Zeiss is next!

The 17 and the 21 ZE appear to be the closest for color. But for way less money and they look practically identical in quality it seems the zeiss would be my pick.
 
See I would say the 17 is worth it to have movements, but it all depends on what you plan on shooting. Plus cropping the edges off the frame to make a standard print would give you a 21mmish size wide print. :D
 
Movements? The tilt/shift part of a lens has no appeal to me, however I've never used one. Still for about $1000 less and equal or better quality it looks like the zeiss will be in my bag next.
 
Being able to tilt forward to increase DOF at f11 before diffraction sets in to get the same DOF as f22-32 is a big deal. Not to mention stitching is much easier when shifting the lens to make a huge file for printing.

You could rent before spending any money on one just to make sure. :D
 
Oh, I wasn't sure what the purpose was. I never shoot that small of an aperture or stitch images anyhow. Maybe just depends on the user.
 
Anything outdoors that fits the lens I suppose. I just want a lens to walk around with (prime). I'm more leaning toward the 35 for this purpose. But then again I already have that range covered.
 
I am very interested on getting your opioion of this lens on a crop sensor, seems like most people shoot with this lens on a full frame, will it be a waste to spend $1500 if vegnetting is a big issue on my D300.
 
If it's a full frame lens, it's not likely to vignette on a crop body. The full-frame image circle is considerably larger than your sensor.
 
For a long time I agonized about getting the 35 f/2 distagon for Nikon mount.. it's sharp, bold and super vivid! I just couldn't fork out the 800 bucks for a MF lens.
 
Back
Top