# How's this Zeiss 18mm Distagon?



## Cory (Jun 7, 2017)

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/655185-REG/Zeiss_1762_827_Distagon_T_18mm_f_3_5.html

Thanks - for landscape, interiors, architecture, etc. (on full-frame).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 7, 2017)

It's a great lens that doesn't have a fraction of the functionality for those subjects the TS-E17 has.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 7, 2017)

At $895, its now priced low enough to make it a good buy. Its getting up there in age, but still excellent. The TS-E is $2049, so if price is a big factor, you'll love the Zeiss. That $500 off sale may not last.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2017)

Plus, the Zeiss 18mm takes 'normal' 82m front filters, whereas if you want filters for the TS-E 17, you're looking at the WonderPana system and 145mm salad plates. But the hassle is worth it, I quite like my TS-E 17.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2017)

I've never shot either. But for Interiors/Architecture, I agree with PBD that a T/S is a more powerful tool.

But for _landscapes_, the Zeiss has front filter threads, which is vital to me. You can use fairly common 82mm CPL, ND, etc. or walk right into the standard Lee 100mm setup for ND grad use.

In contrast, the 17mm T/S requires you to jump to that same Lee setup for _any_ filtering need, even if it's just a CPL. And that privilege costs you an additional $100 or so for a sleeve that lets you retrofit your front-filter-ring-less lens to work with it, and you'll need to buy either a 4x4 slot-in CPL or 105mm CPL (neither of which are cheap) to work with that setup. Ouch.

So in landscapes, caveat emptor -- you may very well need more than the price of the lens to do the job.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Plus, the Zeiss 18mm takes 'normal' 82m front filters, whereas if you want filters for the TS-E 17, you're looking at the WonderPana system and 145mm salad plates. But the hassle is worth it, I quite like my TS-E 17.



You beat me to it on filters, Neuro. 

Apparently you don't need the 'dinner plates' and can stay in the Lee 100mm system on the 17mm T/S via an adaptor:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008397-REG/lee_filters_fhcar17tse_adapter_ring_for_canon.html

The downside is that you give up a healthy percentage of your T/S travel from what I'm reading to stay in that 100mm ecosystem. But depending on how badly a prospective 17mm T/S buyer needs full T/S functionality with filters in place, it might be worth it to go the adaptor route and enjoy the considerably smaller / cheaper / more readily available filters in the 100mm system. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Apparently you don't need the 'dinner plates' and can stay in the Lee 100mm system on the 17mm T/S via an adaptor:



As they point out, if you go the Lee route, you will not be able to use the full range of lens movements. Lee indicates slightly more than half before mechanical vignetting; for my architecture shooting, I generally need more of the shift range than I'd get with the Lee filters (usually I'm in the 8-12mm range, and 12mm is the top of the range). I have the Wonderpana Core (holder for 145mm round filters, I have a CPL and 10-stop ND), but there's also the newer Wonderpana FreeArc, which holds 145mm rounds and also 6.6" rectangles (if you want to use grad NDs).


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 7, 2017)

Back to how the lenses perform, here are some links:

TDP Image comparison at f/8 (probably not using these tools wide open for those applications)

The Zeiss is slightly sharper in the center / Canon clearly better towards the periphery, less fringing as well.

PZ for the 17 T/S

PZ for the Zeiss

The Canon is slightly sharper, especially at the wide open end (but again, how often will you be there?). But these are some relatively ancient PZ reviews, so we don't have color fringing vs. aperture samples here. Vignetting is also a key difference, but again... this isn't a wide open tool unless you are shooting astro with it or something. That shouldn't come up in your three use cases.

Anyway, hope that helps.

- A


----------



## BillB (Jun 7, 2017)

The Digital Picture Review from 2011. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-18mm-f-3.5-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## nc0b (Jun 12, 2017)

I had the 18mm Distagon for a few years, but sold it after I purchased a Canon 16-35mm f/4. I generally zone focused the Zeiss, and shot it at f/8 to minimize the vignetting. The Canon zoom has significantly less vignetting, and of course has AF and the zoom flexibility. The local photographer who purchased the Distagon has a full set of Zeiss primes, and I assume is happy with his purchase. I took a big hit when I sold the prime, but the change worked out better for me when I need wider than the 24-105mm.


----------



## niels123 (Jun 12, 2017)

I have the distagon 15 - 18 and 21. The 18 is a great lens, but it's the weakest of these three, especially wide open. At f/8 it's tag sharp, but wide open in the corners it is noticably soft. The 21 is wide open significantly sharper and I tend to use that more than the 18. The 15 is very similar in sharpness to the 21, but of course much much wider. Downside is almost no possibility to add filters to the 15.

I don't care about vignetting as you can fix it with a mouse click in post


----------

