

I'm not a big fan of the 70-200 f/2.8 because it is too big and heavy for some of the stuff I like to do. 

Dave

[NigelC]

+1 on the diglloyd.com.  Very much worth it for the info on Zeiss alone, not to mention the wealth of other info. 

Regarding the 70-200, I have the f/4 IS as well as the 90ts, 135 f/2 and 200 f/2.8.  More and more the lenses in the bag are the 90ts with the 70-200.  If it wasn't for exif data I would not be able to tell whether the zoom or the primes were used, especially in a print.  The one exception is shooting wide open, not because of sharpness so much as the background.  To me, the one or two stops is the difference between nice and not so nice when a narrow dof is desired.

I'm not a big fan of the 70-200 f/2.8 because it is too big and heavy for some of the stuff I like to do. 

Dave

Interesting, I am wavering on whether to go with the 200f2.8 or get a replacement 70-200 f4IS, bearing in mind I will also have the 100 L IS macro. I also have a 1.4XII, which will mate with 200 to make 280 f4, lessening the impact of selling the 300. I perhaps felt my 70-200 wasn't quite as good as its reputation, although a lovely lens from a build point of view. I used to have an FD 200 f2.8 which was excellent and balanced really well on a T90 body. If I ever get an opportunity to do any serious wildlife again, I can easily hire a long lens.

[dchew]

I'm off the Zeiss 21 title topic, but...

If you know you are going to carry the 100m with you all the time, then seems to me the 200 f/2.8 is the right way to go.  You would have 100/140/200/280, and I agree that the 200+1.4xII should be good.  I have the old original 1.4x but don't use it much.  Like you I also have the 300 f/4 which gathers dust most of the year.  It is very touchy to focus dead accurately, at least for me.  At first I thought it was a poor copy, but if I am extremely careful I can get good results.  I don't chase wildlife much, so there it sits...

My copy of the 70-200 seems exceptionally good.  In the past I've had the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4; it beats them both significantly.  I sometimes go backpacking/mountaineering/canoeing/skiing, so the f/4 is great for me.  That plus the Zeiss 35 f/2 is my "gone for days" kit.

Dave

[NigelC]

I'm off the Zeiss 21 title topic, but...

If you know you are going to carry the 100m with you all the time, then seems to me the 200 f/2.8 is the right way to go.  You would have 100/140/200/280, and I agree that the 200+1.4xII should be good.  I have the old original 1.4x but don't use it much.  Like you I also have the 300 f/4 which gathers dust most of the year.  It is very touchy to focus dead accurately, at least for me.  At first I thought it was a poor copy, but if I am extremely careful I can get good results.  I don't chase wildlife much, so there it sits...

My copy of the 70-200 seems exceptionally good.  In the past I've had the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/4; it beats them both significantly.  I sometimes go backpacking/mountaineering/canoeing/skiing, so the f/4 is great for me.  That plus the Zeiss 35 f/2 is my "gone for days" kit.

Dave

Yes that's a consideration - I have been "gone for days" backpacking once in the last 2 years when I found 17-40 and 70-200 f4IS covered most bases and was relatively light. If I
went down the (prime) route I'm thinking of, for any future multi-day backpacks I'd have to choose a couple of primes and work around this in terms of what I could shoot.

[stever]

the 100 doesn't work with the 1.4x (unless you use a short extension tube), but that's not really a big problem.  the 5D2 with 100L is so sharp that you can easily crop to 150mm equiv and print 13x19+

the 300 is too short for wildlife (particularly since it doesn't seem to like the 1.4x - at least mine doesn't even after a trip to Canon for it and the 1.4x) and too big to carry for when you need 300mm - the only use mine has received in the last couple years is as a long macro with 500d and/or extension tube - but this is also pretty specialized

when i've tried traveling with the 200 and 1.4x as my only long lens i've found swapping in the converter to be a nuisance.  when i don't know what i'm going to encounter, i'd rather have the 100-400 and give up a bit of IQ at the shorter focal lengths if i can manage the extra weight and bulk.  this is a matter of style and circumstance as i frequently find myself shooting from boats or vehicles or otherwise constrained in my relation to the subject

aside from lack of IS, the downside of the 200 is lack of reasonably close focus, but it's about as sharp and distortion free as anything Canon makes - IQ pretty similar to the 100 IS (even though it's measurably better than the 70-200, i don't expect anyone to notice the difference in a large well-edited print)

[DaveCurtis]

I shoot with the 21mm Zeiss on the 1D MrkIII and must say it is a brilliant lens. i much prefer it over my 16-35mm f2.8 II.

I dont find the wave distortion a problem and in most image the distortion is not readily visible.

The current version of Lightroom has profiles which deal to the distortion quite well.

I also subscribe to Digilloyd who rates this lens very highly.

[dchew]

the 100 doesn't work with the 1.4x (unless you use a short extension tube), but that's not really a big problem.

Good point; I forgot about that.

aside from lack of IS, the downside of the 200 is lack of reasonably close focus, but it's about as sharp and distortion free as anything Canon makes - IQ pretty similar to the 100 IS (even though it's measurably better than the 70-200, i don't expect anyone to notice the difference in a large well-edited print)

Yes.  And you got me thinking, so I did a quick sharpness test, 70-200 f/4IS vs. 200f/2.8, both at f/4.  Not fair?  Of course not, but we all know which lens is sharper, the question I had was how much?  So here are the two 100% crops.
3-series Gitzo
BH-55 ballhead
MLU w/ delay
Focus w/ Live view at 10x (I had to do this twice; the first time the 200 wasn't focused good enough... had to get my reading glasses)
Sharpening at 0 in LR for both
White balance on the x-rite card
Lightened the exposure +0.35 for 70-200 to get similar brightness

The zoom is pretty damn close, and that's wide open...