Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14744"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14744">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From The-Digital-Picture

</strong>Bryan from TDP has completed his review of the highly regarded <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/850101-REG/Zeiss_1964831_Distagon_T_15mm_f_2_8.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon lens</a>. His thoughts on the lens match mine, it is simply the best full frame ultrawide lens available for Canon DSLRs.</p>
<p><strong>Says Bryan

</strong><em>“As I just said, I regard the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens as the best-available ultra-wide angle landscape lens available. This lens is also an excellent choice for architecture and other confined-space photography. The Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZE Lens offers very impressive build quality and excellent prime lens image quality in a made-for-landscape and architecture focal length.”</em><strong>

</strong></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-15mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/850101-REG/Zeiss_1964831_Distagon_T_15mm_f_2_8.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon at B&H Photo</a>

</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[horshack]

I'm generally a Zeiss fan myself but the Nikon 14-24 (w/adapter) represents a much better value and is sharper across the frame when stopped down vs the Zeiss.

 

[deleteme]

What? Its the best?
Crap, I just spent money on the Rokinon 14mm.
My life is over.

 

[sunnyVan]

It's a beautiful toy if I had a money printing machine at home. Glad I got a rokinon 14 as well.

 

[infared]

I kind of pained over my decision about this lens...(own the 21mm f/2.8 Love it)....after weighing out the options I decided to purchase the Canon 17mm TSE. I know there are differences but I can't imaging a MF lens more versatile or with better IQ......and at $2179 plus 4% cash back on top of that ...it eventually became a no-brainer.
There is a learning (comfort) curve with the lens..no doubt...but it is so much more capable. Also...with the addition of the 1.4X (which I already owned for my 70-200mm) I get a very good to excellent somewhat slow (f/5.6) tilt-shift 24mm! The Zeoss DOES have that ever-so-nice f/2.8 aperture and easier filter implementation if that is your thing. We all have different needs.
I am very surprised at the quality of the images with the 1.4X on the camera. Makes the output from my 16-35mmL look "less-than".
I am sure that the Zeiss is incredible ....but I can't imagine being much more ecstatic upon opening an image on my iMac. With the TSE advantage & the considerable price difference..I think I got the best for me.... ..but I bet both lenses have an equal WOWzer factor when opening the files!

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5483/9068325953_efd08b4659_o.jpg

 

[cliffwang]

3K lens!!!! I will just stick with my $300 Samyang 14mm.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've seen images with it, he resolution is so much better than any competition. I had a Samyang 14mm "coke bottle", it was the worst lens I've ever owned. I sent it right back.

The Nikon 14-24 is sharp in lab tests, but in the field, in bright sun, its difficult to avoid flare that either ruins the image entirely, or degrades contrast. Its a cloudy day lens. I haven't seen reports of flare for the Zeiss.

 

[Eldar]

Very impressive performance and built like a tank. But realistically it would not be used much. I find wide angel shooting to be very challenging and almost believe this talent resides in a disconnected part of my brain.
Like Bryan says in the review; Making a good picture is fairly easy, making a great one is extremely difficult.

The preferred alternative for me, the 17 TS-E 4L has the immense advantage of being a tilt&shift lens. That way I can correct for many of the perspective problems I often have. This is also an optically absolute top performer and I doubt I will miss having the 2mm extra very often.

And I believe I have heard a rumor .... of a 14-24L ...(?)

 

[facedodge]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=794&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=769&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Here is a comparison to the Rokinon/Samyang.

The Zeiss is a tad sharper at 2.8, but they are equal by f/4. Though this could be due to TDP having a bad copy.

The Zeiss also has a bit less distortion, but it's also 7% less wide so it's not apple to apples.

I definitely don't see $2,600 worth of improvement.

 

[lostfeliz]

I'm really liking my Rokinon 14mm. The first copy had a focusing issue, but the 2nd copy is great. My first shoot with it was in a reclusive artist's studio. The gallery printed these two photographs at 14 feet wide and used it as wallpaper behind his artwork.

I'm sure it's not the quality of the Zeiss, but it's perfect for my budget/needs.

 

[traveller]

This could possibly be the perfect landscape lens for me, except that I don't fancy doing this and cutting the hood petals off to use it with my Lee ND grads:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/zeiss-15mm-hood-removal

Oh, and I can't afford it either! Looks like I'm stuck with my crappy Canon 17-40

 

[infared]

This could possibly be the perfect landscape lens for me, except that I don't fancy doing this and cutting the hood petals off to use it with my Lee ND grads:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/zeiss-15mm-hood-removal

Oh, and I can't afford it either! Looks like I'm stuck with my crappy Canon 17-40

Traveler...that is GREAT...Lens Rentals Rocks...but I don't think that I would be buying a $3000 lens and then start taking it apart (and I am extremely handy and like to take risks..but not this!!!!) Thanks for posting that article...you gave me knowledge, but more importantly a great laugh!!!!

 

[infared]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=794&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=769&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Here is a comparison to the Rokinon/Samyang.

The Zeiss is a tad sharper at 2.8, but they are equal by f/4. Though this could be due to TDP having a bad copy.

The Zeiss also has a bit less distortion, but it's also 7% less wide so it's not apple to apples.

I definitely don't see $2,600 worth of improvement.

"The Zeiss is a tad sharper"....LOL..based on the corner resolution in The Digital Picture comparison tool, I would think that you may be able to shoot sharper with a plastic lens rather than the SamYang...at ALL apertures... I don't think it is worth $359. ...but hey whatever makes you happy...you are smiling!!!! Maybe around f/8 the SamYang is tolerable.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=794&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=769&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Here is a comparison to the Rokinon/Samyang.

The Zeiss is a tad sharper at 2.8, but they are equal by f/4. Though this could be due to TDP having a bad copy.

The Zeiss also has a bit less distortion, but it's also 7% less wide so it's not apple to apples.

I definitely don't see $2,600 worth of improvement.

"The Zeiss is a tad sharper"....LOL..based on the corner resolution in The Digital Picture comparison tool, I would think that you may be able to shoot sharper with a plastic lens rather than the SamYang...at ALL apertures... I don't think it is worth $359. ...but hey whatever makes you happy...you are smiling!!!! Maybe around f/8 the SamYang is tolerable.

I don't know what to make of Bryan's review and/or charts (he has never actually reviewed the lens), although I have been told that there are two variations/optical formulas (older and newer) of this lens, but my own review along with that of others say that the new version is in fact basically as sharp as the Canon 14L and is one of the sharpest wide angle optics available for a Canon lens.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff
Roger here at Lens Rentals says that he is a big fan of the lens and that it compares favorably with the 14L.

I've used about five different wide angle options, and the copy of the Rokinon that I have is so much sharper at all apertures than anything that I have used before that there is no comparison. I have no doubt that the Zeiss is better still, but as it is about 10x the price...

P.S. The Rokinon blows the Canon "L" wide angle zooms away in sharpness in every detail.

 

[RVB]

I'm generally a Zeiss fan myself but the Nikon 14-24 (w/adapter) represents a much better value and is sharper across the frame when stopped down vs the Zeiss.

I have both,, the Zeiss is sharper and has better colour and contrast (although at certain apertures the Nikkor is better at the edges.. but not by much),it also has no problems with focus shift,the same can't be said about the nikkor..

 

[infared]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=794&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=769&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Here is a comparison to the Rokinon/Samyang.

The Zeiss is a tad sharper at 2.8, but they are equal by f/4. Though this could be due to TDP having a bad copy.

The Zeiss also has a bit less distortion, but it's also 7% less wide so it's not apple to apples.

I definitely don't see $2,600 worth of improvement.

"The Zeiss is a tad sharper"....LOL..based on the corner resolution in The Digital Picture comparison tool, I would think that you may be able to shoot sharper with a plastic lens rather than the SamYang...at ALL apertures... I don't think it is worth $359. ...but hey whatever makes you happy...you are smiling!!!! Maybe around f/8 the SamYang is tolerable.

I don't know what to make of Bryan's review and/or charts (he has never actually reviewed the lens), although I have been told that there are two variations/optical formulas (older and newer) of this lens, but my own review along with that of others say that the new version is in fact basically as sharp as the Canon 14L and is one of the sharpest wide angle optics available for a Canon lens.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff
Roger here at Lens Rentals says that he is a big fan of the lens and that it compares favorably with the 14L.

I've used about five different wide angle options, and the copy of the Rokinon that I have is so much sharper at all apertures than anything that I have used before that there is no comparison. I have no doubt that the Zeiss is better still, but as it is about 10x the price...

P.S. The Rokinon blows the Canon "L" wide angle zooms away in sharpness in every detail.

So Dustin...I believe you...do you think that The Digital Picture is using the same lens that you have or something different???? I also, really respect Roger at Lens Rental...Did you pay $359 for your lens? ....and it is sharper than the Canon???? REALLY?

 

[Mr Bean]

I'm generally a Zeiss fan myself but the Nikon 14-24 (w/adapter) represents a much better value and is sharper across the frame when stopped down vs the Zeiss.

I have both,, the Zeiss is sharper and has better colour and contrast (although at certain apertures the Nikkor is better at the edges.. but not by much),it also has no problems with focus shift,the same can't be said about the nikkor..

+1. I have the Zeiss 15mm and did a fair amount of testing against a couple of UWA Canon lenses and found the Zeiss to be unmatched. The testing process for me was using stars, as they tend to show coma/CA/spherical aberrations very clearly. The benefits of the Zeiss for me were:
- Sharp at f2.8 as I don't have the luxury of stopping down for star pic's (a slight amount of coma in the extreme corners).
- A hard infinity stop. Much easier to use when fumbling around in the dark.

Coma, in terrestrial use, translates as image softness. But, as has been pointed out, stopping down will reduce that.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=794&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=769&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

Here is a comparison to the Rokinon/Samyang.

The Zeiss is a tad sharper at 2.8, but they are equal by f/4. Though this could be due to TDP having a bad copy.

The Zeiss also has a bit less distortion, but it's also 7% less wide so it's not apple to apples.

I definitely don't see $2,600 worth of improvement.

"The Zeiss is a tad sharper"....LOL..based on the corner resolution in The Digital Picture comparison tool, I would think that you may be able to shoot sharper with a plastic lens rather than the SamYang...at ALL apertures... I don't think it is worth $359. ...but hey whatever makes you happy...you are smiling!!!! Maybe around f/8 the SamYang is tolerable.

I don't know what to make of Bryan's review and/or charts (he has never actually reviewed the lens), although I have been told that there are two variations/optical formulas (older and newer) of this lens, but my own review along with that of others say that the new version is in fact basically as sharp as the Canon 14L and is one of the sharpest wide angle optics available for a Canon lens.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff
Roger here at Lens Rentals says that he is a big fan of the lens and that it compares favorably with the 14L.

I've used about five different wide angle options, and the copy of the Rokinon that I have is so much sharper at all apertures than anything that I have used before that there is no comparison. I have no doubt that the Zeiss is better still, but as it is about 10x the price...

P.S. The Rokinon blows the Canon "L" wide angle zooms away in sharpness in every detail.

So Dustin...I believe you...do you think that The Digital Picture is using the same lens that you have or something different???? I also, really respect Roger at Lens Rental...Did you pay $359 for your lens? ....and it is sharper than the Canon???? REALLY?

I have been told since doing my review that there was an earlier version of the lens that lacked the UMC element as a part of the optical formula and was significantly inferior to the newer version optically. That being said, I went and checked Bryan's lens sharpness tool again and his does say UMC. His chart shows a significant difference between the 14L and the Samyang, particularly in the corners. But his results don't seem to match that of other very reliable reviewers, and doesn't agree with my own results, either.

I don't know how to account for his results. I think Bryan is a great reviewer, but I don't feel like his chart results reflect my own experience. His results show that the 17-40L is sharper at equal apertures, but I just dumped my own 17-40L because the results were so inferior to my Rokinon.

Look at these two links from ePhotozine:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/samyang-14mm-f-2-8-ed-as-if-umc-lens-review-19621
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-14mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm-lens-review-23412

Of particular interest in their sharpness testing; it unquestionably shows the Samyang as sharper (than the 14LII), even in the corners. Anyway, I can only chart it up to either sample variation or reviewing differences (which illustrates why it is important to read multiple reviews and then form your own conclusions).

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I'm generally a Zeiss fan myself but the Nikon 14-24 (w/adapter) represents a much better value and is sharper across the frame when stopped down vs the Zeiss.

I have both,, the Zeiss is sharper and has better colour and contrast (although at certain apertures the Nikkor is better at the edges.. but not by much),it also has no problems with focus shift,the same can't be said about the nikkor..

+1. I have the Zeiss 15mm and did a fair amount of testing against a couple of UWA Canon lenses and found the Zeiss to be unmatched. The testing process for me was using stars, as they tend to show coma/CA/spherical aberrations very clearly. The benefits of the Zeiss for me were:
- Sharp at f2.8 as I don't have the luxury of stopping down for star pic's (a slight amount of coma in the extreme corners).
- A hard infinity stop. Much easier to use when fumbling around in the dark.

Coma, in terrestrial use, translates as image softness. But, as has been pointed out, stopping down will reduce that.

This is one significant advantage for the Zeiss. The Rokinon/Samyang is incredible in the coma department (a lot of "star guys" use it for that reason), but the distance scale is lousy on the Rokinon, and the lens focuses WAY beyond infinity. I essentially prefocus before I go out to do nightscapes.

 

[infared]

[/quote]

I have been told since doing my review that there was an earlier version of the lens that lacked the UMC element as a part of the optical formula and was significantly inferior to the newer version optically. That being said, I went and checked Bryan's lens sharpness tool again and his does say UMC. His chart shows a significant difference between the 14L and the Samyang, particularly in the corners. But his results don't seem to match that of other very reliable reviewers, and doesn't agree with my own results, either.

I don't know how to account for his results. I think Bryan is a great reviewer, but I don't feel like his chart results reflect my own experience. His results show that the 17-40L is sharper at equal apertures, but I just dumped my own 17-40L because the results were so inferior to my Rokinon.

Look at these two links from ePhotozine:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/samyang-14mm-f-2-8-ed-as-if-umc-lens-review-19621
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-14mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm-lens-review-23412

Of particular interest in their sharpness testing; it unquestionably shows the Samyang as sharper (than the 14LII), even in the corners. Anyway, I can only chart it up to either sample variation or reviewing differences (which illustrates why it is important to read multiple reviews and then form your own conclusions).
[/quote]

I checked out that comparison on ephotozine....WOW...interesting ...I had read about the Rokinon(or whatever!!! LOL..as lens by many names..I am already suspicious!)...and the review was not good..and I dismissed it..I am too serious about my photography...but it is great to know that this is out there.... I am going to tell a friend about it.
I totally agree with what you said at the end above...read up as much as you can...get the lens and test it out to make sure....It is all a lot of fun! Thanks for all the great info..as usual.