Comments on: The Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 is Good http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/the-zeiss-15mm-f2-8-is-good Photo/video thoughts from the largest rental house Wed, 22 May 2013 17:33:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: PrestonR http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/the-zeiss-15mm-f2-8-is-good/comment-page-1#comment-28066 PrestonR Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:58:41 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9873#comment-28066 Well, it is expensive, but it's impressive as well. I shoot a bit of everything but focus is architecture. Since getting this, I have not used my 24 pc much, this baby just blows it away as long as the composition works it's so true it's amazing. For taller buildings, etc. maybe not but keep it level and it's just spot on! Well, it is expensive, but it’s impressive as well.
I shoot a bit of everything but focus is architecture. Since getting this, I have not used my 24 pc much, this baby just blows it away as long as the composition works it’s so true it’s amazing. For taller buildings, etc. maybe not but keep it level and it’s just spot on!

]]> By: Roger Cicala http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/the-zeiss-15mm-f2-8-is-good/comment-page-1#comment-27106 Roger Cicala Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:20:17 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9873#comment-27106 I agree with you, Ed. But the proper name is RokiBowYang :-) I agree with you, Ed. But the proper name is RokiBowYang :-)

]]> By: Ed M. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/the-zeiss-15mm-f2-8-is-good/comment-page-1#comment-27105 Ed M. Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:16:21 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9873#comment-27105 I'm thinking the same, George. I use the Tokina 11-16/2.8 (version 1) for panos, landscapes and timelapse (including astro). It's a fine lens but I may sell it to help fund a good normal range zoom and go with the RokSamBow 14. I shoot a crop, but may add a 6D later this year. Manual aperture/focus doesn't faze me. I have the RokSamBow 8mm fisheye and am impressed with the build quality. I’m thinking the same, George. I use the Tokina 11-16/2.8 (version 1) for panos, landscapes and timelapse (including astro). It’s a fine lens but I may sell it to help fund a good normal range zoom and go with the RokSamBow 14. I shoot a crop, but may add a 6D later this year. Manual aperture/focus doesn’t faze me. I have the RokSamBow 8mm fisheye and am impressed with the build quality.

]]> By: George Galatis http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/the-zeiss-15mm-f2-8-is-good/comment-page-1#comment-26080 George Galatis Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:21:04 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9873#comment-26080 I was thinking about rokinon 14mm 2.8 because canon's 14mm is expensive although only for landscapes and timelapses. any thoughts about? a really useful review by the way, thanks! I was thinking about rokinon 14mm 2.8 because canon’s 14mm is expensive although only for landscapes and timelapses. any thoughts about?
a really useful review by the way, thanks!

]]> By: Roger Cicala http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/the-zeiss-15mm-f2-8-is-good/comment-page-1#comment-26067 Roger Cicala Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:13:50 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9873#comment-26067 I don't know (there's something you don't see written on the Internet very often): Imatest is reaching it's limits at 16mm or so and I'm not totally comfortable with it's results at this focal length. On the other hand, ultra wide lenses usually don't resolve as well as normal wide angles and the 21 is still the resolution gold standard. So I guess I'm saying the results don't surprise me, but being unable to test them on an optical bench I recognize actual resolution might be slightly better. Or worse. Roger I don’t know (there’s something you don’t see written on the Internet very often): Imatest is reaching it’s limits at 16mm or so and I’m not totally comfortable with it’s results at this focal length. On the other hand, ultra wide lenses usually don’t resolve as well as normal wide angles and the 21 is still the resolution gold standard. So I guess I’m saying the results don’t surprise me, but being unable to test them on an optical bench I recognize actual resolution might be slightly better. Or worse.

Roger

]]> By: RVB http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/the-zeiss-15mm-f2-8-is-good/comment-page-1#comment-26065 RVB Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:22:15 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9873#comment-26065 Roger,don't you think the Zeiss 15 resolution is a little low at 920 center considering the Zeiss ZF 21 is 1140 / 905 at f/2.8..? Roger,don’t you think the Zeiss 15 resolution is a little low at 920 center considering the Zeiss ZF 21 is 1140 / 905 at f/2.8..?

]]> By: Jarj http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/the-zeiss-15mm-f2-8-is-good/comment-page-1#comment-25083 Jarj Fri, 23 Nov 2012 21:45:22 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9873#comment-25083 I am a wide angle fan and have owned most of Canon's very wide lenses. I am also a detail and resolution zealot. The 14mm f2.8 is very good in the center but the edges fell apart too often (which possibly had something to do with the autofocus on my 1Ds III). Same with the 16-35 f2.8 II zoom. I finally replaced them with a 17mm f4 TS/E, which is very good center and corners and quite versatile, but huge and heavy and with a large protruding unprotected bulb in the front that is prone to flare. So I was really looking forward to the Zeiss 15 but I was disappointed. My copy was not properly calibrated. Infinity focus was way short of the infinity mark on the lens. Another complaint was the lens cap. It is held solely by friction and mine fell off if the lens tilted down, which of course it does at times. You can't put the cap on then walk around with the camera hanging by a strap. The image quality was good but not observably superior to the 17 TS/E. So the only advantage to the Zeiss is a slightly wider angle (114 degrees compared to 104) and one stop faster, which is no big deal on a super wide. I have another Zeiss lens (21mm f2.8 zm) and consider it comparable to Leica. So, I may have just had a bad copy of the 15 but for $3,000 there should not be a bad copy. There was even a certificate in the box from the quality checker who didn't notice these things. I returned the 15 and will continue my quest for the perfect super wide short of a fisheye. I am a wide angle fan and have owned most of Canon’s very wide lenses. I am also a detail and resolution zealot. The 14mm f2.8 is very good in the center but the edges fell apart too often (which possibly had something to do with the autofocus on my 1Ds III). Same with the 16-35 f2.8 II zoom. I finally replaced them with a 17mm f4 TS/E, which is very good center and corners and quite versatile, but huge and heavy and with a large protruding unprotected bulb in the front that is prone to flare. So I was really looking forward to the Zeiss 15 but I was disappointed. My copy was not properly calibrated. Infinity focus was way short of the infinity mark on the lens. Another complaint was the lens cap. It is held solely by friction and mine fell off if the lens tilted down, which of course it does at times. You can’t put the cap on then walk around with the camera hanging by a strap. The image quality was good but not observably superior to the 17 TS/E. So the only advantage to the Zeiss is a slightly wider angle (114 degrees compared to 104) and one stop faster, which is no big deal on a super wide. I have another Zeiss lens (21mm f2.8 zm) and consider it comparable to Leica. So, I may have just had a bad copy of the 15 but for $3,000 there should not be a bad copy. There was even a certificate in the box from the quality checker who didn’t notice these things. I returned the 15 and will continue my quest for the perfect super wide short of a fisheye.

]]> By: Tim Devine http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/the-zeiss-15mm-f2-8-is-good/comment-page-1#comment-23780 Tim Devine Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:16:10 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9873#comment-23780 By request from Vincent. :-) Okay.....first off this is a non scientific comparison of the 16-35 II and the Zeiss 15mm. The two shots were taken 3 days apart...and the framing is slightly different. Both processed through DPP with the same settings, didn't bother with trying to match color (or do anything with color...it's WB straight out of camera.) The big gray block is there since I'm posting files at 100%. (Not that these are that great....but...) Both shots are at f/11. Canon on the top, Zeiss on the bottom. http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeiss15andcanon1635ii/large/canon_16_35_II.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeiss15andcanon1635ii/large/zeiss_15.jpg Links to original files @ 100% (Warning LARGE files) http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeiss15andcanon1635ii/canon_16_35_II.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeiss15andcanon1635ii/zeiss_15.jpg Note, it was a little misty the day I shot the Zeiss. The Canon had a Zeiss polarizer and the Zeiss had a Marumi polarizer. Again...not a particularly scientific comparison...but you gives you an idea of how the lenses compare. -Tim By request from Vincent. :-)

Okay…..first off this is a non scientific comparison of the 16-35 II and the Zeiss 15mm. The two shots were taken 3 days apart…and the framing is slightly different. Both processed through DPP with the same settings, didn’t bother with trying to match color (or do anything with color…it’s WB straight out of camera.) The big gray block is there since I’m posting files at 100%. (Not that these are that great….but…)

Both shots are at f/11. Canon on the top, Zeiss on the bottom.

http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeiss15andcanon1635ii/large/canon_16_35_II.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeiss15andcanon1635ii/large/zeiss_15.jpg

Links to original files @ 100% (Warning LARGE files)

http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeiss15andcanon1635ii/canon_16_35_II.jpg

http://photos.imageevent.com/devine/zeiss15andcanon1635ii/zeiss_15.jpg

Note, it was a little misty the day I shot the Zeiss. The Canon had a Zeiss polarizer and the Zeiss had a Marumi polarizer.

Again…not a particularly scientific comparison…but you gives you an idea of how the lenses compare.

-Tim

]]> By: Vincent Kluwe-Yorck http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/the-zeiss-15mm-f2-8-is-good/comment-page-1#comment-23491 Vincent Kluwe-Yorck Fri, 26 Oct 2012 05:50:24 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9873#comment-23491 Put in links to your fantastic full size comparison shots between 15 & 16-35, Tim, and that will end all dicussions. :-) Even a blind can see the differences. I already love my 21 and 18 Distagons, but the 15 is just stunning. Have never seen anything even coming close to that clarity. And I know both Nikkor 16-35 and 14-24 very well from my own work. I will sell my 18 and get the 15, even if it's the last operation in my life! :-) Put in links to your fantastic full size comparison shots between 15 & 16-35, Tim, and that will end all dicussions. :-)

Even a blind can see the differences. I already love my 21 and 18 Distagons, but the 15 is just stunning. Have never seen anything even coming close to that clarity. And I know both Nikkor 16-35 and 14-24 very well from my own work.

I will sell my 18 and get the 15, even if it’s the last operation in my life! :-)

]]> By: Lee Saxon http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/the-zeiss-15mm-f2-8-is-good/comment-page-1#comment-20291 Lee Saxon Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:44:01 +0000 http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=9873#comment-20291 Putting this thing on a D800E is priority #1. Putting this thing on a D800E is priority #1.

]]>