# Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 14, 2013)

```
<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 (Nov 14, 2013)

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 (Nov 14, 2013)

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


----------



## sunnyVan (Nov 14, 2013)

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


----------



## infared (Nov 14, 2013)

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 (Nov 14, 2013)

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


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 14, 2013)

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 (Nov 14, 2013)

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 (Nov 14, 2013)

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 (Nov 14, 2013)

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 (Nov 14, 2013)

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 (Nov 14, 2013)

traveller said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2013)

facedodge said:


> 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"....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 (Nov 14, 2013)

infared said:


> facedodge said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...



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 (Nov 14, 2013)

horshack said:


> 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 (Nov 14, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > facedodge said:
> ...



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 (Nov 14, 2013)

RVB said:


> horshack said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


+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 (Nov 14, 2013)

infared said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



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 (Nov 14, 2013)

Mr Bean said:


> RVB said:
> 
> 
> > horshack said:
> ...



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 (Nov 14, 2013)

[/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.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 15, 2013)

The Zeiss 15 is a wonderfully sharp Lens, I bought one a while back after seeing some of Sanj's Images with this Lens, love it, but. It's damn heavy, which you can live with, it's manual focus of course, again you can live with and I actually have grown to like Manual Focus Lenses again after buying this lens, but, what just seems dopy, is the non removable (without a lot of very scary effort) dumb assed Hood. 

I eventually went and purchased the 17TSE (with the Wonderpana Filter Holder, so now I can use the 17 with all my Lee Filters, Yippee), now very seldom do I take the Zeiss out, I'de love to put the Zeiss 15 into my Underwater housing to replace the Canon 14f2.8 L II, but the dumb assed Hood precludes that. There isn't any doubt though that the Zeiss 15 is a much better Lens in all departments than the Canon 14, except for the dumb assed Hood.


----------



## extremeinstability (Nov 15, 2013)

I just rented the Canon 14L II, Canon 24L II, Canon 16-35L II, Canon 17-40L for a day and sent them back yesterday. I wanted to test them against my Samyang 14 and 24 (and Zeiss 21 for that matter)to be sure what I'd gathered already from images I've got from renting the Canon 14L II and Canon 24L II before I had either of these. All I could do was compare different scenes. Now I have them all compared same time/scene at a lot of things. It's pretty interesting but I have a ton of work ahead to get it all online. And I haven't even had a chance to look at much yet. Samyangs of course smoke Canon in coma. They also smoke them in CA. The Samyang 14 really hands the Canon 14L II its ass in resolution. Except in center I guess they are similar. I've had two of those now from lens rentals which tests them before they send them out. It's really clear what the results are now. I haven't looked enough yet but I was getting the impression the Samyang 24 was going to actually best the Canon too. Of course the primes make the 16-35 and 17-40 both look like shit in the corners. Anyway figured I'd comment given the 14 Samyang comments. The vast majority of folks that get that lens seem to say the same thing, sharp sharp sharp. Even after one corrects the horrid ocean waves distortion.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Nov 15, 2013)

When we are talking ultra-wide angle as in wider than 24mm, the best definitely is the 17mm TS-E. For interiors, architecture, etc. Plus, can still modify it to put graduated Lee/Cokin filters on it, unlike the 15mm with the fixed hood getting in the way. The 15mm doesn't even have the same color rendition as the 21mm zeiss and suffers in the corner sharpness, not to mention even with that so called "superb build" it still isn't weather sealed! The only thing going for it is the lower distortion, build, and zeiss naming. For zoom versatility, probably the Nikon 14-24.


----------



## infared (Nov 15, 2013)

eml58 said:


> The Zeiss 15 is a wonderfully sharp Lens, I bought one a while back after seeing some of Sanj's Images with this Lens, love it, but. It's damn heavy, which you can live with, it's manual focus of course, again you can live with and I actually have grown to like Manual Focus Lenses again after buying this lens, but, what just seems dopy, is the non removable (without a lot of very scary effort) dumb assed Hood.
> 
> I eventually went and purchased the 17TSE (with the Wonderpana Filter Holder, so now I can use the 17 with all my Lee Filters, Yippee), now very seldom do I take the Zeiss out, I'de love to put the Zeiss 15 into my Underwater housing to replace the Canon 14f2.8 L II, but the dumb assed Hood precludes that. There isn't any doubt though that the Zeiss 15 is a much better Lens in all departments than the Canon 14, except for the dumb assed Hood.



LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 15, 2013)

cliffwang said:


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



+1


----------



## eml58 (Nov 15, 2013)

infared said:


> LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!



The attached is the "Dumb assed end"

I must admit I didn't research enough before I purchased, the Images from this Lens are 2nd to none among my ultra WA lenses, of which I own several, Canon 14f/2.8L II, Canon 8-15f/4, canon 17TSE, 14-24f/2.8 Nikon, Canon 15f/2.8.

With the exception of the 17TSE, all my WA lenses are purchased first for Underwater WA, secondary function, Landscape, but I sort of suck at Landscape.

I just couldn't imagine anyone handicapping a Lens by having a fixed Lens Hood like the Zeiss 15, in my view, "Dumb Assed".

And, after trying several Circular Polariser Filters it wasn't until I found the Heliopan Slim that I found a Polariser that didn't cause Vignetting, but that Heliopan cost $500 bucks.

So, amazingly sharp, beautiful contrast, smoothest Manual Focussing system I've experienced, but a dumb assed Lens Hood system.

Yes, as has been shown by others you can remove it, but after laying out 3k for a Lens anyone that brings a spanner or a screwdriver within 3 metres of this Lens while on my Camera, is a dead man, or women.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 15, 2013)

eml58 said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!
> ...



This post cracked me up.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 15, 2013)

One that TDP forgets to mention is the Samyang 14mm for $300! Lots of distortion but barely any CA and really quite sharp indeed (other than sometimes with fine details against bright white clouds), sometimes even sharper than well known L lenses.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 15, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 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.



You must be talking the original version the samyang or have gotten a dropped copy.
I will say it with a straight face, my samyang 14mm is crisper than most of my L lenses under many circumstances. (tons of distortion though)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 15, 2013)

Personally I'd rather go 17mm T&S for the T&S ability or Nikon 14-24 for the flexibility or Samayng to have enough money left to buy an A7R (and a samyang + a7r will deliver a more total detail than this zeiss on a 22MP 5D3 camera I'd bet) especially since I personally don't shoot ultra-wide often enough to easily justify zeiss money.


----------



## Zv (Nov 16, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> One that TDP forgets to mention is the Samyang 14mm for $300! Lots of distortion but barely any CA and really quite sharp indeed (other than sometimes with fine details against bright white clouds), sometimes even sharper than well known L lenses.



I've ordered my copy of this (again) hopefully I'll be able to test it out on Monday. For ¥28,000 (less than 300 bucks) I don't really expect much other than the ability to shoot at 14mm (and have a little fun in the bargain!) 

I have no interest in this Zeiss lens however. TDP even mentions the Zeiss some has coma, not ideal for stars. I heard the Samyang has one up in this regard.


----------



## sanj (Nov 17, 2013)

eml58 said:


> The Zeiss 15 is a wonderfully sharp Lens, I bought one a while back after seeing some of Sanj's Images with this Lens, love it, but. It's damn heavy, which you can live with, it's manual focus of course, again you can live with and I actually have grown to like Manual Focus Lenses again after buying this lens, but, what just seems dopy, is the non removable (without a lot of very scary effort) dumb assed Hood.
> 
> I eventually went and purchased the 17TSE (with the Wonderpana Filter Holder, so now I can use the 17 with all my Lee Filters, Yippee), now very seldom do I take the Zeiss out, I'de love to put the Zeiss 15 into my Underwater housing to replace the Canon 14f2.8 L II, but the dumb assed Hood precludes that. There isn't any doubt though that the Zeiss 15 is a much better Lens in all departments than the Canon 14, except for the dumb assed Hood.



Yeah I know about the lens hood. I was recently shooting underwater and just asked the producer to arrange for the housing, assuming the 5d3 and the Zeiss would fit. But it did not and we all had to wait for the rental house to send the Canon 14mm...


----------



## Mr Bean (Nov 21, 2013)

Zv said:


> I have no interest in this Zeiss lens however. TDP even mentions the Zeiss some has coma, not ideal for stars. I heard the Samyang has one up in this regard.


Actually, the Zeiss has very little coma, except in the extreme corners. Even then, it's not much. That's the main reason I bought the Zeiss (for star pics), after hiring and testing a couple of other lenses (a Canon 24mm f1.4 and a Zeiss 21mm). Plus the hard infinity stop makes distance shooting easy, day or night.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2013)

Mr Bean said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I have no interest in this Zeiss lens however. TDP even mentions the Zeiss some has coma, not ideal for stars. I heard the Samyang has one up in this regard.
> ...



Hard infinity stop is definitely an advantage over the Samyang. It hasn't hindered me, as I know where to focus to, but having more accuracy in the focus ring/distance meter would be a pleasant change.


----------



## tron (Jan 27, 2015)

Mr Bean said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > I have no interest in this Zeiss lens however. TDP even mentions the Zeiss some has coma, not ideal for stars. I heard the Samyang has one up in this regard.
> ...



I strongly suggest the following 2 links for people who want to check coma.

Comments like no coma or not much coma are next to useless if someone thinks about buying this lens for astrophotography. It is not a 400$ lens...

http://www.trichardsen.com/blog/zeiss-15mm-f28-distagon-review

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-15mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

Also quoting Brian from TDP:


> An interesting image quality note is that my Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens produces images 1/2 to 2/3 stops brighter than the ZE 15 using identical settings under a clear sky.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 27, 2015)

eml58 said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!
> ...



Marumi filters - there is an old test on the web placing a Marumi filter on the top 3 or 5
Not all are good, but neither are the B+H

Indeed - there is more than small distortion, less flare, more contrast and richer rendition, smoother bokeh, and flawless construction .... the major flaw is indeed the price,
Cought it up or take some cough medicine  
Is not for everyone, regarding needs or wallet. Surely is for anyone taking no compromises and wanting the best available.
People complain so much about super UWA and WA prices, but I see way far less complaints with fast super-teles pricing (other than not being able to afford them, as indeed they are at least twice the zeiss 15 price).
Extreme lenses are difficult to build and take a lot of R&D money

(Yes, I have a super-sharp Samyang, TS-e 17 and even tried the 14mm II and Nikon 12-24)


----------

