# Selling my two Zeiss lenses. Your advice?



## sanj (Jul 26, 2014)

Friends.
I have 3 Zeiss lenses: 15mm. 35mm 1.4 and 135mm f2. 
I am thinking of selling the 15 and 35 because: 

15mm: IQ of Canon 16-35 f4 is very close to the Zeiss at all f stops. Zeiss has better distortion and f2.8 but the IS on the Canon more than makes up for all this. Besides Canon has auto focus, is lighter, has zoom advantage and is cheaper.

35mm: When I bought it (and actually still) this lens had the best sharpness on 35mm. But now the 35mm f2 IS has very similar qualities and has autofocus, is lighter and cheaper. I bought the Zeiss for one very specific kind of photos - the late dusk photos when the sun has almost gone and stars start to appear and I thought the 1.4 opening would be great. Modern cameras and the 35 f2 will give me very similar IQ. 

Will I miss the f1.4 of the Zeiss? I am not sure as practically speaking the OOF back ground of f1.4 vs f2 is not so noticeable and it was very tough to get perfect focus with the Zeiss at f1.4. 

Anyone has any advice for me?

Sanjay 

Oh, the 135. I think I will keep it for now, it feels so nice in my hands and is great for tripod portraits.


----------



## drjlo (Jul 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> Canon... has very similar qualities and has autofocus, is lighter and cheaper.



That is exactly how I feel about Zeiss lenses I've had in the past. They are sturdy and cool-looking, but they don't do anything Canon lenses can't do (and Sigma it turns out), and they are heavy, expensive, and lack auto-focus :-\


----------



## Berowne (Jul 26, 2014)

You should not sell Zeiss. I will never give away my Leica-R Lenses.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 26, 2014)

Seems pretty straight-forward - if you won't use them replace them. You're dealing with two of the finest lens
designs for 35mm, but the best lens in the world is useless if you don't use it. If you need to sell them to finance
the next lens, do it. Just don't feel bad when you later remember how good it was and wished you'd kept them.


----------



## sanj (Jul 27, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> Seems pretty straight-forward - if you won't use them replace them. You're dealing with two of the finest lens
> designs for 35mm, but the best lens in the world is useless if you don't use it. If you need to sell them to finance
> the next lens, do it. Just don't feel bad when you later remember how good it was and wished you'd kept them.



That is the fear and that is why I am considering my decision.


----------



## sanj (Jul 27, 2014)

drjlo said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Canon... has very similar qualities and has autofocus, is lighter and cheaper.
> ...



Yes. I am 90% convinced that the Zeiss do not have any real advantage.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 27, 2014)

Zeiss lenses are typical Veblen goods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good The higher the price, the more difficult they are to use, and in general the more esoteric they are, the more some people will love them.


----------



## infared (Jul 27, 2014)

Sanj, I have found this to be the case with my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, an incredible lens, which I bought for its true superiority over the Canon, 16-35mm f/2.8L II, in both sharpness and contrast. ...BUT after selling my Canon zoom and purchasing the new Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, I have the same dilemma as you...the image quality from the new Canon zoom is so close to my Zeiss that I (horror of horrors! LOL), am considering selling the Zeiss. Same deal as you...the f/2.8 aperture just isn't enough that I find myself using it, and the IS and the AF on the Canon are making it my lens of choice.
There is that other reason not to sell the Zeiss, though....I get such real enjoyment out of just holding it and lustily coveting it.
The Canon pales in comparison there! 
Sanj...I also notice...eh hem....that you are holding on to your Zeiss 135mm f/2.0 which (according to Dustin Abbott's timely review), blows away the Canon counterpart for sharpness and micro contrast. Very wise of you...as that Zeiss still has practical AND coveting qualities that are second to none! 8)
So...with that in mind it should be easier for you to pry your little fingers off of your 15mm and 35mm Zeiss's and let someone else have a little coveting time, at a discount...c'mon...you can do it...just close you eyes and hold you 135mm...that's a boy....... :'(


----------



## funkboy (Jul 27, 2014)

Among other awesome glass, I've got a Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon.

It's the old Contax/Yashica mount version. It says "Made in West Germany" on it & is built like the proverbial brick latrine. Since it's an "obsolete film camera lens" I picked it up for chump change. I've got about 1/3 as much invested in the EOS adapter on it as I put towards the lens.

I keep it at hyperfocal at f/4 or f/5.6 most of the time, except in low-light scenarios. I admit that other than the first year or so after I got it it mostly lived in the "storage" camera bag as it's pretty heavy compared to most of my Canon primes.

Then I got a 6D, and started using it to shoot short video clips. The "look" this thing gives combined with the short DoF & really long focus throw makes it completely awesome for video. The old-school straight aperture blades make for starry highlights too, which may be spiffy or a hinderance depending on the situation & personal preference.

May I suggest that you want to part with these things because you feel you have a ton of cash invested in them without a corresponding return? Personally my mantra with lenses is "if you've got a good lens & like it, then keep it unless you get something else that totally obsoletes it. & if you've got an emotional attachment to it (for the images you've made with it, not because it's a nice object), then keep it anyway as you'll regret selling it" (my profile icon is a long-lost friend the T90). If you can afford to do that of course; if you're out of work & the rent is due then you've got some tough choices to make, so start with the ones you use the least.

I can't speak for the 15mm or 135, but the c/y mount 35mm f/1.4 Distagon really inspires me when I use it, especially for video. If you get similar pleasure out of your 35 then keep it.

Personally my experience after having owned a bunch of manual focus glass is that the wide-angles are easy to use & get used a lot, and the telephotos are frustrating for anything except controlled situations like portrature where you have the time to review & go back & do it over again & again until you get what you want. Speaking as a long-time owner of the Canon 135L, if the AF is adjusted to where it really hits right I get as much joy & satisfaction out of using the Canon 135L as the Zeiss 35. Those are probably the two stand-out lenses in my bag that I really try to use as much as I can (whenever the situation calls for it). I also really love the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM as it's sort of the little brother of the 135L, and the 40mm pancake "lives" on the camera as it's a really appropriate length for a lot of situations & it makes the 6D small & light enough that I can comfortably carry it in a coat pocket or messenger bag (much to the chagrin of my Fuji X10 which has seen basically no use since I got the 6D/40mm). The 20mm Voigtländer also fits into this category.

The 85mm USM and 20 & 40mm pancakes all fit into one Canon lens bag which I can take pretty much anywhere if I need to. In fact ever since my 24-105L developed an electrical short that prevents it from zooming beyond 24mm, that's 20/40/85 combo in the lens bag is pretty much my go-to travel kit. The 135L and 1.4x TC go into the shoulder bag as well when I think I'll need anything longer than the 85.

Anyway, with that little tangent over, IMHO: sell the ones that inspire you the least, and do check out the Canon 135L as it's more versatile than the Zeiss & you might even make money on the replacement. With a little luck Canon may even release an IS version now that there's some healthy competition in the "fast 135" space...


----------



## tron (Jul 27, 2014)

You have a very nice collection of Zeiss glass. If I had this I would be reluctant to sell anything.

I would keep the 15mm 2.8 which must be PERFECT for astrophotography (if this is your thing of course).

Canon 135mm 2L must be more versatile and pretty good anyway (I have it and I like it)

As for the 35mm 1.4 I got the Canon 35mm 1.4L which although it is not perfect I find its AF useful for the occasions I use this Focal length (low light shooting)


----------



## sanj (Jul 27, 2014)

infared said:


> Sanj, I have found this to be the case with my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, an incredible lens, which I bought for its true superiority over the Canon, 16-35mm f/2.8L II, in both sharpness and contrast. ...BUT after selling my Canon zoom and purchasing the new Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS, I have the same dilemma as you...the image quality from the new Canon zoom is so close to my Zeiss that I (horror of horrors! LOL), am considering selling the Zeiss. Same deal as you...the f/2.8 aperture just isn't enough that I find myself using it, and the IS and the AF on the Canon are making it my lens of choice.
> There is that other reason not to sell the Zeiss, though....I get such real enjoyment out of just holding it and lustily coveting it.
> The Canon pales in comparison there!
> Sanj...I also notice...eh hem....that you are holding on to your Zeiss 135mm f/2.0 which (according to Dustin Abbott's timely review), blows away the Canon counterpart for sharpness and micro contrast. Very wise of you...as that Zeiss still has practical AND coveting qualities that are second to none! 8)
> So...with that in mind it should be easier for you to pry your little fingers off of your 15mm and 35mm Zeiss's and let someone else have a little coveting time, at a discount...c'mon...you can do it...just close you eyes and hold you 135mm...that's a boy....... :'(



I know that feeling. That is why the 135 stays. 

Funkboy: Yes absolutely the Zeiss is much better for video. But I do not find myself doing much video anymore. And if I did shoot video I would use my 24 TS and the Zeiss 135 which I am resisting selling.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 27, 2014)

I'd sell the 35 and 135 and keep the 15. For wide angle landscape, I don't see the need of AF. Plus it is wider than the 16-35 IS.

I don't see much use of 35 1.4 under manual focus mode unless you are using it for astrophotography. If you use 135 mostly for tripod portraits, AF may not matter but I don't see how practical it is while hand holding shooting people who may move (such as kids). 

Video is totally different story. I'd keep them all for video.


----------



## sanj (Jul 28, 2014)

dilbert said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Friends.
> ...



Done. Please send me your address to courier. You prefer it with gift wrapping or normal?


----------



## NWPhil (Jul 28, 2014)

Don't have the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 neither the new canon 16-35 F/4, but I was not happy with the 16-35 f2.8, and I am keeping my canon 35mm f1.4, because the AF is a big plus for me at this focal range.

So, from the 3 lenses you have, I would only sell the 35mm - no way I will sell either my 15 and 135 copies. Maybe in 10 years or longer, canon will make a better 15mm (or 14) and 135mm but, I bet the Z's will still focus and work fine then... and there is a good chance the canon usm motors burned out already 

If you not using either one so much, then maybe it's time to try new a new focal length, or if indeed you switch often between the 15 and 35, a zoom as good as others claim - the 16-35 f4 - will be more usefull for you.

In sum, check back on which focals you are using the most in your shots; that will tell you the need to keep the lens or not
- a lot of valid points already given to you, and if you don't see the IQ difference, then by all means sell them all


----------



## Mr Bean (Jul 28, 2014)

tron said:


> I would keep the 15mm 2.8 which must be PERFECT for astrophotography (if this is your thing of course).


That's partly why I bought one.



Phenix205 said:


> For wide angle landscape, I don't see the need of AF. Plus it is wider than the 16-35 IS.


+1. As a landscape lens, manual focus is fine.

The 15mm is a special lens for me. It might only get used once or twice a month, but when I need it for those UWA shots, it does it's stuff really well. And at the risk of being burnt at the stake, AF is a little over rated in a lens if the subject doesn't move (eg: landscape). For me, landscape is all about the sharpness, contrast and colour rendition, which the Zeiss does really well.


----------



## sanj (Aug 1, 2014)

Changed my mind. Not selling any of them. At least for now.


----------



## tron (Aug 1, 2014)

sanj said:


> Changed my mind. Not selling any of them. At least for now.


Hmmm, you sound like ... myself ;D


----------

