Experience with Zeiss 21mm and 28mm. Anyone ?

[anandjoshi]

Hi,

My first post here.

I am a newbie photographer mostly into landscapes. After using Nikon lenses (16-35, 24, 50, 85), I bought a Zeiss Distagon ZF 50mm to try out and was blown away by the results on 810. Dont wish to start a Zeiss vs. rest of the world war here

Thinking of picking 28mm and 21mm ZF2 distagons (not Milvus due to price).

Anyone wish to share their experience with these lenses ?

Thanks in advance !

Wishes from India.

Regards,

Anand

[chez]

I have the Canon versions of the Zeiss 21 along with the 35 f2 and they form my base for landscape photography. Great micro contrast and colours from the lenses. Build quality are second to none. I wouldn't hesitate in picking up the 21 for landscapes...especially at the current used prices.

[NancyP]

Another enthusiastic vote for the old Zeiss Distagon 21 mm manual focus lens (Canon mount). BTW, this lens is very well made, I would think that you should be able to get a good used copy on the first try.

[anandjoshi]

Thanks Chez, Nancy !

[DougDolde]

I had the Zeiss ZF.2 in 21, 28, and 85mm focal lengths but traded the 28 and 85 for Nikkors mostly due to the autofocus and the fact that the Nikkors are excellent as well.

Still have the 21 but am considering replacing it with the Zeiss 15mm for astro shots. The 21 really isn't wide enough for that

[NancyP]

Maybe the 21 isn't wide enough for grand Milky Way non-mosaiced images, but I consistently find myself picking less ambitious 21mm photos rather than using my "reasonably decent but not Zeiss level" Samyang 14mm f/2.8.

[FabienP]

Another vote for the 21 mm, which should hold its own very well on that high MP sensor! It is a good thing that the ZF and ZE versions are still available since the Milvus versions add even more bulk to what are already very bulky lenses. I believe the new versions only add better coatings to the lens.

That being said, my ZE version is gathering dust since it was replaced by its smaller and lighter Loxia alter ego, available as a native lens on Sony FE mount. The ZE version was really too bulky and front-heavy when mounted on an adapter. It should however be well balanced on a DSLR in native mount.

21 mm is probably the widest FL which doesn't scream "done with an ultra super-wide lens" at the viewer.

Cheers,

Fabien

[NancyP]

The old Distagon 21 mm has a very nice balance on my relatively small (consumer) FF DSLR, Canon 6D. It is a solid chunk of metal and glass.

[NigelC]

I used to have 21/2.8, 28/2.8 and 35/2 in Canon ZE mounts. 21 is stunning, 35 slightly less sharp but very pleasing colour, 28 seemed weakest of the 3 to me.

[anandjoshi]

Thanks everyone. This is super useful.

I tested 21 and 28 side by side and 21 clearly wins for me.

Nikkors are good but I personally found Zeiss is in a different leage, for which, I can live with manual focus.

For all other casual shots, I have Sigma 35mm and Nikkor 85mm

[WestFoto]

I would say that almost anything Zeiss is just wonderful!  I have the 25mm Batis for my Sony A7rii and A7ii; wonderful!, Just wonderful!  spot on color and contrast!

[epines]

The Zeiss 25mm f/2 is also spectacular. Just picked up a used one myself, to complement my Milvus 35mm f/2 (on the D850). It's sharp to the edges, even wide open (extreme corners need a little stopping down to sharpen up). I love how 25mm renders wide without feeling gimmicky or calling attention to its angle of view. But if you need 21mm, that lens is supposed to be fantastic, of course.

[mistymornings99]

Everyone else seems to love the Zeiss 21mm but my experience differed. I found it great for far distance shots, but hated it for landscapes with near foregrounds where strong field curvature made the corners very soft even well stopped down without focus stacking. I much prefer the Nikon 20mm f1.8G. For me it gives much better results.