Review: Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon

[eml58]

The Zeiss 15 is a wonderfully sharp Lens, I bought one a while back after seeing some of Sanj's Images with this Lens, love it, but. It's damn heavy, which you can live with, it's manual focus of course, again you can live with and I actually have grown to like Manual Focus Lenses again after buying this lens, but, what just seems dopy, is the non removable (without a lot of very scary effort) dumb assed Hood.

I eventually went and purchased the 17TSE (with the Wonderpana Filter Holder, so now I can use the 17 with all my Lee Filters, Yippee), now very seldom do I take the Zeiss out, I'de love to put the Zeiss 15 into my Underwater housing to replace the Canon 14f2.8 L II, but the dumb assed Hood precludes that. There isn't any doubt though that the Zeiss 15 is a much better Lens in all departments than the Canon 14, except for the dumb assed Hood.

 

[extremeinstability]

I just rented the Canon 14L II, Canon 24L II, Canon 16-35L II, Canon 17-40L for a day and sent them back yesterday. I wanted to test them against my Samyang 14 and 24 (and Zeiss 21 for that matter)to be sure what I'd gathered already from images I've got from renting the Canon 14L II and Canon 24L II before I had either of these. All I could do was compare different scenes. Now I have them all compared same time/scene at a lot of things. It's pretty interesting but I have a ton of work ahead to get it all online. And I haven't even had a chance to look at much yet. Samyangs of course smoke Canon in coma. They also smoke them in CA. The Samyang 14 really hands the Canon 14L II its ass in resolution. Except in center I guess they are similar. I've had two of those now from lens rentals which tests them before they send them out. It's really clear what the results are now. I haven't looked enough yet but I was getting the impression the Samyang 24 was going to actually best the Canon too. Of course the primes make the 16-35 and 17-40 both look like shit in the corners. Anyway figured I'd comment given the 14 Samyang comments. The vast majority of folks that get that lens seem to say the same thing, sharp sharp sharp. Even after one corrects the horrid ocean waves distortion.

 

[Canon 14-24]

When we are talking ultra-wide angle as in wider than 24mm, the best definitely is the 17mm TS-E. For interiors, architecture, etc. Plus, can still modify it to put graduated Lee/Cokin filters on it, unlike the 15mm with the fixed hood getting in the way. The 15mm doesn't even have the same color rendition as the 21mm zeiss and suffers in the corner sharpness, not to mention even with that so called "superb build" it still isn't weather sealed! The only thing going for it is the lower distortion, build, and zeiss naming. For zoom versatility, probably the Nikon 14-24.

 

[infared]

The Zeiss 15 is a wonderfully sharp Lens, I bought one a while back after seeing some of Sanj's Images with this Lens, love it, but. It's damn heavy, which you can live with, it's manual focus of course, again you can live with and I actually have grown to like Manual Focus Lenses again after buying this lens, but, what just seems dopy, is the non removable (without a lot of very scary effort) dumb assed Hood.

I eventually went and purchased the 17TSE (with the Wonderpana Filter Holder, so now I can use the 17 with all my Lee Filters, Yippee), now very seldom do I take the Zeiss out, I'de love to put the Zeiss 15 into my Underwater housing to replace the Canon 14f2.8 L II, but the dumb assed Hood precludes that. There isn't any doubt though that the Zeiss 15 is a much better Lens in all departments than the Canon 14, except for the dumb assed Hood.

LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!

 

[mrsfotografie]

3K lens!!!! I will just stick with my $300 Samyang 14mm.

+1

 

[eml58]

LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!

The attached is the "Dumb assed end"

I must admit I didn't research enough before I purchased, the Images from this Lens are 2nd to none among my ultra WA lenses, of which I own several, Canon 14f/2.8L II, Canon 8-15f/4, canon 17TSE, 14-24f/2.8 Nikon, Canon 15f/2.8.

With the exception of the 17TSE, all my WA lenses are purchased first for Underwater WA, secondary function, Landscape, but I sort of suck at Landscape.

I just couldn't imagine anyone handicapping a Lens by having a fixed Lens Hood like the Zeiss 15, in my view, "Dumb Assed".

And, after trying several Circular Polariser Filters it wasn't until I found the Heliopan Slim that I found a Polariser that didn't cause Vignetting, but that Heliopan cost $500 bucks.

So, amazingly sharp, beautiful contrast, smoothest Manual Focussing system I've experienced, but a dumb assed Lens Hood system.

Yes, as has been shown by others you can remove it, but after laying out 3k for a Lens anyone that brings a spanner or a screwdriver within 3 metres of this Lens while on my Camera, is a dead man, or women.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!

The attached is the "Dumb assed end"

I must admit I didn't research enough before I purchased, the Images from this Lens are 2nd to none among my ultra WA lenses, of which I own several, Canon 14f/2.8L II, Canon 8-15f/4, canon 17TSE, 14-24f/2.8 Nikon, Canon 15f/2.8.

With the exception of the 17TSE, all my WA lenses are purchased first for Underwater WA, secondary function, Landscape, but I sort of suck at Landscape.

I just couldn't imagine anyone handicapping a Lens by having a fixed Lens Hood like the Zeiss 15, in my view, "Dumb Assed".

And, after trying several Circular Polariser Filters it wasn't until I found the Heliopan Slim that I found a Polariser that didn't cause Vignetting, but that Heliopan cost $500 bucks.

So, amazingly sharp, beautiful contrast, smoothest Manual Focussing system I've experienced, but a dumb assed Lens Hood system.

Yes, as has been shown by others you can remove it, but after laying out 3k for a Lens anyone that brings a spanner or a screwdriver within 3 metres of this Lens while on my Camera, is a dead man, or women.

This post cracked me up.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

One that TDP forgets to mention is the Samyang 14mm for $300! Lots of distortion but barely any CA and really quite sharp indeed (other than sometimes with fine details against bright white clouds), sometimes even sharper than well known L lenses.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I've seen images with it, he resolution is so much better than any competition. I had a Samyang 14mm "coke bottle", it was the worst lens I've ever owned. I sent it right back.

You must be talking the original version the samyang or have gotten a dropped copy.
I will say it with a straight face, my samyang 14mm is crisper than most of my L lenses under many circumstances. (tons of distortion though)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Personally I'd rather go 17mm T&S for the T&S ability or Nikon 14-24 for the flexibility or Samayng to have enough money left to buy an A7R (and a samyang + a7r will deliver a more total detail than this zeiss on a 22MP 5D3 camera I'd bet) especially since I personally don't shoot ultra-wide often enough to easily justify zeiss money.

 

[Zv]

One that TDP forgets to mention is the Samyang 14mm for $300! Lots of distortion but barely any CA and really quite sharp indeed (other than sometimes with fine details against bright white clouds), sometimes even sharper than well known L lenses.

I've ordered my copy of this (again) hopefully I'll be able to test it out on Monday. For ¥28,000 (less than 300 bucks) I don't really expect much other than the ability to shoot at 14mm (and have a little fun in the bargain!)

I have no interest in this Zeiss lens however. TDP even mentions the Zeiss some has coma, not ideal for stars. I heard the Samyang has one up in this regard.

 

[sanj]

The Zeiss 15 is a wonderfully sharp Lens, I bought one a while back after seeing some of Sanj's Images with this Lens, love it, but. It's damn heavy, which you can live with, it's manual focus of course, again you can live with and I actually have grown to like Manual Focus Lenses again after buying this lens, but, what just seems dopy, is the non removable (without a lot of very scary effort) dumb assed Hood.

I eventually went and purchased the 17TSE (with the Wonderpana Filter Holder, so now I can use the 17 with all my Lee Filters, Yippee), now very seldom do I take the Zeiss out, I'de love to put the Zeiss 15 into my Underwater housing to replace the Canon 14f2.8 L II, but the dumb assed Hood precludes that. There isn't any doubt though that the Zeiss 15 is a much better Lens in all departments than the Canon 14, except for the dumb assed Hood.

Yeah I know about the lens hood. I was recently shooting underwater and just asked the producer to arrange for the housing, assuming the 5d3 and the Zeiss would fit. But it did not and we all had to wait for the rental house to send the Canon 14mm...

 

[Mr Bean]

I have no interest in this Zeiss lens however. TDP even mentions the Zeiss some has coma, not ideal for stars. I heard the Samyang has one up in this regard.

Actually, the Zeiss has very little coma, except in the extreme corners. Even then, it's not much. That's the main reason I bought the Zeiss (for star pics), after hiring and testing a couple of other lenses (a Canon 24mm f1.4 and a Zeiss 21mm). Plus the hard infinity stop makes distance shooting easy, day or night.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I have no interest in this Zeiss lens however. TDP even mentions the Zeiss some has coma, not ideal for stars. I heard the Samyang has one up in this regard.

Actually, the Zeiss has very little coma, except in the extreme corners. Even then, it's not much. That's the main reason I bought the Zeiss (for star pics), after hiring and testing a couple of other lenses (a Canon 24mm f1.4 and a Zeiss 21mm). Plus the hard infinity stop makes distance shooting easy, day or night.

Hard infinity stop is definitely an advantage over the Samyang. It hasn't hindered me, as I know where to focus to, but having more accuracy in the focus ring/distance meter would be a pleasant change.

 

[tron]

I have no interest in this Zeiss lens however. TDP even mentions the Zeiss some has coma, not ideal for stars. I heard the Samyang has one up in this regard.

Actually, the Zeiss has very little coma, except in the extreme corners. Even then, it's not much. That's the main reason I bought the Zeiss (for star pics), after hiring and testing a couple of other lenses (a Canon 24mm f1.4 and a Zeiss 21mm). Plus the hard infinity stop makes distance shooting easy, day or night.

I strongly suggest the following 2 links for people who want to check coma.

Comments like no coma or not much coma are next to useless if someone thinks about buying this lens for astrophotography. It is not a 400$ lens...

http://www.trichardsen.com/blog/zeiss-15mm-f28-distagon-review

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-15mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx

Also quoting Brian from TDP:

An interesting image quality note is that my Canon EF 14mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens produces images 1/2 to 2/3 stops brighter than the ZE 15 using identical settings under a clear sky.

 

[NWPhil]

LOL!!! (Once again....What kind of hood do you have on that $3000 lens?). Funny post!

The attached is the "Dumb assed end"

I must admit I didn't research enough before I purchased, the Images from this Lens are 2nd to none among my ultra WA lenses, of which I own several, Canon 14f/2.8L II, Canon 8-15f/4, canon 17TSE, 14-24f/2.8 Nikon, Canon 15f/2.8.

With the exception of the 17TSE, all my WA lenses are purchased first for Underwater WA, secondary function, Landscape, but I sort of suck at Landscape.

I just couldn't imagine anyone handicapping a Lens by having a fixed Lens Hood like the Zeiss 15, in my view, "Dumb Assed".

And, after trying several Circular Polariser Filters it wasn't until I found the Heliopan Slim that I found a Polariser that didn't cause Vignetting, but that Heliopan cost $500 bucks.

So, amazingly sharp, beautiful contrast, smoothest Manual Focussing system I've experienced, but a dumb assed Lens Hood system.

Yes, as has been shown by others you can remove it, but after laying out 3k for a Lens anyone that brings a spanner or a screwdriver within 3 metres of this Lens while on my Camera, is a dead man, or women.

Marumi filters - there is an old test on the web placing a Marumi filter on the top 3 or 5
Not all are good, but neither are the B+H

Indeed - there is more than small distortion, less flare, more contrast and richer rendition, smoother bokeh, and flawless construction .... the major flaw is indeed the price,
Cought it up or take some cough medicine
Is not for everyone, regarding needs or wallet. Surely is for anyone taking no compromises and wanting the best available.
People complain so much about super UWA and WA prices, but I see way far less complaints with fast super-teles pricing (other than not being able to afford them, as indeed they are at least twice the zeiss 15 price).
Extreme lenses are difficult to build and take a lot of R&D money

(Yes, I have a super-sharp Samyang, TS-e 17 and even tried the 14mm II and Nikon 12-24)