# Zeiss Dilemma



## ray5 (Jun 9, 2015)

Hi,
I have been wanting to get some Zeiss glass for a while but held out due to the cost and manual focus concerns. With the ongoing rebate it has become tempting. And while at a friends, I used them and didn't feel that the MF would be an issue. I would like to get one, so narrowed it down to the 100mm and 21mm.
They are obviously two very different lenses for vastly different purposes. Here are my thoughts:
I like to do landscape and cityscapes a lot, especially at nights. And also enjoy portraits and have never done any macros though could possibly try. Between the two I would say I do the former more. Currently, my walk around lens is 24-70 F2.8L II and my go to portrait lens is the 70-200 F2.8L II. Many would say do I really need/want another one as most of my needs are covered with these two already. I saw some images from each of those lenses from a friend and was blown away! The cost of either is identical.
Please let me know your opinion, experience with these lenses and suggestions. Thanks,
Ray


----------



## Zeidora (Jun 9, 2015)

I have both, mainly do close-up/macro nature/natural history, so the 100 Makroplanar is my workhorse lens. For landscapes and also environmental portraits I frequently take the 21 and it is gorgeous to use. Despite its 100 degree angle I use it more frequently than I would have thought. I had it on the Contax in CY version, but now upgraded to the ZE. One caveat is the 82 mm filter thread. I recently added the 25/2 and also have the 15/2.8. I like the 25 for its more "standard" look, though you have it covered with your 24-70. The 21 gives you a bit more of an unusual look, but it is not comically distorted as the 15 (or F-Distagon 16). The 15 is not easy to use effectively. 

From what I can see, I would first go with the 21 (and get a matt focusing screen). You can occasionally see them second hand, but neither of them is common.

I also assume you shoot on a FF body.

One word of caution, once you have seen what the Zeisses can do, you will want more ...


----------



## ray5 (Jun 9, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> I have both, mainly do close-up/macro nature/natural history, so the 100 Makroplanar is my workhorse lens. For landscapes and also environmental portraits I frequently take the 21 and it is gorgeous to use. Despite its 100 degree angle I use it more frequently than I would have thought. I had it on the Contax in CY version, but now upgraded to the ZE. One caveat is the 82 mm filter thread. I recently added the 25/2 and also have the 15/2.8. I like the 25 for its more "standard" look, though you have it covered with your 24-70. The 21 gives you a bit more of an unusual look, but it is not comically distorted as the 15 (or F-Distagon 16). The 15 is not easy to use effectively.
> 
> From what I can see, I would first go with the 21 (and get a matt focusing screen). You can occasionally see them second hand, but neither of them is common.
> 
> ...



Ha ha! I know. I am leaning towards the 21 also but the portraits I saw with the 100 were soooo good! Sorry I did not mention the camera. It's 5D MK III. What do you mean by the "unusual look"?
I also plan to go to the Southwest US(UT/AZ) in the fall so thought the 21 would be a good choice. Can't get both at the same time.......
Thx


----------



## NancyP (Jun 9, 2015)

I would go for the 21mm if I were going to the southwest. The 21mm is wide, alright, but not excessively wide. I use mine a lot for night astrolandscapes - allows me to get a large chunk of sky plus some landscape, and very sharp to the corners at f/2.8.

I did happen to find a 21 ZE used at my local camera store. I was going to get the 6D and Tamron 24-70 f/2.8, left with a 6D plus 21 ZE plus a big smile. I had some decent film era primes to "fill in" until I added newer primes.

Another thing to consider might be a TS-E 24mm if you are considering manual focus lenses - the tilt and shift can be handy for landscapes, if you are routinely working on tripod and don't mind the extra steps involved - but that's theoretical for me, I have not used a TS-E myself yet (hard to justify a new lens right now). 

You should try macro some time.


----------



## ray5 (Jun 9, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I would go for the 21mm if I were going to the southwest. The 21mm is wide, alright, but not excessively wide. I use mine a lot for night astrolandscapes - allows me to get a large chunk of sky plus some landscape, and very sharp to the corners at f/2.8.
> 
> I did happen to find a 21 ZE used at my local camera store. I was going to get the 6D and Tamron 24-70 f/2.8, left with a 6D plus 21 ZE plus a big smile. I had some decent film era primes to "fill in" until I added newer primes.
> 
> ...



;D ;D
In one sweep you asked me to get the 21,100* AND* a T&S!!!
I have never even seen a T&S lens. Perhaps stepping up to a MF lens and if I survive then a T&S would be reasonable. I really enjoy landscapes and would probably put portraits as my second favorite. I do routinely work on a tripod. Thx!
Ray


----------



## NancyP (Jun 9, 2015)

Nah. Macro isn't a priority for your upcoming trip, for sure. You will have lots of use for a wider-than-24mm lens on the trip. The two wide angle MF lenses are an either-or proposition. The Zeiss 21 is plenty straightforward and has lovely microcontrast and sharpness across the frame, even at f/2.8. It is a fun lens. 

For a few hundred dollars more, new, the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 is equally sharp and would provide you with the TS option, which could be used for some panoramas, for better foreground sharpness in landscapes (although you can do focus stacking with a non-TS lens), and can correct distortion caused by needing to point camera up to capture something (most pertinent when photographing architecture). Now all this extra capacity presumes that you are willing to put in the extra work to learn how to use it. Otherwise, the TS-E left at neutral position functions like any non-TS lens. You can "run and gun" with the Zeiss. You can't use the tilt-shift capacity of a TS-E lens off a tripod (well, not easily). If you aren't a tripo-holic the Zeiss is the straightforward option.


----------



## Berowne (Jun 9, 2015)

Hallo Ray,
I sometime use the EF-S 60/2.8 Macro together with a Leica-R Makro-Elmarit 2.8/60 with a Novoflex adapter. If it is about Resolution both Lenses are similar, the Leica Lens produces visible better contrast. The Zeiss-Makroplanars and the Leica Makro-Elmarit are quite similar Lenses. In the end I feel that there is no reason to prefer the Leica-Lens, simply because Autofocus makes most things so much easier. 

Remember that the Viewfinder of a DSLR is not optimal for MF. If you are not used to work with Manual Focus, you should consider it very very well to purchase MF-lenses for several thousand $ before being sure that you realy want to work with them. Perhaps it will be good to rent such a lens and try to work with it. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## eml58 (Jun 9, 2015)

I currently own & use the Zeiss 15/21/55/85 & 135, of these perhaps the Otus 55 gets most use, but the 21 is not too far behind.

I also own the Canon 14/24/TSE 17, TSE 24, 35 & 8-15, since buying the Zeiss Lenses I rarely use these, the Zeiss are just better in every way, and Yes, the MF takes some getting used to, and unfortunately Canon handicapped the 5DMK III so you can't fit a Cannon split screen (I understand others have tried after market screens with mixed results), persistence pays off.

You won't regret for a moment buying the Zeiss 21, except for the fact it will lead you into the bottomless requirement for more Zeiss.

Good Luck.


----------



## ray5 (Jun 9, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Nah. Macro isn't a priority for your upcoming trip, for sure. You will have lots of use for a wider-than-24mm lens on the trip. The two wide angle MF lenses are an either-or proposition. The Zeiss 21 is plenty straightforward and has lovely microcontrast and sharpness across the frame, even at f/2.8. It is a fun lens.
> 
> For a few hundred dollars more, new, the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 is equally sharp and would provide you with the TS option, which could be used for some panoramas, for better foreground sharpness in landscapes (although you can do focus stacking with a non-TS lens), and can correct distortion caused by needing to point camera up to capture something (most pertinent when photographing architecture). Now all this extra capacity presumes that you are willing to put in the extra work to learn how to use it. Otherwise, the TS-E left at neutral position functions like any non-TS lens. You can "run and gun" with the Zeiss. You can't use the tilt-shift capacity of a TS-E lens off a tripod (well, not easily). If you aren't a tripo-holic the Zeiss is the straightforward option.



Though I am not a tripo-holic I don't mind carrying it around. I think the time commitment required for the TS will discourage me from using it. But thanks for the help.
Ray


----------



## ray5 (Jun 9, 2015)

eml58 said:


> I currently own & use the Zeiss 15/21/55/85 & 135, of these perhaps the Otus 55 gets most use, but the 21 is not too far behind.
> 
> I also own the Canon 14/24/TSE 17, TSE 24, 35 & 8-15, since buying the Zeiss Lenses I rarely use these, the Zeiss are just better in every way, and Yes, the MF takes some getting used to, and unfortunately Canon handicapped the 5DMK III so you can't fit a Cannon split screen (I understand others have tried after market screens with mixed results), persistence pays off.
> 
> ...


Hi Ed,
Good to hear from you. Haven't seen your stunning cat images for a bit! I think I'll commit to the 21 and perhaps at a later stage get the 100 as well. Thanks
Ray


----------



## Mr Bean (Jun 10, 2015)

I hired a Zeiss 21mm for a week, a few years back. I regretted it, as I then went out and bought a Zeiss lens a few months later 

For landscape, astro landscape, the 21mm is a superb lens. Sharp from edge to edge @2.8 and beautiful contrast. While my Canon 24mm f1.4 is a beautiful lens, the Zeiss 21mm has the edge for landscape work.


----------



## RobertG. (Jun 10, 2015)

Not everybody thinks that the Zeiss lenses are "just better in every way" than the TS-E lenses. 

https://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/a-quick-lens-test-canon-ts-e-24mm-versus-zeiss-21mm/

I use the TS-E 24 L II a lot and in most of my landscape shots the shift is used. Without shift a zoom would do too. Manual focus slows you down but so does a tripod. The lens shift is done in less than 5 sec. 

BTW, I own also 2 older Zeiss lenses and currently consider to buy another one (with shift).


----------



## ray5 (Jun 10, 2015)

Mr Bean said:


> I hired a Zeiss 21mm for a week, a few years back. I regretted it, as I then went out and bought a Zeiss lens a few months later
> 
> For landscape, astro landscape, the 21mm is a superb lens. Sharp from edge to edge @2.8 and beautiful contrast. While my Canon 24mm f1.4 is a beautiful lens, the Zeiss 21mm has the edge for landscape work.


Do you notice any vignetting wide open?


----------



## ray5 (Jun 10, 2015)

Berowne said:


> Hallo Ray,
> I sometime use the EF-S 60/2.8 Macro together with a Leica-R Makro-Elmarit 2.8/60 with a Novoflex adapter. If it is about Resolution both Lenses are similar, the Leica Lens produces visible better contrast. The Zeiss-Makroplanars and the Leica Makro-Elmarit are quite similar Lenses. In the end I feel that there is no reason to prefer the Leica-Lens, simply because Autofocus makes most things so much easier.
> 
> Remember that the Viewfinder of a DSLR is not optimal for MF. If you are not used to work with Manual Focus, you should consider it very very well to purchase MF-lenses for several thousand $ before being sure that you realy want to work with them. Perhaps it will be good to rent such a lens and try to work with it.
> ...



Hi,
Good suggestion about renting. Thx
Ray


----------



## eml58 (Jun 10, 2015)

RobertG. said:


> Not everybody thinks that the Zeiss lenses are "just better in every way" than the TS-E lenses.



Hi Robert, your right of course, it's the reason we have developed the ability to make choices, I owned the TSE 17 II & TSE 24 II long before I owned a single Zeiss Lens, and I think from my own experience the Canon TSE II are wonderful lenses.

I just think the Zeiss in most, not all, situations, produce better images, in particular the Zeiss 21.

If I was taking Images of Buildings etc, I'de certainly lean towards the TSE 17 or 24, for most anything else I'de lean towards the Zeiss.

It's a choice thing .


----------



## Zeidora (Jun 10, 2015)

ray5 said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > I have both, mainly do close-up/macro nature/natural history, so the 100 Makroplanar is my workhorse lens. For landscapes and also environmental portraits I frequently take the 21 and it is gorgeous to use. Despite its 100 degree angle I use it more frequently than I would have thought. I had it on the Contax in CY version, but now upgraded to the ZE. One caveat is the 82 mm filter thread. I recently added the 25/2 and also have the 15/2.8. I like the 25 for its more "standard" look, though you have it covered with your 24-70. The 21 gives you a bit more of an unusual look, but it is not comically distorted as the 15 (or F-Distagon 16). The 15 is not easy to use effectively.
> ...



Re unusual look, you just see that the images are taken with an extreme wide angle lens. It is rectilinear, so there is no distortion clue, but you still notice. I guess it is the relative sizes of objects in different parts of the image. It can be used for dramatic effects with foreground-background differentiation.
Re 5d mkIII, as far as I know, you can change the focusing screen but it requires screwdriver and a steady hand. I will be doing that once the 5dsr comes in. Focus confirmation works fine, but I am old-fashioned and like to look at the image on the ground glass. The 21 will be much for forgiving with focussing errors because even moderately stopped down, you get lots of depth of field. 
With any macro lens, on the other hand, focus needs to be spot on. I find AF for macro worse than useless, so the matt focusing screen is critical. Manual focus on an AF lens is a very poor substitute. I have a really tough time with the Canon 180 macro, because AF is never where I want it, and MF is rather tricky, no comparison to a proper MF lens. The only way out is shooting a lot and throw >90% away.

Enjoy the 21! As others have noted, you will use it more than you think.

Re Otus 55, absolutely stunning lens. I would like to use it more, but it does not seem to be a focal length I "see" in. I use it for intermediate distance documentary photography (scientific plant portraits).


----------



## Mr Bean (Jun 10, 2015)

ray5 said:


> Mr Bean said:
> 
> 
> > I hired a Zeiss 21mm for a week, a few years back. I regretted it, as I then went out and bought a Zeiss lens a few months later
> ...



There, it is apparent. Easily corrected in Lightroom or PS. Personally, I found the 21mm to be a well balanced lens, from an optical perspective.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Eldar (Jun 10, 2015)

I have the same lineup of lenses that eml58 listed, with one exception. I sold the 21mm when I got the 16-35 f4L IS. BIG mistake. The 16-35 is a great lens, but it does not replace the 21mm. I thought I would not mind the drop from f2.8 to f4, but I do. And the image quality from Zeiss is just better. The sum of colour, contrast, resolution, distortion and the rest of it. So, even though I now also have the 11-24mm f4L, I will re-buy the 21mm. 

I use the Otus lenses, 55/1.4 and 85/1.4, a lot and can really recommend those, but understand that the price is a turn-off for most photographers. The best lens, from a price/performance perspective is in my view the 135/2. So before you conclude on the 100mm, I´d take a good look at that.

I also had the 17&24 TS-E lensens prior to buying the Zeiss lenses. They are both fantastic lenses and I recommend them highly. But I must admit that I use them less and less. I am a bit too hooked on the Zeiss look. I am now looking forward to the 5DSR, to see how they perform with that massive resolution.


----------



## niels123 (Jun 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I have the same lineup of lenses that eml58 listed, with one exception. I sold the 21mm when I got the 16-35 f4L IS. BIG mistake. The 16-35 is a great lens, but it does not replace the 21mm. I thought I would not mind the drop from f2.8 to f4, but I do. And the image quality from Zeiss is just better. The sum of colour, contrast, resolution, distortion and the rest of it. So, even though I now also have the 11-24mm f4L, I will re-buy the 21mm.
> 
> I use the Otus lenses, 55/1.4 and 85/1.4, a lot and can really recommend those, but understand that the price is a turn-off for most photographers. The best lens, from a price/performance perspective is in my view the 135/2. So before you conclude on the 100mm, I´d take a good look at that.
> 
> I also had the 17&24 TS-E lensens prior to buying the Zeiss lenses. They are both fantastic lenses and I recommend them highly. But I must admit that I use them less and less. I am a bit too hooked on the Zeiss look. I am now looking forward to the 5DSR, to see how they perform with that massive resolution.



I *love* my Zeiss lenses too ;D
I have the 15 and the 135, but maybe in the future I will also get the 21.

I would also have a look at the 15 instead of the 21. I love the ultrawide and the lack of distortion there. It's just amazing. It does vignette quite a lot though.

For those who have experience: from sample images from the internet I don't see a massive difference between the Canon 100L and the Zeiss 100. What do you think?


----------



## Eldar (Jun 10, 2015)

niels123 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I have the same lineup of lenses that eml58 listed, with one exception. I sold the 21mm when I got the 16-35 f4L IS. BIG mistake. The 16-35 is a great lens, but it does not replace the 21mm. I thought I would not mind the drop from f2.8 to f4, but I do. And the image quality from Zeiss is just better. The sum of colour, contrast, resolution, distortion and the rest of it. So, even though I now also have the 11-24mm f4L, I will re-buy the 21mm.
> ...


I don't have any experience with the Zeiss 100mm, but I have the 100 f2.8L IS. I think the ability to go to 1:1 is good and the optical quality for that lens is very good. That is one of the reasons why I have not bought the 100mm from Zeiss.


----------



## e17paul (Jun 10, 2015)

This thread may answer my question on whether I should save for the ZE 18 or the TS-E 17. Or maybe not, perhaps the Zeiss look would be a dangerous drug to dabble with.


----------



## bod (Jun 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> The best lens, from a price/performance perspective is in my view the 135/2. So before you conclude on the 100mm, I´d take a good look at that.
> 
> I am a bit too hooked on the Zeiss look.



Agree very much with Eldar's comments. 

My interest in Zeiss lenses was sparked by Dustin Abbot's excellent reviews. I like short telephoto so hired the 100 mm to try a Zeiss MF lens out and was impressed. Having looked at the test data on sites such as TDP and DXO I concluded that the 135 was an excellent price/performance option as a first Zeiss lens since its IQ is similar to the Otus lenses. I bought the 135 at the start of 2015 and it has been my favourite lens since, producing some of the better images I have taken this year. It is an excellent lens which I really recommend.

I also have the 100L which is a very good lens also as regards IQ. Having AF and IS I find it a very flexible lens for a variety of uses from small wildlife close ups, product photography, landscape, people and sports. Since I want to retain some AF primes I opted to keep it. I liked the images from the Zeiss 100 mm also though and was sorry to have to take it back. Either of these 100 mm lenses are great depending on whether you need AF or not (I do for sports - I shoot basketball with it).

As has already been observed it is easy to love the Zeiss lenses and the images they create. I am now addicted and plan to work towards more Zeiss lenses in my kit, with the 55 next probably.


----------



## ray5 (Jun 10, 2015)

Eldar said:


> niels123 said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


I agree, even though I don't yet do macro had it been 1:1 I would have got it. The portraits I have seen done with this lens are really amazing. Particularly the bokeh. Thx


----------



## ray5 (Jun 10, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> ray5 said:
> 
> 
> > Zeidora said:
> ...



I also have the EF 16-35F4. I don't use it much, I am not used to something that wide and it's scary wide and the distortion on the sides at 16mm is quite unsettling.Thx


----------



## ray5 (Jun 10, 2015)

Mr Bean said:


> ray5 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Bean said:
> ...



Ok, Thx


----------



## ray5 (Jun 10, 2015)

bod said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > The best lens, from a price/performance perspective is in my view the 135/2. So before you conclude on the 100mm, I´d take a good look at that.
> ...



What do you use the 135 primarily for. Portraits come to mind, too long for wide landscapes, but could be used for narrow cityscapes and street photography?


----------



## niels123 (Jun 10, 2015)

ray5 said:


> bod said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



I use mine primarily for shooting portraits / people that are not moving and sometimes for semi-closeup shots (e.g. small parts of a landscape such as a couple of plants or flowers)

This is one of my recent shots taken with the 135 wide open: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nielsvanvelzen/17701411263/in/dateposted-public/


----------



## ray5 (Jun 10, 2015)

niels123 said:


> ray5 said:
> 
> 
> > bod said:
> ...



Awesome Picture! Thx for sharing


----------



## ray5 (Jun 20, 2015)

I read some reviews and the Zeiss 135 seems to be a stellar lens. Eldar has been very helpful with his experience with his Zeiss collection. For portraits it's pretty tight, but I guess that's the allure of it? I tried it on my 70-200, kept it at 135 and shot. That way the 100mm gives a bit more room. Also, having never used a prime, there will be a learning curve? So prime and MF, is the learning curve steep? Thx


----------



## Zeidora (Jun 20, 2015)

ray5 said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have any experience with the Zeiss 100mm, but I have the 100 f2.8L IS. I think the ability to go to 1:1 is good and the optical quality for that lens is very good. That is one of the reasons why I have not bought the 100mm from Zeiss.
> ...



I have had a bunch of 90-105 macro lenses over the years (OM, Pentax, Nikon, Zeiss CY, Zeiss ZE). The OM 90 and the Zeiss ZE were only 1:2 magnification, both also f/2.0 lenses, while the others were all 1:1, f/2.8. Accordingly, there is a trade-off between magnification and aperture. You easily get to 1:1 with extension tubes, and very soon you see right away which and how many extension tubes you need. When I switched from the Zeiss CY to the Zeiss ZE, I wondered whether I would miss the ability to go straight 1:1, but it is not too bad. The brighter viewfinder is nice. I tend to switch lenses between every shot anyway, so adding extension tube is just like changing a lens. 

AF, particularly in 1:2 to 1:1 range is no good (I also have the 180L macro), so for macro, AF is more of a hindrance than an asset. Image quality, though is the prime reason to use the Zeisses.
I hardly ever shoot people, so portraits is not my thing, and cannot comment.

For sport (someone mentioned that earlier in the thread), I would not use a macro lens. Macro lenses generally are optimized for reproduction ratios between 1:10 to 1:2, while "regular" lenses are optimized at near infinity focus (hyperlocal distance open). Sports are generally shot closer to infinity than 1:2.


----------



## nc0b (Jun 21, 2015)

E17 Paul. I have the ZE 18mm, and it runs circles around the non-L EF lenses I had a few years ago (20 and 24mm). Have never used a TS, so cannot comment. I don't use the 18mm that much, but zone focusing has not been an issue. I often shoot the Zeiss at f/8 where the vignetting is minimal. I purchases the Zeiss used for $999. Today I might go for the Canon 16-35mm f/4, but it didn't exist when I purchased the Zeiss.


----------



## ray5 (Jul 4, 2015)

After much debate finally bought the 135 F 2.
Thanks for all the help!


----------



## Click (Jul 4, 2015)

Congrats on your new acquisition. 8)


----------



## ray5 (Jul 4, 2015)

Thanks. It's really imposing a lens. Will post some images soon.


----------

