The out of focus has this immense quality where it is not color fringed, very intelligible, smooth, this is the ideal to make Rambrandt images close to a window while still retaining the room the subject is in. I am renting this lens for a shooting indoor, I hope I am right.
Thank you. I had a Nikon 20mmF4.0 but had some problem with fore ground sharpness. So I sold it and got a Zeiss 18mm F3.5, But I used it on a D300, APS-C camera and I will start using it on a D700/D800E. Is selected the wider lens to get a better sharpnes in the near field. Later I read that there were some problem with the 21mm. If I need to upgrade I will get a Milvus 18mm or 15mm lens but I think the18mm is a better lens from your test results..
No Maxim, I don't. I feel that the Tamron 15-30 represents the best bang for the buck, but it is also a much larger and heavier lens than this. I review 20 or so lenses a year; I obviously don't add all of them to my own kit (couldn't afford that!)
Hi Dustin. I currently shoot with a Nikon Z6 and I have the Zeiss 35mm f/2 zf.2, 50mm f/2 macro zf.2 and 100mm f/2 zf.2 lenses and wanted to purchase a wider focal length. Would you suggest getting the 21mm f/2.8 zf.2 or the 15mm f2.8 zf.2 lens?
They are both good lenses, though I do think the 15mm has slightly more punch. If you want to used filters, the 21mm is the better choice. I would choose based on your priority for focal length.
I apologize for coming into this so late. Would this lens make a good astro photography lens? Any ideas on how the coma is? Thanks for the great reviews!
Great review.. I just coul not find nowhere on internet how this lens make sunstars? If something crisp as a canon 16-35 2,8 II? Would you recomend this for astro?
+Peter Futo The 16-35 f/2.8L makes really nice sunstars. I don't know if this lens is as good. It is a bit better for astro than the Canon, but not as good as Zeiss 2.5/15mm or the new Tamron 15-30 VC.
+Peter Futo Peter, I do recognize that traditional filters are a big deal, but the Tamron is an amazing lens. I'm about to review an add on filter system shortly for it. This Zeiss lens isn't terrible for astro, though, it just isn't as good as the 15mm.
+Dustin Abbott Yes that review would be cool.Test some longer exposures,if there is not light leak or anything.I like long exposures a lot ,so for me it is very important. 1x.com/member/peterfuto The thing is with Tamron i already have quite good collection expensive ND filters 100x100.With that adapter you probably gonna test I have to use 150x150 glasses which are hell of expensive, specially when i already have some.So Zeiss would be cool if could be good for astro, landscapes plus some architecture with my filters.Is shame that Canon 16-35 f4 is not 2,8 seems has amazing sharp corners fully open and almost no coma.But a bit too slow... :)
Dustin, I am planning to get this lens, yet, I wonder why some of the images really don't look sharp, take the one with the house? It doesn't look really sharp, mac user here, Imac 21 inches, I guess it's not my screen, could you let me know about that issue before I get it ? As usual, thank you, and best regards from Uruguay.
My screen grab software at the time I did this video doesn't reproduce very sharply. I recommend that you look at the actual images at my written review to see if they are sharp enough for you: bit.ly/1DpXzNN. This is a very sharp lens.
Hi Dustin, well , in Spain right now, so I took advantage of an offer I found for a 35 mm, of the same brand! I am learning how to use it, as I never had one of the only manual lenses, but I am in love with the colors it has, I have used it in the streets, as I first had to test the lens and check if it was a good one or had too much used, but till now I am really happy with it. The cost was not that cheap , 650 usd, but the lens is my first Zeiss for my canon, in fact hehe I finally invested in the lens and not the ff body... (being nature my first subject) I am slowly getting to portraits... but even with flowers, or landscapes the lens takes gorgeous images. I find it kind of smooth, and perhaps my description sounds odd, but the portraits I took were "warm", vivid, yet, with something special, a soft look that I really loved... All in all, thank you, cause it was due to you that I finally bought this copy of a Zeiss lens!
Dustin I had to view again the video to realize that's there is actually a dead person in there while you are talking about colors and saturation lol you are really passioned my friend... By the way I own the Zeiss and I couldn't agree more. Great review.
This lens gets a pretty poor review with regard to sharpness according to DXOMark (around 19 or so with high MPx FF bodies). However, their scores never seem to translate to real world experience IMHO. Are others reporting sharpness issues with this lens? And if I may say so, the Kodak instamatic image quality of this upload cannot remotely do justice to this lens.
Hey Dustin, great review. But something seems to be wrong with your screen grab here. It is very pixelated.
The out of focus has this immense quality where it is not color fringed, very intelligible, smooth, this is the ideal to make Rambrandt images close to a window while still retaining the room the subject is in. I am renting this lens for a shooting indoor, I hope I am right.
Enjoy. It's a beautiful lens.
+Simon Labuhn - that is probably the nature of the screen grab software. It isn't a high end program.
What filter do you recommend for stopping down with this lens. And do you have a list for best filters to complement the other Zeiss milvus lenses?
Thank you. I had a Nikon 20mmF4.0 but had some problem with fore ground sharpness. So I sold it and got a Zeiss 18mm F3.5, But I used it on a D300, APS-C camera and I will start using it on a D700/D800E. Is selected the wider lens to get a better sharpnes in the near field. Later I read that there were some problem with the 21mm. If I need to upgrade I will get a Milvus 18mm or 15mm lens but I think the18mm is a better lens from your test results..
I would say the 15mm is perhaps better optically, but you are dealing with a much bigger lens.
Review the zeiss 135mm f/2 next please! I've heard it performs as good as the zeiss otus, at half the price! :-)
So Dustin, do you choose this over your new Tamron 15-30mm zoom?
No Maxim, I don't. I feel that the Tamron 15-30 represents the best bang for the buck, but it is also a much larger and heavier lens than this. I review 20 or so lenses a year; I obviously don't add all of them to my own kit (couldn't afford that!)
Hi Dustin. I currently shoot with a Nikon Z6 and I have the Zeiss 35mm f/2 zf.2, 50mm f/2 macro zf.2 and 100mm f/2 zf.2 lenses and wanted to purchase a wider focal length. Would you suggest getting the 21mm f/2.8 zf.2 or the 15mm f2.8 zf.2 lens?
They are both good lenses, though I do think the 15mm has slightly more punch. If you want to used filters, the 21mm is the better choice. I would choose based on your priority for focal length.
@@DustinAbbottTWI thanks for your reply and advice. I plan to eventually get both lenses. I think I'll work on getting the 15mm first.
I apologize for coming into this so late. Would this lens make a good astro photography lens? Any ideas on how the coma is?
Thanks for the great reviews!
The coma is okay, but not as good as the 15mm
Great review.. I just coul not find nowhere on internet how this lens make sunstars? If something crisp as a canon 16-35 2,8 II? Would you recomend this for astro?
+Peter Futo The 16-35 f/2.8L makes really nice sunstars. I don't know if this lens is as good. It is a bit better for astro than the Canon, but not as good as Zeiss 2.5/15mm or the new Tamron 15-30 VC.
Zeiss 3000 dollars..Tamron is massive plus no filters..Thinking,thinking...:)Thanks for answear..
+Peter Futo Peter, I do recognize that traditional filters are a big deal, but the Tamron is an amazing lens. I'm about to review an add on filter system shortly for it. This Zeiss lens isn't terrible for astro, though, it just isn't as good as the 15mm.
+Dustin Abbott Yes that review would be cool.Test some longer exposures,if there is not light leak or anything.I like long exposures a lot ,so for me it is very important. 1x.com/member/peterfuto
The thing is with Tamron i already have quite good collection expensive ND filters 100x100.With that adapter you probably gonna test I have to use 150x150 glasses which are hell of expensive, specially when i already have some.So Zeiss would be cool if could be good for astro, landscapes plus some architecture with my filters.Is shame that Canon 16-35 f4 is not 2,8 seems has amazing sharp corners fully open and almost no coma.But a bit too slow... :)
Dustin, I am planning to get this lens, yet, I wonder why some of the images really don't look sharp, take the one with the house? It doesn't look really sharp, mac user here, Imac 21 inches, I guess it's not my screen, could you let me know about that issue before I get it ? As usual, thank you, and best regards from Uruguay.
My screen grab software at the time I did this video doesn't reproduce very sharply. I recommend that you look at the actual images at my written review to see if they are sharp enough for you: bit.ly/1DpXzNN. This is a very sharp lens.
Hi Dustin, well , in Spain right now, so I took advantage of an offer I found for a 35 mm, of the same brand! I am learning how to use it, as I never had one of the only manual lenses, but I am in love with the colors it has, I have used it in the streets, as I first had to test the lens and check if it was a good one or had too much used, but till now I am really happy with it. The cost was not that cheap , 650 usd, but the lens is my first Zeiss for my canon, in fact hehe I finally invested in the lens and not the ff body... (being nature my first subject) I am slowly getting to portraits... but even with flowers, or landscapes the lens takes gorgeous images. I find it kind of smooth, and perhaps my description sounds odd, but the portraits I took were "warm", vivid, yet, with something special, a soft look that I really loved... All in all, thank you, cause it was due to you that I finally bought this copy of a Zeiss lens!
Daniela Argandoña
That sounds like a Zeiss. They do have really special rendering.
hi dustin, would you know how does this lens compare with the Voigtlander 21mm Nokton?
The 21mm is not particularly sharp at wide apertures, though it has beautiful colors.
Dustin I had to view again the video to realize that's there is actually a dead person in there while you are talking about colors and saturation lol you are really passioned my friend... By the way I own the Zeiss and I couldn't agree more. Great review.
I was hired to shoot the event and it does give you a real sense of using the lens in a event setting. Nothing morbid intended.
Zeiss 18mm f3.5 or zeiss 21mm f/2.8 distagon, which one do you recommend?
I like the 21mm a bit better.
Did u tested the Zeiss distagon 28mm 2.8? Would you recommend ?,
I'm afraid I haven't tested it.
This lens gets a pretty poor review with regard to sharpness according to DXOMark (around 19 or so with high MPx FF bodies). However, their scores never seem to translate to real world experience IMHO. Are others reporting sharpness issues with this lens? And if I may say so, the Kodak instamatic image quality of this upload cannot remotely do justice to this lens.
Frankly there seems to be a certain randomness to DXO's results that do not reconcile with my findings on a regular basis.
I think DxO scores are based on close targets, that's why wide-angle lenses often have "poor" scores, they're not really made for close subjects.
No Astro test? Corner coma ?
Check the text review linked to in the description.
Sorry, but on the video it is NOT sharp and this doesn't do 'hommage' to the lens!!?
Patrick GEVAERT See comment below.
Kauf dir mal eine Brille. Die Photos sind alle unscharf
Good info but isn't it a tad crass to test a lens at a funeral?
Michael Hickey I understand your point, but I was there by request.
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L VS Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21mm
Is there a question here?
@@DustinAbbottTWI yes make a video on my first comment........ Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L VS canon 50 mm
plz
Hi, that’s not going to happen. There isn’t even a focal length overlap and both of these are now legacy lensss
@@DustinAbbottTWIok but tell me what lens is best for click pictures in wedding
plzzzzz
Bad review! Come on!