During the month of April, Zeiss USA generously loaned me 2 lenses, the Carl Zeiss 28mm f2 ZE and 35mm f2 ZE. I tested them in Death Valley National Park, Antelope Valley Poppy Preserve, Carrizo Plains National Monument, and Olympic National Park. I needed a static subject with even light so that I could effectively compare several lenses at once. I found this scene for my tests during my recent Olympic National Park Photography Tour. This is my favorite image.
I’ve generally been content with my Canon 17-40mm f4 lens, but have always wondered about the benefits of sharper glass. While investigating my options, I learned about the Zeiss lenses designed for Canon. I contacted Zeiss USA about borrowing a few of their lenses and was pleased that they agreed. I requested the 28mm f2 and 35mm f2, because they are the focal range that I most often shoot.
The Zeiss lenses are manual focus and designed to fit directly on a Canon EOS mount. I liked the smooth action when adjusting the focus barrel, but especially liked the hyperfocal focusing scale on each lens. Ever since I switched over to shooting digital landscapes, I’ve missed my Pentax 67 prime lenses which had hyperfocal scales. On my Canon 17-40mm f4 lens there isn’t one since it is a zoom, so I just bump the ∞ mark to the right slightly of the focus line to accomplish the same effect. I typically push my depth-of-field more than a lot of photographers. I don’t mind the foreground being slightly soft as the viewer enters my composition, but it quickly becomes sharp throughout the majority of the image. I make sure that my background subject is always in focus by reviewing my images at 100% and adjusting my ∞ mark if necessary.
A lot of photographers prefer to shoot landscape images backed off from the foreground so that they can shoot closer to f11 to avoid lens diffraction. I prefer my compositions to be super tight and down low, so I compromise by using smaller apertures to get more depth-of-field. At f16-f22 lens diffraction occurs. It is clearly visible in my results, but I prefer it to losing depth-of-field.
When reviewed on my Canon 5DmkII’s LCD, the images I took with the Zeiss lenses appeared bolder than the images I had taken with my 17-40. When I downloaded them to my laptop, I could clearly see that the images were much sharper edge-to-edge than when I had used my zoom. Whereas my 17-40 only felt in focus in the middle 60% of the image, the Zeiss lenses were sharp throughout 90% or more of the image.
I also compared the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 II and Canon 35mm f1.4 to the Zeiss lenses. My test results are available on my blog. Please feel free to download any of these sample images and view them side-by-side. All of these test images are from my un-adjusted RAW files that were created in real world shooting conditions. I took the same image using the same settings. I also used a Singh-Ray LB Warming Polarizer on all of my test images to reduce the glare on the leaves.
My biggest surprise was that my Canon 17-40mm f4 lens created images that were not as disappointing as I would have thought compared to those created with the Zeiss lenses. However, now that I can see the difference I don’t care for the barrel-distortion created by my zoom. I was not impressed with the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 II. Perhaps my hyperfocal approximation was slightly off since I was unfamiliar with this lens? However, I was conservative in my hyperfocal focusing in that I barely moved the ∞ mark to the right of the focus line. I was totally disappointed with the Canon 35mm f1.4, which was the least contrasty of the lenses I tested and nowhere near as sharp as the Zeiss lenses.
I am so impressed with the Carl Zeiss 28mm f2 ZE and 35mm f2 ZE that I am purchasing them (with a modest discount from Zeiss USA). They cost $1283 and $1004 respectively. The 35mm f2 is a significant improvement and the 28mm f2 is a slight improvement over my Canon 17-40mm f4. This corroborates the general buzz that I have heard about these lenses. My test results convinced me that the Carl Zeiss lenses are a better investment than upgrading to the Canon 16-35mm f2.8 II, especially if one doesn’t require auto-focus. For anyone not in the market to upgrade their lenses, I think that the Canon 17-40mm f4 is still a great value. I will continue to use it to shoot super-wide landscape scenes until I can test/afford a better lens. However, if you are in the market to upgrade your lens arsenal, you won’t be disappointed with these Carl Zeiss options.
Interesting Jon, thanks for sharing.
I would love to see a comparison between the Zeiss and the Canon tilt / shift lenses – what I like about the t/s line is that you control and capture a lot of near / far DOF without supper small apertures.
Ron-Do you have the Canon 24mm tilt-shift? Everyone raves about it. It is on my list to test (but not for awhile since I’m buying these lenses & also recently bought a 7D). I think that it would be helpful if you could shoot at f11 and skip the diffraction with the smaller apertures. Did you ever shoot large format? When I dabbled in it, you realize that you have to hide the middle ground when you tilt because it goes out of the plain of focus? I’m going to test the Carl Zeiss 21, 50, & 85 lenses soon.
Thanks for this review! I think I’ll rent the 17mm since that is what I shoot most. BTW, I almost always focus to infinity. No problems at 17-22mm and F11 from 4ft-infinity! Sharp all the way through…
Patrick
Jon, I use to shoot with quite a few of the Zeiss lenses. Most recently the 35mm f/2 ZF on my Nikon D3. IMHO it’s the perfect pano lens. Built so well and the focus action is silky smooth. The Canon 35mm f/1.4 L is superb for wide open people shots, but I too was disappointed with landscape performance. The 16-35mm f/2.8 is a waste of money. The 17-40 at $700 is an amazing deal. Especially around 28mm, it can hold its own to just about any lens. Just my opinions.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3260/2570493256_f918b3b6b7.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2421/3660729461_f9ddea5985.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/2611188219_8ca33ccccf.jpg
Patrick-Carl Zeiss has an 18mm f3.5 and 21mm f2.8. I don’t shoot landscape images in that range very often, but you are correct that you don’t need to stop down to f16-f22 since everything is in focus from 4′ to ∞ at f11 at that range. Great suggestion for anyone reading this who is unaware. When I shoot something like wide-angle flowers that wide, I’d be inclined to get with 1.5′ to 2′ to really exaggerate the foreground, so I’d be back at f16 again.
Matt-I’m glad to hear that you agree with most of my findings!
I forgot to mention … in some cases the Zeiss will have a small amount of CA (chromatic aberrations) in fringe, when compared to 24-70mm f/2.8.(easily fixed) Funny part is, the $6,000 MF 40mm f/4 CFE IF Zeiss Distagon I occasionally shoot with has much more! (On a Hasselblad 555ELD with a Phase One or Sinar DB) Oh how I love tech talk!
Also 58mm filters are a heck of a lot cheaper then 77mm or 82mm.
Hi Jon,
I have the original version of the 24. I never did shoot large format, but I have noticed the same thing with the 35mm tilt shift. I often need to evaluate the middle ground for focus, and not the near or distant objects like I’m used to.
Ron-I think that Paul Souders bought the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II, so maybe I can test it sometime. Shooting is all about compromises. Look really close at a landscape photography book that was shot using large format. If the photographer was trying to shoot near-far images, almost everything else is totally mushy. That is the trade-off when tilting. I particularly like Jack Dykinga’s work, but I’ve seen his large prints where it was really obvious.
2′ to ∞ at f11 & hiding the middle ground would be the ticket for shooting that lens.
Thanks for the info Jon! Very helpful review since I had only heard a bit about the Zeiss lenses but hadn’t come across much about them.
Choosing to do your test on a real world, three dimensional scene is interesting, since most use a test pattern. The upside is that you are evaluating the lenses in real shooting conditions, as you would use them in the field. This gives some important lessons, for instance that it can be worth it to stop down to f22, despite the fact that this softens the whole image because of diffraction.
I see two main problems, though. The first is that results are not repeatable, and may be affected by factors such as precision of focusing with different lenses. The second is that depth of field effects and optical quality are difficult to distinguish. Stopping down can make the corners appear sharper either because the lens performs better, or either because there is more depth of field. If you prefer to test in the field, I would recommend to add a distant landscape scene where everything is in focus at infinity. Since you will be testing longer lenses, I think that’s something you are going to do anyway.
As to results, they are more or less in line with what I would have expected, except for the 35/1.4, which seems highly regarded by many. In my experience, there is a lot of sample to sample variation with Canon lenses, so it is possible that you got a bad copy.
Like Ron has mentioned, when the tilt is applicable, using it will yield considerably better sharpness than with a fixed lens, even with the old 24 TSE which wasn’t that sharp. The new 24 TSE is superb, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it outperform the Zeiss lenses. Since many tests have already been posted, I haven’t written about it on my blog, but I may do so.
As to the middle ground going out of focus when tilting, while this is unavoidable in some situations (such as flower/valley/mountain), in many cases this results from an incorrect choice of the plane of focus, for example focusing on the top of the flower and top of the mountain.
QT-I totally agree that shooting a subject off in the distance at ∞ would be a better test, but since I don’t ever shoot that way, I decided not to. Certainly, there could be variations in the lenses that I tested. I only sampled 1 lens of each type. Ouch! I definitely think that the Canon 35mm f1.4 was probably designed more for low light shooting wide-open, rather than stopped down.
You guys need to quit making me think about the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II! I don’t have a budget to consider that lens right now.
Thank you for your generous feedback.
Don’t stop thinking about the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II. ;-) It is an outstanding optic! And it is far better then the old 24 TS-E. As I was reading your review and the description of your shooting technique, I was saying to myself, “Jon needs to try the 24mm TS-E!” It sounds like a perfect fit for you for these types of landscapes.
And coming from an LF background myself, I’ll echo the comments of QT. Sometimes the middle ground can present problems. But I rarely find this a serious problem with proper technique (with the exception of tall trees in the middle ground). Of course, you can always shoot the TS-E straight on with hyperfocal technique in those situations.
I seriously considered the Zeiss lenses before purchasing the new 24 and 17 TS-Es (BTW, the 17mm no slouch), and its good to hear you’re pleased with their performance. It sounds like either would be a nice addition to any lens kit. Thanks!
Scott-If the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II was a TS-E 28mm f/3.5L II, I would already own it. I shoot most of my landscape images between 28mm & 35mm. With my old Pentax 67 system, that corresponded to my 55mm & 75mm lenses. I don’t go wider all that often, because I prefer the balance of my images to be close in the foreground but not have tiny mountains off in the distance like you typically get at 20mm. I think that the TS-E 24 is in my future, but first I need make some big sales in order to justify buying it. The Carl Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZE is my other wishlist lens.
Jon,
I’ve been shooting the TS-E’s since I switched to digital from large-format 6 years ago. Last year I purchased the new TS-E 24mm II and I have to say, it is the sharpest wide angle lens that Canon manufactures. It is sharp from edge to edge and it is even sharp at f/3.5. The TS rotation is incredible and makes the lens worth the extra $$$’s. Check out a review that I did on our website http://mountaintrailphoto.com/article_canon%2024%20TSE%20lens_review.htm