# Quick decision help: canon 24 vs zeiss 21



## CJRodgers (Dec 7, 2012)

I have the opportunity to buy either a zeiss 21mm distagon or canon 24 1.4 mkii. Both used, both £900 ( the canon comes with some filters). I have to choose today really and I dont know what to do. I had always been set on a canon 24L thinking i could never afford the zeiss, i rarely see it second hand!

I want a sharp lens and i would mostly be doing enviornmental portraits. So the subject would be smallish in the frame, and the backround would be hopfully bold and dramatic.

I think I would miss the f1.4, but then i got frustrated at images not being tack sharp pn my 35L 1.4 wide open.

Also I have never used a manual focus lens, but i guess at such a wide focal length it should be too hard?

Ive heard so many conflicting oponions about both in regards to sharpness. Some saying the zeiss is only better in the corners.

I would be interested in landscape and shooting stars in the future. I have seen amazing examples with the canon, then I have also seen people bashing the coma at f1.4?

Im using a 5dmkii, I dont have a preference on focal length as im guessing both will be pretty wide!

Any thoughts?

Thanks


----------



## optikus (Dec 7, 2012)

Hi,

I would propose to buy the Zeiss. 

In my mind at such short focal length AF is not so an important feature, if you compose your pictures as you defined your interests let expect then you will find the excellent moving of the mechanics of the Zeiss a major benefit in short times.

I use with my 1Ds a Zeiss 2.0 110mm Planar as nearly ever attached lens and never missed the AF. AF lenses are only used, when fast shooting is necessary, in most other cases I focus manually and use the metering features of the EOS-body for correct capture. 
The wide angle sector is the best for begining the usage of MF lenses - so you will see the positive effects of a more active picture composition first.

Jörg


----------



## Longvision (Dec 7, 2012)

I would qualify Optikus's reply : manual focussing on an slr is much more difficult with wide angle lenses than with longer focal lenses. That's because things don't "snap in focus" in the same way, due to the wider dof. You may see things in focus on your viewscreen, which provides a small enlargment of your picture, but when printed at a significant size, you find out that your focus plane is not where you expected it to be.

Another important thing is that you need to install the viewscreen specifically designed for manual focussing on your camera. The original viewscreen sacrifices accuracy to brightness. I had this viewscreen on my 5D1.

I have the 24/1.4 mkI. I acheive better focus with the autofocus than manually with this lens. Conversely, I can equal the autofocus manually with the 135/2.0, provided I have enough time to focus carefully.

I used to have the zeiss 21/2.8, Y/C system. A great lens, without any doubt. However, remember that sharpness is a combination of good optics and accurate focussing. Personally, I would rather take the canon 24/1.4 II, because I would not trust myself for focussing accurately with a manual focus wide angle lens, especially for environmental portrait, at wide aperture. Of course, at smaller apertures, the wide dof largely solves the problem.

My reasoning would be different if you were to choose between two short teles. 

If you can, try out the zeiss, and see how easily you can focus on a face, at full aperture, in average light conditions. If you hit perfect focus, that your eyes are much better than mine, and this lens is for you. Otherwise, you proabably better off with the canon.

Hope that helps.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Dec 7, 2012)

I dont know the Zeiss lens. 

- The Canon has huge coma wide open. At night with bright lights in Background, i would recommend to stop it down to 2.0 or better 2.8. then its really sharp. the huge vignetting in the outer part of a FF shot can be fixed in software, but that means the same as using higher iso and less opening. 

- I use this lens wide open only for events, where the outer part is out of focus anyway. then the AF is essential, as in bad light i cant get focus manually on moving subjects. 

- Stopped down the lens is tack sharp and has no distortion, in opposite to the standard zooms. i would suppose the zeiss offers the same stopped down for landscapes, so this is no real Advantage for the canon. 

Fazit: if you want to use the lens for events in low light as well (and can accept toe optical compromises wide open vs the compromises of high iso stopped down) i would go with the canon, otherwise i dont know because i never used the Zeiss.


----------



## rambarra (Dec 7, 2012)

go for the zeiss without esitation. It is so much better in color and sharpness. The canon 24 from 1.4 to 2.8 is barely usable, so there's no advantage.


----------



## risc32 (Dec 7, 2012)

I agree with what was said above about manual focusing a wide angle. Sounds easy, but i'm finding it more difficult than expected. I'm sure the Zeiss is awesome, but from what i've seen at places like photozone.de, at any given fstop that both lenses can do, (2.8 and narrower) the canon eguals the zeiss, and you have the option to go up to 2 stops faster with the canon if need be. sure the IQ of the canon at these larger openings would be less than the much slower zeiss, but the option is there. Plus, 82mm filters are more expensive, and not as useful across multiple lenses. that of course might not be true for you personally, maybe you have other glass that uses 82mm filters, or perhaps you don't really use any filters anyway, so no problem.


----------



## CJRodgers (Dec 7, 2012)

Thanks for all your thoughts. 

Whilst I was very excited by the zeiss i went with the canon. It was a lens I have wanted for a long time, and I haven't even looked into the zeiss very much because I just always assumed Id never have one. So i went with what i had researched most. Plus i got the guy to know an extra £20 off, chuck in postage. And it has filters, and its weathersealed. So im happy. I think :s lol.

The best thing about both lens' is that they both hold their value so well. So if I practise manual focus on this, if i decide i prefer the colour or the slightly wider feel of the zeiss I can always sell it and buy a zeiss if the opportunity comes up again i guess!

Thanks again. I love that I can always count on this forumn for some input.


----------



## infared (Dec 7, 2012)

I own the 16-35mm II and the Zeiss 21mm ZE....all I can say is ...if the shot really matters to me I DEFINITELY pick up my Zeiss! The Zeiss is amazing...you just have to know if you can do without the auto focus. ....I need both and live with the obvious trade-offs when I pick up one lens or the other.
Sounds like you may want to trade in your 35mm and buy the new Sigma, too!


----------



## LostArk (Dec 7, 2012)

Zeiss is slightly sharper in the corners at 2.8, but the Canon gives you 2 extra stops and AF. You are right, the Canon does have bad coma at wider apertures, but it's okay by 2.8. If you're not sure you need the Zeiss, the Canon is the safer bet.


----------



## CJRodgers (Dec 7, 2012)

LostArk said:


> Zeiss is slightly sharper in the corners at 2.8, but the Canon gives you 2 extra stops and AF. You are right, the Canon does have bad coma at wider apertures, but it's okay by 2.8. If you're not sure you need the Zeiss, the Canon is the safer bet.



I think this is what I have done really. I've gone with the safer and more sensible bet. Ill be able to judge better if I want a zeiss once i get my hands on the canon. How much wider is 21mm from 24mm? If i feel the 24mm still wasnt wide enough and I wanted just a bit more, would 21mm be enough or would i need even wider?


----------



## NormanBates (Dec 7, 2012)

This may help you choose:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=480&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=708&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## CJRodgers (Dec 7, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> This may help you choose:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=480&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=708&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



 too late


----------



## Longvision (Dec 7, 2012)

CJrogers,

As I said further up, I would have done the same choice as you. I owned the Zeiss, and now have the 24/1.4 mk1. Given the advantage /disadvantage balance of both lenses (better corner sharpness for one, autofocus and wider aperture for the other), I would take the Canon today if I had to choose again, with the experience of both lenses. ANd this is with the Mark 1. The mark 2 is a definite optical improvement over the mark 1, meaning that you trade even less by going for the Canon.

basically, I am sure you will not regret you purchase. Go out and shoot with it. You will see it really is a great lens, with a quite unique focal length / aperture combination.


----------



## CJRodgers (Dec 7, 2012)

Yeah, it does look very sharp in the centre too. Either way both look great, and im lucky enough to be able to afford it at all! 

Thanks. I cant wait to get it in the post tomorrow. I need to go somewhere dark and shoot the stars now!


----------



## infared (Dec 7, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> This may help you choose:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=480&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=708&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



Hey Norman...that comparison on the Digital Picture would appear to prove that the Canon is sharper than the Zeiss at f/2.8 (although the Zeiss sample is underexposed a little so it is tough to compare...but the Canon looks sharper).
That would go against everything I have read LOL!!! Can we chalk that up to variation in copies????
Sometimes I just don't know what to believe.
I tried to find another good comparison like SLRGear but they have not review or tested the Zeiss.
I will check into DxO...but I am not a fan there....
Thanks for throwing that into the mix! It should make CJ very happy with his choice!!!!!! I still love my Zeiss, tho.

Update:
For what it is worth DxO rates the Canon 24 much higher than the Zeiss 21mm on a 5DIII....
Hmmmmmmmm...... (LOL!)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Carl-Zeiss/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Canon/(camera)/436/(cameraname)/CANON-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-24mm-F14L-II-USM/(camera)/436/(cameraname)/CANON-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III


----------



## kubelik (Dec 7, 2012)

risc32 said:


> I agree with what was said above about manual focusing a wide angle. Sounds easy, but i'm finding it more difficult than expected. I'm sure the Zeiss is awesome, but from what i've seen at places like photozone.de, at any given fstop that both lenses can do, (2.8 and narrower) the canon eguals the zeiss, and you have the option to go up to 2 stops faster with the canon if need be. sure the IQ of the canon at these larger openings would be less than the much slower zeiss, but the option is there. Plus, 82mm filters are more expensive, and not as useful across multiple lenses. that of course might not be true for you personally, maybe you have other glass that uses 82mm filters, or perhaps you don't really use any filters anyway, so no problem.



the only point I'd disagree on is the 82mm filter part. Canon seems to be generally moving in that direction, so while that was once true, it may not be true for much longer.


----------



## CJRodgers (Dec 7, 2012)

infared said:


> NormanBates said:
> 
> 
> > This may help you choose:
> ...



My eye is definately not trained at this sort of thing, but I thought the zeiss looked sharper. In the centre I can't tell the difference at f2.8, but the corners looked sharper on the zeiss? I am slightly less fussed about the corners as long as the center and middle look good.


----------



## Standard (Dec 7, 2012)

The Zeiss 21mm is a stellar lens. I have the 24L II and love it. If I have the dough (and/or the need to justify its purchase), I would also add the Zeiss mainly for the "Zeiss look" and built quality and use it for landscape. The 24L II, because of its AF, is more versatile for just about everything – from street photography to landscape. For discreet street-style shots, I can set it at chest or hip height, focus without looking through the viewfinder and shoot. The choice of either one boils down to what you're planning to use it for and how it fits into your shooting style. If you'd never shoot manual, it isn't hard at all but requires a different set of discipline.


----------



## PackLight (Dec 7, 2012)

I have the 24mm f/1.4 L II. It isn't sharp wide open. At 1.8-2 it is at its sharest.

Basicly it comes down to what your shooting.
The 24mm has AF, the 21mm does not. How good would you be with a manual focus lens. You can have all the resolution in the world but it does nothing for you out of focus.
If you are a static landscape shooter go for the 21mm.

Vaule, the Zeiss is worth more money wise.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 7, 2012)

Zeiss > Canon

Even though I love my 24L II, I'm not afraid to admit that zeiss makes better lenses. The 24L II is meant to be shot from 1.4 - 2.8 because it looks awesome.


----------



## CJRodgers (Dec 7, 2012)

Well seeing as I have missed the opportunity to get the zeiss, if you're from the UK have a look at this. Ive contacted him and he seems like a really nice guy.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150959590155&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:GB:1123


----------



## extremeinstability (Dec 7, 2012)

fwiw
http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120224_1-Zeiss21.html 

Yeah I'm sure it is a for what you will use it for. Not that it matters now since you already bought I guess. 

I recently had the same decision to make going back to full frame. The F1.4 for night stuff desire, like Milky Way, Auroras, etc got the better of me and I went 24L II. I then soon saw the F1.4 difference was a moot point given how useless it was anyway. Any light source had huge flying coma wings. Really all the way through to F2.8. Basically I'd be wanting to stop it down to that in the end anyway. And that stuff extends well in from the corners a long ways. Wound up with the Zeiss in the end. But for sure there would be other uses for that F1.4 to F2.8 bonus range of the Canon, just nothing I'd ever shoot. Now having the Zeiss I'm a lot floored by the resolution and all that micro-contrast I'd heard about. It really is a different deal than I've ever seen. 

The other thing on DxO resolution scores linked here. lensrentals.com always has some used 21 Ziess lenses for sale it seems. I've seen some of them with a 20/20 lp/mm resolution value stated by then. Most 22/22. The one I got said 24/24 "obscene resolution". So even with Zeiss it must really depend on the copy. I wonder how many of the "20/20" types could be tweaked by Zeiss to 24/24 or if they are sol for some un-tweakable reason. The hard stop infinity focus deal is a serious bonus too, as I saw on a recent night out shooting and swapping lenses a lot. Was always thankful for that when I'd slam the Zeiss back on.


----------



## infared (Dec 7, 2012)

OK, CJ...since the obsession of these lenses is totally consuming my day!!!! LOL... (I love it!)
I thought I would throw this into the mix from Roger at LensRental...(can we take anything seriously from a man who wears headgear like this? He looks like a Spanish Conquistador, no?)... I respect his opinion a lot. This is what he has to say about the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE:


----------



## CJRodgers (Dec 7, 2012)

Argh, if only id had a few more hours to make my choice...Hopefully using it will make me feel better!


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Dec 7, 2012)

I love my Zeiss lenses too and there is a learning curve required to shoot manual focus, but has anyone mentioned Canon's 24TSE-II which also incredibly sharp corner/corner with the ability to tilt/shift for perspective control? I've got the TSE and love it. It too requires an 82mm filter. 

I'd have to say that in order of sharpness, it would be 1. 24TSE, 2. 24L-II and 3. ZE 21mm. at least per my eyes.


----------



## extremeinstability (Dec 7, 2012)

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Carl-Zeiss/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Canon/%28camera%29/436/%28cameraname%29/CANON-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III#div1anchor

Clicking on measurements, resolution, then field map, then going through the apertures, that is rather humorous. Like the corners go that bad stopping down to F5.6. Something ain't right there and surely that figures into the overall resolution score.


----------



## infared (Dec 7, 2012)

CJRodgers said:


> Argh, if only id had a few more hours to make my choice...Hopefully using it will make me feel better!



CJ, I think that there is no wrong choice here!!!! You did great!
I have the 50mm f/1.4 Sigma and the Canon 85 f/1.2L...had sold my 24-105mm f/4L IS back in the spring anticipating the new 24-70mm f/2.8II. Well I was without a "walk-around" lens for a long time because of all of the delays and I was really balking at the price and mixed reviews...so I started to look perhaps purchasing the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and the Canon 24mm f/1.4L... . ..which would have filled that whole range in for me beautifully...(it would be approximately the same cash outlay for those two lenses vs the new 24-70mm)
In the end ...I bought the new 24-70mm f/2.8II. I just do not want to carry all of that glass with the primes many times, and change lenses out. I am pretty impressed with the zoom... It works with what I have. I have a 5DIII so low light is becoming less of an issue.
I think that the Canon 24mm is an excellent lens. I would still think of owning it and the Sigma...but I think I am 
going to set my sights on the new Zeiss 25mm ZE f/2.8....That looks KILLER and would really round things out for me further. Just wish I could have it all!!!!!!!! It is great that we have so many choices though...That is never a bad thing...and if the rest of the new Sigma Artist Line lives up to the 35mm...there will many more choices down the line.
ENJOY your lens CJ. If I lived next door to you we could swap-out once in a while!!!!!!! LOL!


----------



## infared (Dec 7, 2012)

extremeinstability said:


> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Carl-Zeiss/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Canon/%28camera%29/436/%28cameraname%29/CANON-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III#div1anchor
> 
> Clicking on measurements, resolution, then field map, then going through the apertures, that is rather humorous. Like the corners go that bad stopping down to F5.6. Something ain't right there and surely that figures into the overall resolution score.



Yeah...like I said above...I am NOT a fan of DxOMark. Everything they do seems questionable to me, but I thought I would throw that into the mix as there is not a lot of bench testing for the Zeiss out there. Just opinions.


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Dec 7, 2012)

CJRodgers said:


> Thanks for all your thoughts.
> 
> Whilst I was very excited by the zeiss i went with the canon. It was a lens I have wanted for a long time, and I haven't even looked into the zeiss very much because I just always assumed Id never have one. So i went with what i had researched most. Plus i got the guy to know an extra £20 off, chuck in postage. And it has filters, and its weathersealed. So im happy. I think :s lol.
> 
> ...



For the sake of completeness, the Zeiss lenses are shielded - they have a gasket at the back.


----------



## Kernuak (Dec 7, 2012)

I think the reality is, the differences in sharpness between the 24 TS/E, 24 MkII and Zeiss 21 are minimal at equal apertures. The main differences are in the tilt for the TS/E, the wider aperture for the 24 MkII and the Zeiss look for the 21 (due to the microcontrast). If you want something wider and have a chance at owning Zeiss, the 18mm gets quite good reviews, albeit, it is supposed to be less sharp, but it is a few hundred pounds cheaper too. I also looked at the same lenses and was leaning towards the Zeiss, but then went for the 24 MkII because I wanted to shoot the northern lights. As long as you stop down to f/1.6 or narrower, it is fine for that purpose and in fact is probably about as good as you can get. It may be less sharp at wide apertures, but it does prevent star trails and loss of definition in the norhtern lights as they move.


----------



## wayno (Jan 15, 2013)

The 24L ii is a great lens - superb for landscape stopped down but probably not as useful with the advent of the 24-70 ii which appears to match it. For me, where the 24 is simply unmatched is low light bokeh portraiture wide open. Something the Zeiss won't do as effectively. On that rationale, I prefer the L simply for the flexibility however if its purely landscapes the Zeiss is probably slightly ahead.


----------



## Botts (Jan 15, 2013)

Longvision said:


> I would qualify Optikus's reply : manual focussing on an slr is much more difficult with wide angle lenses than with longer focal lenses. That's because things don't "snap in focus" in the same way, due to the wider dof. You may see things in focus on your viewscreen, which provides a small enlargment of your picture, but when printed at a significant size, you find out that your focus plane is not where you expected it to be.



Even if you've manual focused with an SLR before it may not be like MFing on a DSLR. Keep in mind that MF only SLRs had good focusing screens that sacrificed brightness for accuracy. Things like split prisms are extremely useful.

New SLRs don't have these focusing screens and thus it is extremely hard to nail manual focus. You could always use liveview to MF in 5 or 10x, but this is slower.

Expect to upgrade the focusing screen (not easy) in your 5D3 to maximize MF lenses.


----------



## NWPhil (Jan 15, 2013)

The Zeiss 21mm T* ze mount has the AF confirmation chip - so is just a matter of slower manual focusing.
Don't have the 24 II 1.4, but as others said, below 2 -2.8 most WA are soft - pretty much the same as you find on the 35mm, which I have too.
I rather have wider, and yes, although 3mm does not seem quite much, well, it is 
Now, if you really want to have both focals, and can live with MF, then consider the 24mm TSE II....but will be slower than the other two options, and possible $$$$ depending if you buy new or used.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 15, 2013)

I prefer the 20-21mm focal length over 24mm so for me the call is easy zeiss 21mm all the way
I have the 20mm voigtlander with AF confirm and electronic aperture control so using back button focus
the only real difference is my hand is the focus motor but it beeps and confirms focus quickly plus if i'm using my 5Dmk2 with brightscreen its very easy to see when MF is achieved. I've been thinking about getting the zeiss but i am happy witht he little voigtlander which is tiny like the 40mm so it goes everywhere with me where as the zeiss is much bigger and heavier so I dont think i'd take it along as often


----------

