# Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 or 24-70 mm II



## Jack56 (Jan 16, 2014)

Dear all,
Since I am the owner of a Mark5dIII and like to buy my next lens. For landscape photography I limited my choices to a Zeiss 21 mm prime or the Canon 24 mm. 
Another possibility for my next lens is the 24-70mm. But ..... will I miss the IS on the 24-70mm?
And do the Zeiss and the 24-70 go together well as a combo?
Thank you for reading my email.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 17, 2014)

How many lenses are you considering? It looks like you're considering 3: Zeiss 21, a Canon 24 prime (24L II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5 or a 24mm f/2.8 IS?) and Canon 24-70 II.

I've tried a Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS, and honestly, I have not found the IS to be that useful. I can handhold it to about 1/20s and still get good results. With IS, I can get to to 1/10s and maybe 1/5s on occasion. In those type of situations, I'd usually prefer a tripod to IS for scenes that are not moving. If people/animals are moving in the frame then you want something 1/60s or faster and IS makes no difference.

If the Zeiss 21 is wide enough for your needs, then get it. If you have enough money, the Zeiss 21 and the Canon 24-70 II is a formidable combination.


----------



## rambarra (Jan 17, 2014)

I own both (canon 24-70 II & zeiss 21). I absolutely loved the zeiss until I purchased the 24-70 this summer. This is such a versatile and perfect lens that now the zeiss rarely leaves the bag. I am also under the impression that 24mm is a better focal lenght for landscape compared to 21, which is bit too wide and requires more control/time/thinking over framing.

So if you are considering one lens only my suggestion is to go for the 24-70. You won't miss the IS at all and will be fine in most situations
r


----------



## rpiotr01 (Jan 17, 2014)

Seems to me the lenses have different purposes. Zeiss is MF only, considered one of the best landscape lenses available. 24-70 2.8 II should offer best of the best AF capability plus outstanding IQ - it's a more versatile lens overall. Do you need speed and versatility, or a dedicated landscape lens?


----------



## Arkarch (Jan 17, 2014)

I have the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 and it is just a beautiful piece of glass for landscape. It is about as wide as needed for landscape and has a 9-blade aperature - providing 18-star sun stars when needed. Lens Flare is very manageable. If you are landscape, most of the time you'll be dialing in focus on Live View. One note about Zeiss MF's - they have lots of throw on the focus with a hard infinity stop - it is much easier than a Canon AF being used in Manual. And at 21mm, its really super fast to dial it in.

I dont have experience with the 24-70 II. I have looked at it, but for me its more of an event lens. I recall field curvature makes it less useful for landscape. But if you are lacking lenses in the 35mm and 50mm area, it may be a good lens to get you versatility due to the zoom. If you are strictly landscape, you may not need f/2.8 and the kit 24-105 is not bad - not as sharp and I use mine rarely, but you could probably pick one for cheap and still have room for a hot prime.

So long as you are playing in the low $2000's, I might suggest the Canon TS-E 24mm. Its not as fast at f/3.5, but the Tilt-Shift features can be very artful for landscape. It will do things no other Canon lens can do.

For me, the lenses to look at on the wide end for landscape are - the Zeiss 21 and TS-E 24; and the Zeiss 15 and TS-E 17 for the wider needs. 

Edit - my notes are based on a Full Frame Body (1D/5D/6D). If you are shooting with a crop body, then you might look at lenses like the 10-22mm. And a word about the Canon's ultra-wide zooms (16-35/17-40) I like edge-sharp so I do not consider them. Hopefully Canon will someday make an edge-sharp wide zoom.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 17, 2014)

Well, for me the choice was 6D body plus ~$1,200.00 or so of lens. I happened to see a used 21mm f/2.8 ZE in the used Canon equipment shelf when I went in to try the 6D body, and tried that lens on the 6D. Love at first sight. I had planned on the Tamron 24-70, that went out the window fast. I should say that at the point I bought the 6D body, I had a modern FF 14mm Samyang, FF 35mm (Sigma f/1.4), FF Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS, and 180mm f/3.5L macro, so I wanted to fill the 24-ish and 50-ish gaps. I shoot landscape, macro, nature etc, do not do pro event work, and am an old-timer who grew up on manual-everything cameras. In fact, the 50-ish gap is now filled for the time being by one of my old manual film lenses on an adapter. 

Now, if I had a budget of $1,800.00 to $2,200.00, I might look at the TS-E 24mm f/3.5, because that is one sharp lens and the tilt/shift is useful for landscape. It is the natural competitor to the Zeiss 21 for landscapes. If you need to shoot anything using autofocus, you may want to get the 24-70 f/2.8 L II first. I use an APS-C camera for the autofocus stuff - casual and action.


----------



## ONeill (Jan 17, 2014)

I wonder what other lenses you already have? My leisure photography (my work is mostly product) takes in natural as well as urban landscapes and building interiors. I agree with Rambarra in that a 24mm focal length is probably the most useful general purpose natural landscape focal length. There seems to be this, 'wider is better' train of thought for landscapes, but in my (and obviously Rambarra's) experience, it takes significantly more knowledge, experience and time to make a good image with a wider lens. Simply cramming in more stuff doesn't make for a great image - composition is everything. I don't suggest you shouldn't go ultra-wide, but you should learn your stuff on a 24mm first. Certainly no wider than 21 initially.

I think everyone should start with a good general purpose lens, be it a zoom or say, a 35mm or 50mm lens. Realistically, the 24-70 range is what most of the people use, most of the time, and so if you don't already have decent lenses in this range, I'd start with the 24-70 II. With a 5D3, the 24-70 II is superb, although it's not quite as sharp as its reputation would suggest at short distances. Beyond 15 feet or so, it's superb in every respect. The weight of the body/lens combo goes a long way to give you greater stability, especially at the wider end. You really will not miss IS unless your physical technique is shocking. Elbows in, and all that. Having said that, if you're seriously considering blowing this kind of money on equipment for landscapes, the first thing you should be planning for is a top class lightweight tripod, which of course renders IS irrelevant. AF is also irrelevant as you should be zone-focusing (using hyperfocal distance), which also gets around the fact that the focusing screen on the 5D3 is not interchangeable for manual focus lenses (my main bugbear with the 5D3). I'd been using the 21mm Zeiss for a long time before I got a 24-70 II, and I will admit that, generally, the Zeiss doesn't get quite so much use as it used to (when my other options were 35mm and 50mm). But...BUT...21mm is significantly wider than 24mm on full frame and these two focal lengths do not render each other obsolete. By no means. As others have said, the Zeiss is a superbly made bit of kit, and certainly a better technical solution to landscapes than the 24-70 if the focal length works for you. I've also recently found myself dabbling with starscapes, i.e. pictures of the night sky, and at this, the Zeiss excels. At f/2.8 it's beautifully sharp right to the edges, without significant coma, and the extra 3mm of focal length makes a huge difference in this use.

Then, there's the TS-E 24mm. This is a much harder lens to master, but if you put the time into it, it will repay your efforts handsomely. Tripod is obligatory, here. I'd say it's the sharpest of the three, but not by a huge margin (not really enough to sway your choice). Of course, you can stitch panoramas together simply by shifting fully left then fully right without moving the camera, which gives you a much wider effective focal length, down to 17-ish. However, if I was only looking for two lenses, I think I'd find it hard to justify the TS-E 24 as well as the 24-70. The TS-E 24 is my favorite lens in my entire bag, though, in full disclosure!

I've not had much luck with the f/1.4 24mm II. I struggle to see the worth of F/1.4 at this focal length, where you're typically going for maximum depth of field, and neither of the two copies I've tried were that sharp around the edges. Night-time photography, maybe. It's a lot of extra money for a few extra stops of light gathering capability, and you do after all have a 5D3 where you can bang up the ISO if you need to.

To echo Arkarch, steer clear of the 16-35 or 17-40 offerings. They're just not sharp enough for landscape use, and the latter is due an imminent update.

For two lenses, the Zeiss 21 and 24-70 II is a superb combination for landscape and general use. They're amongst the very best lenses you can buy for a Canon. You should be budgeting for a decent lightweight tripod, a ball head (I use Gitzo and RRS for this), and a selection of filters. You will need a circular polarizer (B+W XS-Pro in 82mm for both lenses is good and low profile) and a selection of graduates from Lee or Cokin. Decent tripods and filters cost more than you might think, so consider it when you're budgeting. Hope this helps.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 17, 2014)

Do you find the polarizer useful at 21mm, or does it result in obvious artifact (sky gradient)? Actually, I know that it must, because I have used a polarizer at the 15mm end of a zoom on APS-C, and the effect is noticeable on a plain blue sky. I have been considering whether to buy a polarizer at 82mm diameter, or the 105mm diameter used to mount on the Lee holder - both options are ungodly expensive ($260.00 to $400.00 for B&W XS-PRO Nano "wide"). I suppose that one inconspicuous use of a polarizer on ultra-wide angle lens might be in a shot without significant amount of sky, eg, woodlands shot.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 17, 2014)

dilbert said:


> For me, 24mm isn't wide enough for landscape, the 17mm TS/E is too impractical and Canon's 20mm is junk leaving only the 21mm Zeis.



TS-E is impractical, why? Because it doesn't accept filters easily?




NancyP said:


> Do you find the polarizer useful at 21mm, or does it result in obvious artifact (sky gradient)? Actually, I know that it must, because I have used a polarizer at the 15mm end of a zoom on APS-C, and the effect is noticeable on a plain blue sky. I have been considering whether to buy a polarizer at 82mm diameter, or the 105mm diameter used to mount on the Lee holder - both options are ungodly expensive ($260.00 to $400.00 for B&W XS-PRO Nano "wide"). I suppose that one inconspicuous use of a polarizer on ultra-wide angle lens might be in a shot without significant amount of sky, eg, woodlands shot.



A polarizer can be useful even for WAs. It can be used for water, but I like using it for snow, and in some cases can be used for the sky depending on where the sun is and what effect you're trying to go for. Although, you might find youself using it more if you choose to get a canon/tamron 24-70 in the future. :


----------



## ONeill (Jan 17, 2014)

Nancy,
No polarizer is much use for darkening skies on a 21mm lens - it's just too wide, unless you're really lucky with the positioning of clouds and your angle respective to the sun. You usually just end up with a dark blotch somewhere in the picture and the rest unchanged. You can just about get away with it on a 24. However, as RO suggests, they really come into their own for water and reflections in general. You can really enhance colors in a shot with leaves or selectively reduce reflections on water, e.g. 'woodland' shots as you suggest. I think you still need one, even with a 21. Of course, you can use it on any of your other lenses longer than 21 and smaller than 82mm.

The TS-E 17 is a lovely lens, but it can be a bit hard work out in the field, especially if it's raining. It's not weather sealed and it has a huge, bulbous front element which precludes the use of regular filters unless you can manage to find one of Lee's special adapters for their own filter system (rare as hen's teeth although, ironically, B&H have them in stock right now!). Even with the adapter, you can only use around half of the available shift movement of the lens before mechanism vignetting becomes unacceptable. Then again, I rarely would use much more than that. Whatever, it's a bit of a compromise at best. My biggest problem is keeping the front element clean and dry (and trying not to be paranoid about damaging it). Great image making lens, though. As RO implies, none of this is a reason not to buy this excellent lens, one of Canon's best, but it really isn't one for everyone.


----------



## NancyP (Jan 22, 2014)

Thanks. Not all landscape photos have sky all the way across the top, and I can imagine plenty of uses with water and for saturation. Plus, I wasn't aware until recently that rainbows are polarized and can be enhanced or suppressed with the CPL. The large Cpolarizer will be the next purchase, I think. By that time I will have more experience with using ND grads and can see if I want the 105mm CPL to be used on the Lee holder, or the 82mm CPL, to be used directly on the lens. My preference would be the 82mm, just for cost. At least I am well set for all my other lenses, with a 72mm CPL and a bunch of rings.


----------

