Zeiss ZE 21mm f/2.8 ( & other Opinions on comparable lenses? )

V

vision_filmz

Carbonite Member
I'm looking to Rent a lens in the 17-30mm range and looking for the best possible one. As of now my choices are


Canon 16-35
Canon 17-55mm

or the

Zeiss 21mm

Obviously these are all different focal lengths but still very similar. If the Zeiss at 21mm is better than any other lens at that focal length than I would shoot my whole project with this lens and adjust my placement accordingly.

All of my shots are Medium shots to CLose Ups so the Only reason I would need something wider than a 21mm is if I wanted to fit more people into the frame. A Tokina 11-16 is a great lens for this, but not sure how it stacks up quality wise vs the Canons or the Zeiss.

I can always use the 21mm lens and just back up a couple of feet and I could achieve my shots then. I normally always shoot at 28mm fixed prime focal length but need something wider and thought the 21mm lens would be perfect.

If anyone has any suggestions on which is considered the best Ef/Efs lens in the 11-30mm range it would greatly be appreciated.

The slowest the lens could be is f/2.8


Thanks
 
I dont know that there is a lot in the area of lenses comparable to that Zeiss other than the Zeiss CP.2 lineup
 
David W. Jones said:
Curious why you choose to use a 21mm lens for shooting medium and close up shots?
Click to expand...

It is for a Music Video project. By me having a lens like this I am able to get on top of the artists and interact with them all in their face which gives me a better performance than recording at a distance with a longer lens.

Also all of this is handheld so the longer the lens the more difficult to stabilize. I can hand hold all the way up to 35mm like a maniac and move the camera how I want, but being on top of someone I need a wider lens.
 
I use my Tamron non-VC backed all the way up to 17mm @ 2.8 for stuff like this, but all of these options sound great, honestly.

Meanwhile, Vision_filmz, please post things like this in the appropriate section in the future, ok? I'm moving this one to the lens section for you.
 
M. Gilden said:
I use my Tamron non-VC backed all the way up to 17mm @ 2.8 for stuff like this, but all of these options sound great, honestly.

Meanwhile, Vision_filmz, please post things like this in the appropriate section in the future, ok? I'm moving this one to the lens section for you.
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples of the 17-50 lens? I really like looking at real world items instead of charts.
 
Vision....you do realize with that 21 mm up in there face its going to look a bit distorted...or have an ....interesting look :) That maybe a good or bad thing depending on the look you wanna get.

heres an example with the tamron 17-50mm non VC shot cinestyle with some adjustments. just a test. And its on the long end of the lens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZeSbcfHSxw
 
another example....but this is with the Tamron 17-50 VC version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqY-4gJAdRQ

shots at 00.33, 1.00, 1.31. 1.39

and another

VC version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k1L6U5MXoU

All these lenses to me are good enough...with these cams can cant resolve what these lenses are capable of its pretty even if you ask me. Now if its a lens character or look your going for then thats different. my supertak definately has its own look to it.
 
Last edited:
jambredz said:
Vision....you do realize with that 21 mm up in there face its going to look a bit distorted...or have an ....interesting look :) That maybe a good or bad thing depending on the look you wanna get.

heres an example with the tamron 17-50mm non VC shot cinestyle with some adjustments. just a test. And its on the long end of the lens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZeSbcfHSxw
Click to expand...

Thanks for the videos!! Also why do you like the non Vc version better than the Vc? Since you actually owned both lenses what is the real difference?


Secondly I use a 28mm prime and never really noticed distortion, maybe cause I like it???

Regardless as of now I cannot afford a $2K lens so I just thought it would be cool to shoot a project with one and see if it's worth it.
 
28mm doesnt look wierd...but when your going down to 21 and below and all up in their face it may start to look a bit weird. I forgot that you are renting....ohh...so by all means shoot with the best :) .

i prefer the non VC because i think its a sharper lens and also to my eye the lens is "cleaner". I dont really know how ot explain it...but i know its just like i wiped the VC glass with some kind of clearing fluid and it suddenly became cleaner to reveal the non VC version :) The sharpness isnt THAT big of a difference for video but its there especially wide open. I thought i needed VC so i got that in the start..but i didnt need it and all reports were the non vc was better...so i sold the VC and got the non vc. i'm glad i did.

edt: just saw your PM. the answer is above though.
 
jambredz said:
28mm doesnt look wierd...but when your going down to 21 and below and all up in their face it may start to look a bit weird. I forgot that you are renting....ohh...so by all means shoot with the best :) .

i prefer the non VC because i think its a sharper lens and also to my eye the lens is "cleaner". I dont really know how ot explain it...but i know its just like i wiped the VC glass with some kind of clearing fluid and it suddenly became cleaner to reveal the non VC version :) The sharpness isnt THAT big of a difference for video but its there especially wide open. I thought i needed VC so i got that in the start..but i didnt need it and all reports were the non vc was better...so i sold the VC and got the non vc. i'm glad i did.

edt: just saw your PM. the answer is above though.
Click to expand...


Ok Thanks , so 28mm is fine but lower than that faces can get distorted rite? I do remember one time using a tokina 11-16mm lens and did not like the way it looked all up close on peoples faces..... Also I have been doing some research on the kit lens (18-55mm) and it looks like at f/5.6 is when this lens is at it's sharpest. Very close to the Tamron, but any other aperture and the Tamron truly blows it out of the water.
 
well i guess it depends on how close you get the the subject. If u wanna see i can show you ...

this is a BTS video from a short film i DPed on...at 1.41 you'll see how distorted the tamron looks at 17mm...but i was truley all in her face..like right there. :) i love it cuz i was making fun of her (the director)...but it maybe not be what u want for that situation :)

http://vimeo.com/14474049
 
jambredz said:
well i guess it depends on how close you get the the subject. If u wanna see i can show you ...

this is a BTS video from a short film i DPed on...at 1.41 you'll see how distorted the tamron looks at 17mm...but i was truley all in her face..like right there. :) i love it cuz i was making fun of her (the director)...but it maybe not be what u want for that situation :)

http://vimeo.com/14474049
Click to expand...


That's exactly what I'm talking bout. I can honestly say at 28mm I have never noticed that weird effect.
 
+1 on the Leica 19mm f2.8. When I was shopping for wide angles way back in the day, I tested a bunch of them, including the Zeiss. The Leica was my favorite. The Zeiss was a very close second. Both were VERY VERY expensive, but I bit the bullet and bought the Leica, and I love it.

And agreed, the Tokina is a beautiful lens! You can never go wrong with that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top