# Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21mm Review by Dustin Abbott



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 15, 2015)

Hello everyone. There are a lot of exciting new options in the wide angle department for Canon users, but I recently spent time with one that's been around for a couple of years and really enjoyed using it. Some of you are fans of Zeiss glass and would probably enjoy taking a look at some of these pieces.

Written Review: http://bit.ly/1DpXzNN
Video Review: http://bit.ly/1GhByPZ
Interactive Image Quality Examination Video: http://bit.ly/1NCoIwq 
Image Gallery: http://bit.ly/1DvNy00


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 15, 2015)

Here's a couple of favorites that I took with it during the review period:



What Cold Looks Like by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



After the Rain by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



What We Call Spring by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr


----------



## Click (Apr 15, 2015)

Thanks for the links, Dustin. Great review. I really like your first picture. Well done Sir.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 15, 2015)

Click said:


> Thanks for the links, Dustin. Great review. I really like your first picture. Well done Sir.



My pleasure, Click. You are always very kind to comment on other people's work in this forum. Thank you!


----------



## Eldar (Apr 15, 2015)

Great review of a great lens Dustin. I fully agree that this focal length is a sweet spot. Unfortunately, I became a bit intellectual when I got the 16-35 f4L IS and thought it would not be used, so I sold it. Needless to say, I regret that decision.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 15, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Great review of a great lens Dustin. I fully agree that this focal length is a sweet spot. Unfortunately, I became a bit intellectual when I got the 16-35 f4L IS and thought it would not be used, so I sold it. Needless to say, I regret that decision.



That's interesting. On paper you wouldn't think that would be the case, but there is something special about Zeiss rendering. People that haven't used them don't always get that. Even my older Planar T* 1.7/50mm produces really special images.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 15, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Great review of a great lens Dustin. I fully agree that this focal length is a sweet spot. Unfortunately, I became a bit intellectual when I got the 16-35 f4L IS and thought it would not be used, so I sold it. Needless to say, I regret that decision.
> ...


As you stated, there is something in the combination of sharpness, colour and contrast that makes Zeiss different. I got the 11-24 today. But I will Not sell the 15/2.8 Zeiss.


----------



## kirkcha (Apr 15, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Great review of a great lens Dustin. I fully agree that this focal length is a sweet spot. Unfortunately, I became a bit intellectual when I got the 16-35 f4L IS and thought it would not be used, so I sold it. Needless to say, I regret that decision.



Eldar, I see you also have the TS-E 24mm and wondering your thoughts between that and the Zeiss 21mm. I realize these are completely different animals but I am trying to decide between these two for a great landscape lens and wondering your thoughts. I also have the 16-35 f4, which I love and looking to add another lens. I am leaning towards the TS-E 24 just for all the possibilities but since you regret selling the Zeiss would like your thoughts.

BTW, another great review Dustin, now you got me thinking again. lol

Thanks

Kirk


----------



## meywd (Apr 15, 2015)

Thanks for the review Dustin, great photos as usual, I plan on getting the Samyang/Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 for astro work and I am really happy that this lens - the Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21mm - has coma, as it will make me more satisfied with the Rokinon ;D


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 15, 2015)

meywd said:


> Thanks for the review Dustin, great photos as usual, I plan on getting the Samyang/Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 for astro work and I am really happy that this lens - the Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21mm - has coma, as it will make me more satisfied with the Rokinon ;D



Another great option for astro work is the new Tamron 15-30. I've been publishing articles from a three way comparison between it, the Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, and the 16-35mm f/2.8L II...and in some cases the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 (two of four articles+videos have been published so far). The Tamron came out on top for astro work. I haven't shared any linkage here yet because CR may post them, but if you all are interested I can share them in this thread.


----------



## meywd (Apr 15, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the review Dustin, great photos as usual, I plan on getting the Samyang/Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 for astro work and I am really happy that this lens - the Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21mm - has coma, as it will make me more satisfied with the Rokinon ;D
> ...



Oh great, I am checking the articles now though feel free to share them here, I am sure some of the CR readers are interested , though I already got the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, and since my priority on lenses is at the telephoto end, I doubt it will be replaced soon.


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 15, 2015)

Once again, a great review Dustin. It was the Zeiss 21mm that I first hired a couple of years ago that got me "into Zeiss". While the 21mm hits the sweet spot, I wanted something wider, hence the 15mm I now have (plus I wanted f2.8, which the 18mm doesn't have).

The week I had the lens was great. Beaut colour rendition, contrast, and sharp wide open. I used it for some astro work one night and found the lack of coma to be stunning (ok, a tiny bit in the corners). But to me, the 21 was a slightly sharper lens than the 15mm (wide open).

I have the Canon 24mm f1.4, and its a lens that I love to bits, and use on a regular basis. But I'll get the 21mm in the next 12 months, simply because it fits into landscape work extremely well.


----------



## Zeidora (Apr 16, 2015)

Nice review, indeed. I had the C/Y version on Contax, and recently upgraded to the ZE version for automatic aperture. It is a very nice lens, one that I use more often than I would have expected. I also have the 15 ZE, and while a beauty, it is challenging to use.

I also find the absence of a pouch rather cheap, and I have mentioned it to Zeiss. Back in CY days, a pouch was standard with all Zeiss lenses, so I recycle the CY pouches for my ZE lenses.

Flare control is spectacular. There is minimal flare even with the sun in the image. 

You mention no weather sealing as an issue. I shoot 90% outdoors, including at the seashore, and have not had any issues with any of the Zeiss lenses in the past decade or so. I think Zeiss is understating how well their lenses are built.


----------



## benperrin (Apr 16, 2015)

Thanks for all the hard work you put into these reviews Dustin. I bought the Samyang 14mm 2.8 due to your review of it. At that price I didn't have much to lose.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 16, 2015)

kirkcha said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Great review of a great lens Dustin. I fully agree that this focal length is a sweet spot. Unfortunately, I became a bit intellectual when I got the 16-35 f4L IS and thought it would not be used, so I sold it. Needless to say, I regret that decision.
> ...


These are both great lenses in every way, but a bit difficult to compare. The 21mm is much easier to use. I think Dustin gave a good description of that. Compact, light, easy to focus and phenomenal IQ. It is a good wide angle, walkaround lens, easy to handhold and it is f2.8.

The 24 TS-E is very different and, in my view, in a class of its own, especially for architecture and landscapes. I have never used it as a walkaround lens. To me this is a much slower lens to work with, taking advantage of the tilt&shift capability and it is always tripod mounted. I know some lock it in neutral position and use it as a hand holdable prime, but I have never done that. I even met an event photographer who used it hand held, with shift, to correct the height difference between floor and podium and also tilt to get the focusing plane where he wanted it. But that takes a lot of practice and is way beyond my skills.

In your case, especially since you already have the 16-35, I would get the TS-E. In fact, if someone asked me what the best landscape lens you can buy, regardless of money, make or mount (without looking at some of the very expensive medium format stuff), I'd say the 24mm TS-E II. Some may say that the 17mm TS-E is a better option, because it works very well with the 1.4xIII and 2xIII extenders and thus gives you the same focal length. But the IQ from the 24 is better and it uses standard filters (there are also filter options for the 17mm TS-E, but they are bigger and more cumbersome).

There are a couple of reasons for regretting selling the 21mm. First is the Zeiss IQ. I have some difficulty describing this, but, as Dustin also points out, they are special. Second is size, weight and mechanical feel, which is outstanding. But the main reason is probably missing it alongside my other Zeiss primes. I have a sling bag, where I have room for the 5 Zeiss lenses. I then use an Ec-S focusing screen in my 1DX or a similar custom made S screen in my 5DIII. That works very well with any lens at f2.8 or faster. At f4 the viewer becomes rather dark and that makes it less attractive to use the 16-35 f4L IS. And it just feels awkward to mix an AF zoom with the Zeiss manual focus primes.

In your case, in my view, you should stay with your 24mm TS-E decision. You will not regret it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 16, 2015)

Some great discussion here. I enjoy reading from people who appreciate Zeiss (and other lenses) without immediately dismissing them because they are manual focus only.

Here is some linkage to the ongoing three way comparison between the 16-35 f/4L IS, 16-35mm f/2.8L II, and Tamron 15-30 VC:

*Here is the specs on the lens (along with visual comparison) and objectives for the comparison*:
YouTube: http://bit.ly/1Chtz0w
Text: http://bit.ly/1FF1GmL 

*Here is head to head to head to head resolution comparisons:*
Here is the text article with crops and samples: http://bit.ly/1IXtlzE
Here is the interactive YouTube video: http://bit.ly/1IXtlzE 

We'll probably post everything in a more formal fashion (one way or another), but for those of you interested - take a look and share widely!


----------



## NancyP (Apr 16, 2015)

Dustin, your site seems to be offline every time I try. 

I don't think the coma is bad on this lens. It is my go-to lens for astro and I use it at f/2.8 (I also use the 14mm Samyang and the 35mm Sigma Art (at f/2 to f/2.8, coma on the Sigma is noticeable at f/1.4 and frankly the skies aren't dark enough for f/1.4 where I shoot).

Color and contrast are very appealing. AF would seem to be superfluous on an ultra-wide lens anyway. My copy is used. Went into store intending to buy 6D and Tamron 24-70, saw Zeiss 21 ZE sitting on the used shelf, tried 6D and 21 ZE in store, walked out with the combo. I still don't have a "normal zoom".


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 16, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Dustin, your site seems to be offline every time I try.
> 
> I don't think the coma is bad on this lens. It is my go-to lens for astro and I use it at f/2.8 (I also use the 14mm Samyang and the 35mm Sigma Art (at f/2 to f/2.8, coma on the Sigma is noticeable at f/1.4 and frankly the skies aren't dark enough for f/1.4 where I shoot).
> 
> Color and contrast are very appealing. AF would seem to be superfluous on an ultra-wide lens anyway. My copy is used. Went into store intending to buy 6D and Tamron 24-70, saw Zeiss 21 ZE sitting on the used shelf, tried 6D and 21 ZE in store, walked out with the combo. I still don't have a "normal zoom".



That's strange. I'm not seeing any issues on any of my devices.


----------



## kirkcha (Apr 16, 2015)

Eldar said:


> kirkcha said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Thanks Eldar, this is very helpful and appreciate you taking to the time to write this. 

I think I had decided in my mind the TS-E 24mm but when I got them both in my hands last weekend, as you and Dustin pointed out, I loved the feel and focusing of the Zeiss. The other thing, and Dustin mention this too was focal length. I wasn't sure if 24 was wide enough after looking at what I had shot my 16-35 at. Like most people I suspect, it was at end ranges of the zoom but then 18-22 was next. But I do tend to shoot a little wide and crop for composition so I think 24mm is probably better for me than the 17mm (and I use grads and NDs). I really like shooting long exposures and taking my time to work through a scene (probably drives my wife crazy though) so I think you helped me confirm the TS-E is the best option for me right now.

Besides not sure I am ready for the Zeiss addiction that I am sure will follow the first one.

Thanks again


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 20, 2015)

kirkcha said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > kirkcha said:
> ...



Zeiss addiction is right. There is just something about holding those beautiful crafted metal lenses that excites the inner geek!


----------



## Zeidora (Apr 22, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Zeiss addiction is right. There is just something about holding those beautiful crafted metal lenses that excites the inner geek!



Couldn't agree more. One of the few non-Zeiss lenses I have is the 180 macro, an L-series lens. Compare putting the plastic hood on that vs. the precisely machined metal hood of the 100 mm Makroplanar (or any other ZE lens for that matter, including the 21). Universes apart. +++


----------

