# Review: Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 26, 2015)

```
<p>Dustin Abbott has completed his review of the Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm ultra wide angle lens for Canon.</p>
<p>I own and absolutely love this lens. It is far and away the best ultra wide angle lens you can get for your Canon DSLR and I know you’ve heard that before.</p>
<p><strong>From Dustin</strong><em>

“I’ve shot with a similar focal length for several years and have learned a certain familiarity with it. The degree of challenge associated with the focal length pays dividends in the incredible image quality you can achieve with it. The <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/850101-REG/Zeiss_1964831_Distagon_T_15mm_f_2_8.html/BI/19614/KBID/12112/kw/ZE1528ZEC/DFF/d10-v2-t1-xZE1528ZEC" target="_blank">Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/15mm</a> is a very expensive lens, but those who make the investment find a highly rewarding lens that produces images inferior options cannot match.  You would be hard pressed to find an owner of the lens who would <strong>not</strong> say that it was worth its high price tag.”</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://dustinabbott.net/2015/01/zeiss-distagon-t-2-815mm-review/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a></strong> | <strong><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>
```


----------



## dryanparker (Jan 26, 2015)

Hear, hear!

The lens is epic. Pricey, but you simply can't beat the quality.


----------



## infared (Jan 26, 2015)

I know that the Zeiss is an incredible lens...and that everything that Dustin says about it is true as I researched it thoroughly. Brilliant optic! I pained over whether to purchase it or not and in the end I purchased the Canon 17mm TSE f/4 II. I could not justify owning both....and even though the coverage was not as wide* as the Zeiss 15mm, with the TSE 17mm II option, which has comparable sharpness and contrast to the Zeiss. It also has a lower cost and of course complete tilt/shift capabilities...so I decided to go that route. I do not do any astro photography so the f/2.8 of the Zeiss was not that much of a draw for my decision. The good thing is, I still get to drool over the Zeiss because I do not have one! LOL!

*the coverage can actually be wider and have less distortion with the TSE 17mm II if you bracket your shots while using the shift capability of the lens and then construct (stitch) the image with software. Another plus that I found for my uses too, is that I can connect my 1.4x III to the lens 24mm f/5.6 TSE lens. (with a very slight degradation in image quality). I would never have considered adding a tele-extender to a UWA lens... but it works quite well and the image quality is very good..much better than I expected! I already had the 1.4x III so the TSE 17mm II just became a much more versatile purchase for my photographic needs.


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 27, 2015)

At this price, you either have to more money than you know what to do with, or you get paid to shoot at this length. I'm neither so I can only envy.


----------



## The Flasher (Jan 27, 2015)

I'd hesitate to drop this kind of coin on this focal length - I find the 15mm is often not wide enough. At a similar price point, the rumored 11-24/4 I could justify.

Ok that's my only excuse, in reality, I'm drooling over this lens.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 27, 2015)

I can only confirm what Dustin said in the review. To begin with, I have never been a UWA lens person, but this one has become one of my most used lenses. It is expensive, but it only cost about 20-25% of my 600 f4L IS II ... and it is totally worth it.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 27, 2015)

The Flasher said:


> I'd hesitate to drop this kind of coin on this focal length - I find the 15mm is often not wide enough. At a similar price point, the rumored 11-24/4 I could justify.
> 
> Ok that's my only excuse, in reality, I'm drooling over this lens.



That's interesting, because I have a 14mm lens and I can't imagine wanting a wider focal length than that. I have a 12mm crop sensor lens (about 19mm equiv), and it is actually a very nice landscape focal length. Composition would become really difficult at 11mm, and you would literally have to watch out for your feet getting into all your photos.


----------



## The Flasher (Jan 27, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> The Flasher said:
> 
> 
> > I'd hesitate to drop this kind of coin on this focal length - I find the 15mm is often not wide enough. At a similar price point, the rumored 11-24/4 I could justify.
> ...



For architecture 14mm often falls short. This image is with the 14mm 2.8 II, leaving out part of the house on left, glass railing and beach cabana plus environment on right. 11mm may be a bit extreme, but a rectilinear 12mm would have captured everything I wanted. It sounds like we're splitting hairs over a mm or two, but at those widths 1mm makes a difference between getting an architectural feature in the shot or cropping it out. Also, it's not always a case of having your back up against a wall, but using focal width to push features apart, opening ceiling/floor details etc. 

Cheers.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 27, 2015)

The Flasher said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The Flasher said:
> ...


I see your point, but that image might have been even better as a stitched 3x24mm portrait (or there about) image.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 27, 2015)

The Flasher said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The Flasher said:
> ...



Love the tones here, BTW. Oh, I'm not saying there is no application for a ultrawide lens (and you are right, 1mm makes a big difference in angle of view at these focal lengths). I think many users need 11mm about as much as they need 50+ MP ;D

Many people don't even use a 14 or 15mm well, so going even wider is NOT going to improve their work!


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 27, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> The Flasher said:
> 
> 
> > I'd hesitate to drop this kind of coin on this focal length - I find the 15mm is often not wide enough. At a similar price point, the rumored 11-24/4 I could justify.
> ...


First of all, thank you for another great review that goes way beyond the wall charts. I am personally very excited for the 11-24 as it really opens up a whole new world of creativity. It is very difficult to use lenses that wide, but as the title of your review says, "High Challenge, High Reward." I have owned the Sigma 12-24II and used it almost exclusively at 12mm (which gives you around 1/3 more FOV than a 14mm). I didn't have it long enough to create anything epic, but I have a lot of cool shots that the other wides can't touch.


----------



## The Flasher (Jan 27, 2015)

Eldar said:


> The Flasher said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



You bet a three panel 24mm stitch would have done it. Except the lighting was turning very quickly in this scene and 3 - 30sec exposures would not be identical, the tell tale very evident in the gradation of the sky in the stitch. Not to mention having to spend three times the amount of time on each panel. Then times that by the amount of shots of different elevations required before the sun comes up. Gah, I'm getting stressed just thinking about this particular shoot lol

An 11-24 /4 zoom not only offers the width when needed, but options on the fly as well.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 27, 2015)

Would you rather (). I know two very different lenses, but Dustin has recent reviews of both. With a limited budget, would you prefer either the $3K Zeiss 15mm or the 4K Otus 85mm lens to be in your kit?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 27, 2015)

BeenThere said:


> Would you rather (). I know two very different lenses, but Dustin has recent reviews of both. With a limited budget, would you prefer either the $3K Zeiss 15mm or the 4K Otus 85mm lens to be in your kit?



If you want my opinion, I would go Otus every time. The 15mm is amazing, but I can produce reasonably similar images with something like the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm (now the build and handling are a whole other story!), but I haven't used any lens (other than maybe that Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/135) that comes close to the amazing resolution, contrast, and general usefulness of the Otus 85. I would be willing to release a number of other lenses in my kit to get it.


----------



## Eldar (Jan 27, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Would you rather (). I know two very different lenses, but Dustin has recent reviews of both. With a limited budget, would you prefer either the $3K Zeiss 15mm or the 4K Otus 85mm lens to be in your kit?
> ...


I agree with that. The Otus (both the 55 and 85 I might add) is exceptional. 85mm is a very versatile focal length and apart from price, weight and manual focus, it's a perfect lens.


----------



## The Flasher (Jan 28, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> The Flasher said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



Thanks! 

But yeah, if someone bought me this lens (zeiss) I'd go out of my way to use it. From a practical and ROI point of view, the 11-14 has my money. If it's, a real lens, of course


----------



## LOALTD (Jan 28, 2015)

_"The Zeiss resolves strongly throughout the frame, and that resolution is further boosted by a quality that I rarely see equalled by non-Zeiss lenses, and that is microcontrast. When I use that term I refer not only to the global contrast of any particular image but also to the unique quality of strong contrast in the fine details. It aids the appearance of resolution because images do not have any of the “haze” that makes them appear softer. This really helps images from Zeiss lenses like this one have a nice three dimensional quality. Head to head comparisons consistently show that Zeiss lenses have better contrast than just about any of their competitors (including the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8), which simply means that details resolve more crisply."_

Can we see some of these head to head comparisons?

I've heard many people throw around the term "micro contrast", but I've never seen anyone back it up with actual examples.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 28, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I can only confirm what Dustin said in the review. To begin with, I have never been a UWA lens person, but this one has become one of my most used lenses. It is expensive, but it only cost about 20-25% of my 600 f4L IS II ... and it is totally worth it.



Nice picture composition and colors! I can't simply afford/justify the cost of this gem. I am very happy with my 16-35mm f4L IS


----------



## Mr Bean (Jan 28, 2015)

Great review Dustin. As an owner of one of these beauties, they can also make for interesting portraits.
5D3 @ 1/25 f3.5 and real close


----------



## dryanparker (Jan 28, 2015)

Here's an image I made a while back with the Zeiss 15 of the Conrad Hotel in Miami. While it's used mostly for interiors, the lens offers a cool perspective for architectural exteriors as well.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 28, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> _"The Zeiss resolves strongly throughout the frame, and that resolution is further boosted by a quality that I rarely see equalled by non-Zeiss lenses, and that is microcontrast. When I use that term I refer not only to the global contrast of any particular image but also to the unique quality of strong contrast in the fine details. It aids the appearance of resolution because images do not have any of the “haze” that makes them appear softer. This really helps images from Zeiss lenses like this one have a nice three dimensional quality. Head to head comparisons consistently show that Zeiss lenses have better contrast than just about any of their competitors (including the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8), which simply means that details resolve more crisply."_
> 
> Can we see some of these head to head comparisons?
> 
> I've heard many people throw around the term "micro contrast", but I've never seen anyone back it up with actual examples.



Matt Granger does just that with the Zeiss 15 vs. the Nikon 14-24mm here: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toqo-_q2WPg&spfreload=10

I compare the microcontrast with the Zeiss Sonnar T* 2/135mm vs. the Canon 135L (the results are amazing, by the way.): http://dustinabbott.net/2014/07/zeiss-apo-sonnar-t-2135mm-ze-review-2/


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 28, 2015)

Mr Bean said:


> Great review Dustin. As an owner of one of these beauties, they can also make for interesting portraits.
> 5D3 @ 1/25 f3.5 and real close



I like this - quirky and fun. WA distortion is fun to play with in creative ways - you just have to have subjects that don't take themselves too seriously. Knowing the lens as I do I would say that you were VERY close for this picture!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 28, 2015)

dryanparker said:


> Here's an image I made a while back with the Zeiss 15 of the Conrad Hotel in Miami. While it's used mostly for interiors, the lens offers a cool perspective for architectural exteriors as well.



This is a very cool shot!


----------



## dryanparker (Jan 28, 2015)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> dryanparker said:
> 
> 
> > Here's an image I made a while back with the Zeiss 15 of the Conrad Hotel in Miami. While it's used mostly for interiors, the lens offers a cool perspective for architectural exteriors as well.
> ...



Hey thanks!


----------



## dcm (Jan 28, 2015)

The Flasher said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > The Flasher said:
> ...



Now that's a great example of the "blue" hour.


----------

