Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: thinking of 21mm distagon

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    218
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    thinking of 21mm distagon

    I have the 16-35. When I took some test shots I was a little disappointed in the corners. However when I actually took it out and used it I felt a bit better about it.

    However, I had a 21mm CY distagon on a 5D in the past and as I remember it, it was a bit better than the 16-35. There isn't much out there in terms of comparing the 16-35 to anything else because, I suppose, it can only be shot on a sony and most of the high powered testers don't shoot sony.

    I'm sure others, have shot both lenses as well. What are your observations? The advantage I see to the distagon is a bit less weight and a bit better resolution. The zoom of course has that zoom advantage but it is heavier and with the 21mm I could do the zooming with my feet if necessary.

    The zf (not the zf.2) looks like it would be a fairly easy conversion since the register on the nikon is a bit longer and there are no electronics. It looks like the lens flange sits on top of the aperture ring and is not essential to its functioning as it is on the cy models. They are available from B&H for 1,490 right now which means I would be out of pocket around 2-300 dollars depending on how much I could sell the 16-35 for.

    So what do those of you who have shot both think?

    Mike

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    218
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: thinking of 21mm distagon

    C'mon. somebody must have an opinion? Edward?

    Mike

  3. #3
    lightdreamer
    Guest

    Re: thinking of 21mm distagon

    I think you didn't gain much.The 16-35 is very good at 21mm,
    its weak point is the long end (35mm). The Zeiss is very, very
    sharp in center at 21mm and borders sharpen up very well by
    stopping down to f5.6.

    Best regards

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    363
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Unhappy Re: thinking of 21mm distagon

    Pending price movements, this one is earmarked for my future purchase plans IF Sony do nothing similar in native mount this next 6 months or so. They seem fixated on the ZA zooms to cover wide angles of view - the 24-70 is reportedly better than the 16-35 at the latter lens's long end; that is from Ed.

    The 21 Distagon is just the best thing, a legend that stands up fine to the big MP cameras also, and I doubt the 16-35 holds a candle to it for many or most measures of IQ; and if it is good enough for Nikon and Canon (ZF/ZE) why not Sony, which is currently the worst served of the 3 brands for CZ optics. Yes, you may be able to adapt but what a lot of hassle for such an expensive lens, to end up with stop down metering in M mode! And think of resale.

    Not helping you much, am I? I was happy to use Leitax for the 28/2.8 Distagon, but pricing issues get in the road of the MM 21/2.8 even though Leitax supports it - the lens still sells for too much from what I see around, even with the release of the newer and presumably at least as good ZE/ZF equsivalents. One guy over at Fred Miranda sold one for $1000, which is not bad for what you get.

    I would likely be interested but for that much I would like it made for my camera...KEH has one in EX at present for $1429 - EX is not LN for them, so that is far too much IMHO. Good luck with what you decide...

  5. #5
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: thinking of 21mm distagon

    Here's my take on this subject:

    The D21 while still probably the best wide angle out there, got all the hype from being tested and used on lower count pixel cameras. Now with 24.6 mp and counting, it does start to show its limits. I have never owned or used this lens, but based on many years of interest in Zeiss glass, I can say the 16-35 is not far behind on most of the frame, except in the corners where the performance really drops.

    Now the 16-35 being a native lens for the Sony, I see this as a big incentive to chose it over the hassles of adapting a ZF to Sony/Minolta mount and resulting consequences (stop-down metering, manual focus, loss of some functions... etc.)

    If this lens becomes available in ZA mount, whether AF or MF, I will buy it without hesitation.

    If one really needs the quality of the 21 with the convenience of a native mount, I would recommend to get a used Canon 5D or a 5D2 and get the ZE version. That is what I would have done. But in fact, the 16-35 and 24-70 are covering 99% of my needs, so I'm actually very satisfied with them, but as said, I would love to get the 21, and maybe a 24 or 35 f/1.4, in ZA mount, but that is more a matter of want rather than need.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •