zeiss distagon 21 f/2.8 revisited

Andy · September 17, 2005

so, after many conversations with myself, i had a hard look at the distagon 21 f/2.8 again. reason: i was getting some soft edges after all, in *some* shots, with my canon 16-35L. i needed to investigate further. after speaking with several folks who use the zeiss 21 professionally, i found out something rather alarming: the adapter i was using a few months ago, when i first got excited about this lens, was sub-standard. and the adapter *must* be just so, to ensure that the lens performs to the fullest.

long story short, i recently (re)bought a zeiss distagon 21 f/2.8 (brand new in the box, got very lucky to find it) and also a new adapter from cameraquest. the edge and corner performance on full-frame, 1Ds Mark II is noticeably better than the 16-35L - and i still stand behind my prior statements on the 16-35L, it's a fine piece of glass, but the fullframe does stretch its' capabilities to the limit.

you can see some sample 100% crops compared with the canon 16-35L here
(be sure to view size=large or size=original)

so, i'm looking forward to getting some really good 'scapes with this lens. i'm also hopeful, that canon is actually listening to their customers: we need a new, sharp, wide, L-class prime!

i was asked by a friend, "how am i going to replace the 16-20mm focal range?" my answer: "several steps backwards and the cz 21

"

dragon300zx · September 17, 2005

andy wrote:

"so, after many conversations with myself,"

Well we all knew you were going to buy it again. It was a given after all this is you. But the statement above may have finally shed some light on your buying habits. See we all thought you were a bit

, but now we have confirmation. If you want I know some good psychologists with pretty good track records and knowledge of psychotropic meds.

Andy · September 17, 2005

dragon300zx wrote:

and knowledge of psychotropic meds.

no need, i've got a kava-cherry ripes connection :uhoh

David_S85 · September 17, 2005

dragon300zx wrote:

If you want I know some good psychologists with pretty good track records and knowledge of psychotropic meds.

Oh, don't be worrying 'bout Andy. He's already got his psycotropic drugs in his fridge. He'll do fine.

David_S85 · September 17, 2005

Hey, lookee
I kinda knew Andy would be posting the same thing.

What a coincidence.

Andy · September 17, 2005

David_S85 wrote:

Oh, don't be worrying 'bout Andy. He's already got his psycotropic drugs in his fridge. He'll do fine.

David_S85 · September 17, 2005

andy wrote:

Dude, that'll get you admitted to the happy hospital right there. Two good things about that, um, "photo"

, if it were true, is that you could toss those things at the men in the white coats as they were coming to get you. They'd first block their heads for safety, but eventually they'd probably try one, and you could then run away to safety. And if you were really really lucky, you'd have a few left to eat yourself.

Andy · September 17, 2005

David_S85 wrote:

Dude, that'll get you admitted to the happy hospital right there. Two good things about that, um, "photo" , if it were true, is that you could toss those things at the men in the white coats as they were coming to get you. They'd first block their heads for safety, but eventually they'd probably try one, and you could then run away to safety. And if you were really really lucky, you'd have a few left to eat yourself.

i'm a mac guy, but look at this pc!

rutt · September 18, 2005

I wonder if it's possible to pull this thread out of the toilet. Maybe not, but I'm going to give it a go.

Jeez, Andy, I guess we all know how much you love to fuss with your equipment, but to me (and I suspect to most of us) it's a puzzle. You have that one most important piece of equipment that no amount of money can buy: a great eye for composition and content. I never look at your shots and think, "Jeez, Andy's work sucks because of that stupid 16-35 L. So soft around the edges I can hardly stand to look." I never think, "Can't wait for Andy to move up from 8MP to 10MP in his IR photography." And, Andy, as you know, I've worked with your RAW images and even printed them at 17x24. And did I feel there was a resolution problem with a tiny crop from your 1Ds Mark II? You have the print. Did you? I also printed 20D images taken with the 10-22 and I don't think your equipment was a problem. In fact, I don't think there is a problem of any sort with the pictures you share with us.

Maybe it's kind of like sporting equipment. There is no bicycle in the world which is going to make me ride like Lance Armstrong (at least not one without a motor.) There is no bicycle which is going to make him ride like me (well, maybe we might be able to find one that is really bad enough, but we'd have to look pretty long and hard.) But a new bicycle or pair of pedals or saddle might raise my interest, increase the fun and intensity. Perhaps all this buying and selling keeps you from getting bored?

Look, I'm no slouch on the equipment front. I have what I want and the distance between wanting and getting for me isn't very far. So please don't get me wrong, this is a complement not a criticism. Maybe it's also a question: would I be a better photographer if I spent more time buying and selling equipment? It works for you, why not for me? Of course, we know that's silly. I'll be a better photographer if I spend more time at it and maybe go to a workshop or two.

So, yes, this really is a complement, mostly. And a question about what's really going on. Why not spend more time using your inventory than turning it?

Andy · September 18, 2005

rutt wrote:

I wonder if it's possible to pull this thread out of the toilet. Maybe not, but I'm going to give it a go.

Jeez, Andy, I guess we all know how much you love to fuss with your equipment, but to me (and I suspect to most of us) it's a puzzle. You have that one most important piece of equipment that no amount of money can buy: a great eye for composition and content.

thanks so much, rutt - you totally made my day

rutt wrote:

I never look at your shots and think, "Jeez, Andy's work sucks because of that stupid 16-35 L. So soft around the edges I can hardly stand to look." I never think, "Can't wait for Andy to move up from 8MP to 10MP in his IR photography." And, Andy, as you know, I've worked with your RAW images and even printed them at 17x24. And did I feel there was a resolution problem with a tiny crop from your 1Ds Mark II? You have the print. Did you?

that print is gorgeous (thank you again!), and it's hanging on the wall in front of me right now. keep in mind, though, that it was from the center(ish) if the frame, taken with a 50mm f/1.4 canon lens. there''s never ever been an issue for me with any of the canon glass, when cropped in this fashion (or even less severe cropping, nearly out to the edges)... and yeah, the 1Ds Mark II surely helps in this regard in terms of salvaging a shot out of that huge frame.

the other thing about that print is that it was a street scene, not a finely-detailed landscape... the place where the 16-35L was suffering for me was a) in the details (leaves, trees, rocks) and b) in corner sharpness when printed large (and shot from a full-frame camera).

rutt wrote:

I also printed 20D images taken with the 10-22 and I don't think your equipment was a problem. In fact, I don't think there is a problem of any sort with the pictures you share with us.

indeed- the 20d, and the 10-22 efs are a great combination! i've produced some really really nice big prints from this combination, and i'm glad i used that camera (twice! for months). in fact, i'm considering a getting the 20d for a third time, we'll see....

rutt wrote:

Maybe it's kind of like sporting equipment. There is no bicycle in the world which is going to make me ride like Lance Armstrong (at least not one without a motor.) There is no bicycle which is going to make him ride like me (well, maybe we might be able to find one that is really bad enough, but we'd have to look pretty long and hard.) But a new bicycle or pair of pedals or saddle might raise my interest, increase the fun and intensity. Perhaps all this buying and selling keeps you from getting bored?

nah - that's not it for me. what's been happening to me gradually over the past year or so, as my photography has grown and expanded, and i've been doing many many more large prints, i've been eyeing these prints with an ever-expanding critical eye. the first step was in resolution and detail-grabbing with the 1Ds Mark II. i noticed this immediately. the second step was in looking at large prints: 30x40, 24x36, even bigger. i started seeing "muddiness" from some 16-35L images and that's when i first got into the zeiss glass a few months back. there was no question that the cz 21 outperforms in terms of sharpness, when compared to 16-35L shots taken on my 1Ds Mark II. blows-it-away sharper.

my first turn with the cz glass wasn't so good, becuase i had a crap adapter. now with the cameraquest adapter, all is good

rutt wrote:

Look, I'm no slouch on the equipment front. I have what I want and the distance between wanting and getting for me isn't very far. So please don't get me wrong, this is a complement not a criticism. Maybe it's also a question: would I be a better photographer if I spent more time buying and selling equipment? It works for you, why not for me? Of course, we know that's silly. I'll be a better photographer if I spend more time at it and maybe go to a workshop or two.

yeah, i know it sounds funny - but i firmly believe that "it's not the camera, it's the photographer." so how do i balance that with all the stuff i buy? i think i explained a lot of it above... i hope. lots of my equipment moving btw has just been due to swapping out zooms and moving to primes for the most part

rutt wrote:

So, yes, this really is a complement, mostly. And a question about what's really going on. Why not spend more time using your inventory than turning it?

well, thank you very much! y'know, i shoot *every* single day. my camera and some glass goes with me everywhere i go. time? with the internet, i was able to sell my 16-35L in about 20 minutes. the other good reason for buying top-quality stuff (and caring for it well) is that the resale is very good. it was easy for me to buy the canon 85L for example, becuase i know that if in a few months i want to go back to the 85 f/1.8, the use of the 85L will have only cost me a couple hundred bucks, for six months usage - can't beat that with rental fees.

thanks again, john - good discussion points!

Andy · September 18, 2005

rutt wrote:

IMaybe it's also a question: would I be a better photographer if I spent more time buying and selling equipment? It works for you, why not for me? Of course, we know that's silly. I'll be a better photographer if I spend more time at it and maybe go to a workshop or two.

a p.s.:

while at the canon expo, i met pro clint clemens he's fantastic, what an artist.. one of his favorite lenses is the 100-400L, considered by many to be one of canon's lesser Ls... push/pull, slow aperture, etc. the guy's made a bloody fortune shooting all sorts of stuff with that lens!

it's not the equipment, it's the photographer.

rutt · September 18, 2005

andy wrote:

nah - that's not it for me. what's been happening to me gradually over the past year or so, as my photography has grown and expanded, and i've been doing many many more large prints, i've been eyeing these prints with an ever-expanding critical eye. the first step was in resolution and detail-grabbing with the 1Ds Mark II. i noticed this immediately. the second step was in looking at large prints: 30x40, 24x36, even bigger. i started seeing "muddiness" from some 16-35L images and that's when i first got into the zeiss glass a few months back. there was no question that the cz 21 outperforms in terms of sharpness, when compared to 16-35L shots taken on my 1Ds Mark II. blows-it-away sharper.

Last spring I went to the Houk Gallery in NY to look at some Leibovitz prints. (Going to Houk is highly recommended! Be sure to get them to take you in back and show you things from their inventory which aren't necessarily being shown at the moment.) You know what I think about Annie L's work. But the thing I wasn't prepared for was the quality of the prints. They just blew away anything I've ever seen done by any digital process. There was this deep luster, an incredible combination of texture and detail which I'm having a hard time even describing. I'm pretty good with my digital darkroom, if I do say so myself, and I know at least one guy (Dan Margulis) who is as good as anyone. But it's not even on the same planet with what Annie's lab was doing.

To my eye, this is the area where we digital photographers have the greatest technical opportunity compared to the best fine art photographers. I'm not even sure of how to get started, but I'll bet there are some pro labs with digital enlargers which can project onto photographic paper. If I were going to work on this, that would be where I'd start.

tom e · September 18, 2005

distagon redux
Andy, does that mean no more moustaches?

Andy · September 18, 2005

tom e wrote:

Andy, does that mean no more moustaches?

gone-shaved

i'm pretty sure that was due to the substandard adapter i was using with the first two cz 21s i used. i'm using cameraquest adapter now and all is good.

tom e · September 19, 2005

andy wrote:

gone-shaved

i'm pretty sure that was due to the substandard adapter i was using with the first two cz 21s i used. i'm using cameraquest adapter now and all is good.

little bugger runs $175 for the zuiko, but obvuiously i need the quality.

pathfinder · September 19, 2005

Andy - You compared the Zeiss Distagon 21 to the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L Have you ever shot with the Canon 21 f2.8 L ? Wouldn't that be a more appropriate comparision - prime vs. prime?

Just wondering.

jogle · September 19, 2005

andy wrote:

.....it's not the equipment, it's the photographer.

Like I often say to my work mates who come complaining to me about their gear or bad exposure or fancy lenses they want to buy, or who makes better bubble wrap - canon or nikon....

Most cameras are better then most photographers.

(nicked from somewhere else a long time ago)

Andy · September 19, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

Andy - You compared the Zeiss Distagon 21 to the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L Have you ever shot with the Canon 21 f2.8 L ? Wouldn't that be a more appropriate comparision - prime vs. prime?

Just wondering.

pathfinder, if you can get me that 21 f/2.8L, i'll give it a twirl. of course, you probably mean the canoon 24L .... which is not as wide, and is fairly notororious for being unsharp at the edges on full-frame.

gtc · September 20, 2005

focus question
glad to hear that your Zeiss is good after all, as I am ordering a cameraquest m42 to eos adapter for my smc takumars.

one question-how are you focussing? a third party focussing screen or by chimping? (thats two questions)

if i could, I would like to get away with not putting in a focussing screen .

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Andy · September 20, 2005

gtc wrote:

glad to hear that your Zeiss is good after all, as I am ordering a cameraquest m42 to eos adapter for my smc takumars.

one question-how are you focussing? a third party focussing screen or by chimping? (thats two questions)

if i could, I would like to get away with not putting in a focussing screen .

I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

i focus with the standard screen in the 1Ds Mark II. focus manually, no, i don't focus by chimping

the ovf is huge and bright on the 1Ds Mark II, so focusing in no biggie

cheers

ziggy53 · September 20, 2005

gtc wrote:

...one question-how are you focussing? a third party focussing screen or by chimping? (thats two questions)

if i could, I would like to get away with not putting in a focussing screen ...

gtc,

One way to improve focus accuracy is to use a viewfinder magnifier. I have an old Pentax version that works on my dRebelXT. It flips out of the way when not in use.

ziggy53

gtc · September 20, 2005

thanks both
thanks ziggy and andy

i have found a pentax viewfinder magnifyer at ritz collectibles-so they are around-i will see how i go once my converter plate arrives for my takumars and if no good i will chase one of these up.thanks for the tip.

greg

tom e · September 21, 2005

just for smaller sensor camera?
would one think of using this on the Canon 5D, or will the big bright viewfinder on that camera be enough?

interesting accessory

erich6 · September 22, 2005

Andy,

The difference between the Zeiss and the Canon is quite evident. Almost night and day from what I saw in your crops. I'm sure you'll put this lens to good use. Would you mind sharing how much the Zeiss set you back?

Erich

tom e · September 25, 2005

how to focus
when manually focusing a non-eos lens, will the focus points still light when focus is achieved? if so, is accurate enough?

Andy · September 25, 2005

tom e wrote:

when manually focusing a non-eos lens, will the focus points still light when focus is achieved? if so, is accurate enough?

no focus lights in viewfinder.
many use a split prism or other focusing screen in cameras that allow for such changing of focusing screens. i do not, i find the ovf of the 1Ds Mark II to be really bright, and i can easily achieve accurate focus.

tom e · October 3, 2005

how to use flash (yeah, i know, "don't")
i'd like to know how one uses a flash with this lens on my 5D; i have the metz 53mz3, so i have ettl-II and A modes availabe; can i use them?

Andy · October 3, 2005

tom e wrote:

i'd like to know how one uses a flash with this lens on my 5D; i have the metz 53mz3, so i have ettl-II and A modes availabe; can i use them?

it's easy. pretend you're using a pentax k-1000 film slr

i would think, manual mode would be best.... 1/60th - 1/200th shutter speed.

zeiss distagon 21 f/2.8 revisited

Comments