Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm F/2.8 ZE (Canon EF)

Bifurcator · March 20, 2012

Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm F/2.8 ZE (Canon EF) :barb :thumb :ivar :bow

Check here for the latest details:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1096474

Price: $1600 (Was $1700)
Payment method: PayPal
Item condition: 10 Preowned equipment, but appears as new
Shipping instructions: You pay paypal (or as gift), I cover shipping.

The guy who sold it to me told me it had never been mounted on a camera and never been used. It looks like it too! Well, I'm going to mount it on my camera at least once but this thing is in absolutely perfect condition! Truly, "mint" actually applies for once.

I'll add images of it a little later.

Bifurcator · March 21, 2012

Here's the images for the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.4 :

http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Zeiss_Distagon_21mm_f2.8/1_1030496.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Zeiss_Distagon_21mm_f2.8/2_1030497.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Zeiss_Distagon_21mm_f2.8/3_1030498.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Zeiss_Distagon_21mm_f2.8/4_1030491.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Zeiss_Distagon_21mm_f2.8/5_1030489.jpg
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Auctions/Zeiss_Distagon_21mm_f2.8/6_1030494.jpg

.

Cowboydoug · March 22, 2012

What a lens... I would love to see a couple of images from it... In particular a shot from the front corner of a car... standing.. slightly pointing down... (if that makes sense...) I would be wanting to take in the entire car... I'm looking for a fisheye for an extreme effect but this may do what I want with style...
If you get a chance to do that please let me know... The image doesn't have to be pretty... I already know the lens is tack sharp... just need to see coverage.

Bifurcator · March 22, 2012

Sure I can do that. In fact I just did after reading this. I guess the neighbors thought I was nuts running out and popping my flash off 18 times per image for 6 images at 2am here but I'm sure the rumors are already worse than the reality. Or wait, maybe that's the other way around?

First you have to know that I shoot a µ4/3 camera so the angle of view is almost exactly half. Second I think that if you’re looking for an artsy curvy lens this probably isn’t a good choice. Besides an ever so slight mustache distortion this puppy is very rectilinear. On a full frame it’s a 21mm with an Angular field of 90°/81°/59° (dig./horiz./vert.). And again, half that on my little GH1.

So, for this first shot I placed the tripod 160 centimeters in front of the bumper’s leading edge, and 98cm over to one side measured from the tire in order to get the car in full view. The camera was also elevated 6' 2" off the ground (Which is like placed atop most american men’s heads or a few inches above that maybe). I set the lens's aperture to f/13, set the ten-second timer with a shutter speed of 1min. (60s), at ISO 100, pressed the shutter release and then ran around the car with a $5 pop flash in hand popping it off all around. I was getting between 18 and 20 pops per 1min. exposure.

_1030534_Zeiss_Distagon_21mm_f2.8_ZE.jpg

For this second image my camera was 105cm from the bumper and the same 6' 2" up. That's about a 5.5 foot high roof on that SUV. It's pretty high anyway. All other settings and lighting were the same. Hehe, black cars don't expose well at 2am in dark parking lots.

_1030527_Zeiss_Distagon_21mm_f2.8_ZE.jpg

For this last image I didn't measure the distances but my tripod was so close that I had to partially fold in the legs to keep them out of the shot. The tripod was extended the same amount but with the legs partially folded in it raised the camera a little higher - maybe 3 or 4 inches?

_1030525_Zeiss_Distagon_21mm_f2.8_ZE.jpg

I guess I was about a foot and a half in front and one foot off to the side?

.

Bifurcator · March 22, 2012

Here's a few macro-ish shots I took with the lens. These subjects are about 6cm high each - almost exactly the size of my thumb. I was backed off 6 to 8 cm from the lens's MFD:

_1030426_Zeiss_Distagon_24mm_f2.4_ZE.jpg

f/9.5

This was was a failed attempt to try and get the lens to produce color fringing or CA of some other sort: :P

_1030430_Zeiss_Distagon_24mm_f2.4_ZE.jpg

f/2.8

_1030422_Zeiss_Distagon_24mm_f2.4_ZE_sm.jpg

f/9.5

.

Cowboydoug · March 22, 2012

That is an incredibly sharp lens... Awesome... I need to see what the image looks like with a full frame ... So I'm going to surf the web & see what I can find... Funny but for my use I actually want distortion... That said... I also shoot architecture so it's perfect... I'll get back to you... Thanks for the pix

Bifurcator · March 23, 2012

Here's a thread with over 500 pages of gearheads posting their ZE ZF Z-Whatever lenses http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134 There's a lot of 21/2.8 samples in there and most guys who aren't using the evil Flicker leave their EXIF in tact so you can see what camera they're shooting. Also if you click on their avatar it might say too - but about 2/3rds of folks there don't add in their profile so sometimes not too.

Though I have to say; if they're shooting a ZE 21/2.8 (usually about $2,000) chances are like 99% that they're shooting a FF camera. I'm the lamer 1% exception. And yes, the Zx 21/2.8 is one of Zeiss's best lenses. It's probably the best lens in the 20 to 24mm range ever designed. Consensus all around say it's the best 21mm ever (which is why I had to try it!). It's certainly the most complex 21mm (and probably 20 to 24mm) lens design ever contrived! Seriously.

Edit: In that thread you might wanna click End and work you way toward the front.

.

Bifurcator · March 23, 2012

Baahaaahahahaha... This is pretty sad but according to Wikipedia at ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format ) this is the difference between my GH1 (µ4/3) and a full frame 135 sensor (like in the Canon 5DII):

The blue frame represents a FF Sensor. My uncropped image is scaled to the Wiki graph.

OK, quick, someone give me $5000 so I can buy the FF camera I want. Hehehe...

Bifurcator · March 24, 2012

This is a popular lens so it's around a lot. Prices range from $1450 to $1800 - mostly depending on condition. I say this because while you were the first one to inquire or ask questions about it there's currently another man interested in purchasing it at a $50 reduced price. But since you were the first in I thought I would give you the opportunity to secure it if you wanted this particular copy.

Lemme know soon, thanks.

angevin1 · March 24, 2012

Cowboydoug wrote: »

That is an incredibly sharp lens... Awesome... I need to see what the image looks like with a full frame ... So I'm going to surf the web & see what I can find... Funny but for my use I actually want distortion... That said... I also shoot architecture so it's perfect... I'll get back to you... Thanks for the pix

I rented this lens back in january for a 5Dmk2. I have photos if needed from FX.

Bifurcator · March 24, 2012

That would be cool!

Feel free to post a few up if you'd like.

And the RAWer the better (I mean less any post processing if it's not too much trouble.)

This is one of those lenses that has a reputation for not needing any after-shot processing - unless it's for composite work or something artsy like that. So it would be good to see it as naked as possible.

Uuuh! Did I just say naked? :seamus

Bifurcator · March 26, 2012

Reduced price. Now $1600 - down from $1700

Cowboydoug · March 26, 2012

angevin1 wrote: »

I rented this lens back in january for a 5Dmk2. I have photos if needed from FX.

Tom... i would love to see a couple of your images... it would really help... thanks

angevin1 · March 27, 2012

Sorry it took so long. Busy lately.

Anyway, these are just screen grabs from video taken with 5DMK2 and this Zeiss lens that I rented. All Shot at 3200 ISO, f/4, 1/60th. The Middle or second image looks a bit better because I grabbed it back a few months ago and took it to LR3. The others are SOOC. And I shoot a de-sharpened, de-contrasted mode.

The Distortion you want Cowboy Doug will only really be gained with this lens via breaking the distance 'rules' for portraiture, eg; standing too close to your subject.

Here are the screen grabs.

Bifurcator · March 27, 2012

Thanks Tom!

Pretty Cool !

angevin1 · March 27, 2012

Bifurcator wrote: »

Thanks Tom!

Pretty Cool !

Trust me! If I had Money sitting here, we wouldn't have gotten this far! That lens would be mine. It along with one other is on my Short list! That lens was without a doubt one of THE best I have ever used. Smooth, just enough resistance in the focal ring, smooth Aperture ring, F/4 everything from 6ft. on is in focus, handles light pouring directly into the lens with Charm. And that was a rental!
A sweet sweet lens and all for this low price!

Bifurcator · March 28, 2012

Yeah, the craftsmanship is superb for sure! It kinda makes me wonder how people evaluating semi-pro lenses from Canon, Nikon, and etc. can claim the build quality is high. It's like, don't they know what good really is?

Yeah, I dropped it down a full $100 because even thou I've left no traces, I have now used it several times.

It is pretty nice! It reminds me of an ultra wide version of the CV APO Lanthar 125/2.5

- Seriously, it really is as good as everyone says. That Lanthar is by far the most perfect lens I've ever owned BTW! I totally understand why they sell now for four times what they were new - MSRP. I wanna get another one having just sold the last one only a few weeks ago.

What's the other lens on your short list?

Cowboydoug · March 28, 2012

Tom... Thanks for posting those... I agree with you both regarding quality of build ... I'm an old hasselblad guy... My super wide was one of my favorite wides to shoot portraits with along with my 40 distagon... I used both quite often for portraits... I shot a Linhof 6x17 for years too, so i do know & appreciate quality... I'm relatively new to the 35mm format... I grew up on large & medium format & didn't start using this tiny stuff until... 2000 I think. Tiny view finders still freak me out...lol
That said, my only hesitation is I am getting the new 5d III & some other new lenses & am now trying to decide which I want... I think i really need a fisheye for the in your face look I am going for... But... Well... I'm still thinking on this one...:)

What's the angle of view on this?

angevin1 · March 28, 2012

Bifurcator wrote: »

What's the other lens on your short list?

Canon's 85 f1.2...but after using the Zeiss I think I'll rent some different ones when I get that far to help me decide.

Bifurcator · March 28, 2012

Cowboydoug wrote: »

What's the angle of view on this?

It's Angular field is 90°/81°/59° (dig./horiz./vert.).

If you're looking for a fisheye then the very best money can buy is the Zeiss F-Distagon 16/2.8 in Rollei or C/Y mount. It's about the same price too. Maybe $100 cheaper.

EDIT: Noticable CA tho too... (CZ 16/2.8)

.

Bifurcator · March 28, 2012

angevin1 wrote: »

Canon's 85 f1.2...but after using the Zeiss I think I'll rent some different ones when I get that far to help me decide.

I don't think you can rent it but both Anniversary versions of the (C/Y) Zeiss 85/1.2 are Quite a bit better than the Canon - which I also dig! They're about $3.5 to $4k tho - but noticeably better in several aspects. The non-anaversery versions are quite good too at $2.5k to $3k. The Canon can produce some color and defocus fringing under harsh conditions that the Zeiss's don't. The Zeiss's are sharper wide open, and while bokeh is relative to preference IMO I like the Zeiss's better under most conditions.

If you can rent any of those tho you should go for it. If you're shooting portraits (as your website shows) then you want one of the C/Y Zeiss 85/1.2 lenses I mentioned over the Canon if you can swing it - IMO!

Bifurcator · April 7, 2012

! Sold !

Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm F/2.8 ZE (Canon EF)

Comments