NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on April 14, 2018, 04:01:07
-
Very happy to have picked up this "legendary lens"—at $644 below the price of the new iteration (the Milvus).
There is essentially nothing different about the Milvus, except the new shape and a rubber focus ring replacing the Distagon's metal one :o
I prefer the Distagon 8)
- (http://johnkoerner.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/zeiss21.png)
Interestingly, of all the 20mm lenses available (including Nikkor, Sigma Art, and Leica), the Distagon/Milvus remain the best (made in 2008/2015, respectively).
I just picked up the last brand new Distagon version that a western vendor had available ... for $1,200 (used ones go from $999 to $1,100) 8)
Take a look at how the decade-old 2008 legendary Zeiss Distagon compares to today's modern marvels, including its revamped 'Milvus' brother (remember contrast is what gives the 3D 'pop'):
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/04-18/Zeiss21mm.jpg)
The above is from LenScore ... showing the decade-old Zeiss still to be better than anything but its own newer version.
However, that said, here is how I rate lenses:
(http://nikongear.online/examples/2018/04-18/20-21 Comparisonb.jpg)
As you can see, the Leica actually has the most advantages (according to my specs) while ranking slightly behind the Zeisses in image quality.
(These comparisons warrant scrutiny ... a "quick look and an opinion" will generally not work well.)
Anyway, I am glad to have just taken delivery of the Distagon f/2.8 21mm lens. It is first class in both fit-and-feel.
The truth is, all of these are excellent in their own way (except the Sony, which blatantly sucks).
There are many charts and graphs that can help you decide "which" of a multitude of available options is right for you, based on the categories, which are important to you.
For me, as a "lens investor," build quality and image quality are paramount ... after which reproduction ratio, min. foc. dist., and weight become important addenda.
No 'one' lens is better at 'everything.'
Based on 'my' criteria, the the Sigma Art 20mm is actually a sucky-lens at this focal length, esp. for nature photography, with not a single distinguishably-excellent feature, in ANY category, compared to its peer.
Meanwhile, the Zeiss 21mm Distagon is tied for best build quality (with Leica), is a close second in image quality, while having the best contrast, the second-best reproduction ratio, and is "right there" with its true peers (Milvus/Leica) in image quality, while being cheaper than both.
Too much information? Probably.
Bored on a Friday? Most certainly.
Still, I will be posting images on here, as time/locale permit, and vacations are coming soon 8)
But I would be delighted to see others share their images taken with this truly great lens also :D
Jack
-
BTW, I have also tried this lens, reversed (and it took 4 adapters to make that possibe ;D )
It acts as a 3.9x macro lens ... and performs flawlessly.
I will compare it (@ ~4x) with the Laowa 25mm f/2.8 2.5-5x Ultra Macro (https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-25mm-f-2-8-2-5-5x-ultra-macro-2) at the same (~4x) magnification.
-
How is it at f/1.8?
-
I've had a copy of this lens since it became available for purchase in (I think) 2009. It has been a reliable lens that never destroys a shot because of some unexpected optical failing, and is useful, within reason, at every aperture...as a 'pro lens' should be.
On some cameras, it will on rare occasions produce a pale cyan color shift at the periphery of the 24x36 image(D3 and D800).
-
How is it at f/1.8?
I've not tried it at all yet.
That said, the Zeiss is about as good at f/1.8 as the Sigma is at 8" up close, nearing a 1:4 repro ratio.
Being a MF lens, the Zeiss is even better than the Sigma at being reversed ... while retaining full aperture control ... which are characteristics important to me ;)
The Zeiss will also retain far greater re-sale value over the years ... over a heavy, plasticky "electronic device" 8)
In all seriousness, making grids/tables like this helps us all evaluate lenses in our own way, placing hierarchical importance to "us," based on our own unique needs.
-
I've had a copy of this lens since it became available for purchase in (I think) 2009. It has been a reliable lens that never destroys a shot because of some unexpected optical failing, and is useful, within reason, at every aperture...as a 'pro lens' should be.
On some cameras, it will on rare occasions produce a pale cyan color shift at the periphery of the 24x36 image(D3 and D800).
Nice to hear.
I plan on taking some trips this year, beginning the end of the month 8)
I have equipped myself with some good Zeiss wide primes (15mm, 21mm, 25mm) for landscape shots, the macros I want, as well as my "lightweight wildlife lens" ...
Hoping for some good, reliable results for the new season.
-
There is no wide Zeiss f1.8 on the market. There is no Nikon 20 f2.8G on the market. ERR TO REALITY! LZ
-
There is no wide Zeiss f1.8 on the market. There is no Nikon 20 f2.8G on the market. ERR TO REALITY! LZ
Nowhere do I say there is a Zeiss 21 f/1.8. (If you're not perceptive enough to see I was playing into Jack's sarcasm, that's a reality check for you.)
I do see I made a 'typo' on the Nikkor 20 f/1.8G, however, which I will correct.
-
Reality check for you will be at the moment you will stop try to belittle people who has a different opinion or their experience vary from your own one. Always remember that on the public field!
-
Reality check for you will be at the moment you will stop try to belittle people who has a different opinion or their experience vary from your own one. Always remember that on the public field!
Whom did I belittle? My intent here was to post about a very nice time to buy a really good 21mm prime.
I took a lot of time to post (what I thought were) interesting comparisons among the leading primes in this class.
Jack is the one who came here with the intent to write a sarcastic one-liner, and I 'played along' and responded in sarcasm, but there was no malice in what I wrote. I even ended with,
- "In all seriousness, making grids/tables like this helps us all evaluate lenses in our own way, placing hierarchical importance to "us," based on our own unique needs."
Read what I wrote slowly, so you actually grasp it.
The irony (hypocrisy) is, the only person who came here with the sole intent to directly "belittle" another person was you ... so you might want to recite your last post in the mirror.
-
Clear demagogue! You should re-read you own posts! You are not the one to lecture me or anybody else, without permission or direct question! Opinions, yes, why not, but watch your language and style!
-
Clear demagogue! You should re-read you own posts! You are not the one to lecture me or anybody else, without permission or direct question! Opinions, yes, why not, but watch your language and style!
Why are you so offended when you were not involved?
Even better, before 'you' scream admonishments at another, why don't you first practice what you preach?
-
Hmmm... Weird.... But enough said. Hope you learned something. Sorry, if it doesn't. Happy shooting! LZ
-
Hmmm... Weird.... But enough said. Hope you learned something. Sorry, if it doesn't. Happy shooting! LZ
I'll just refrain :-X
-
the Zeiss 21/2.8 has severe mustache distortion if I remember correctly.. i seem to recall a shot with waves in the rails on train tracks.. this is why i skipped over this zeiss... i think it doesn't control flare well also
-
found it... i didn't take this but it is famous.
-
Whom did I belittle? My intent here was to post about a very nice time to buy a really good 21mm prime.
I took a lot of time to post (what I thought were) interesting comparisons among the leading primes in this class.
Jack is the one who came here with the intent to write a sarcastic one-liner, and I 'played along' and responded in sarcasm, but there was no malice in what I wrote. I even ended with,
- "In all seriousness, making grids/tables like this helps us all evaluate lenses in our own way, placing hierarchical importance to "us," based on our own unique needs."
Read what I wrote slowly, so you actually grasp it.
The irony (hypocrisy) is, the only person who came here with the sole intent to directly "belittle" another person was you ... so you might want to recite your last post in the mirror.
Jack, I did not intend to be sarcastic. I was merely pointing out that max aperture is important to people too. If I were choosing from that list the Nikon would be my first or second choice.
I believe that LZ took the words “if you are not perceptive enough to see...” as belittling.
The enthusiasm and effort you put into your posts is admirable, but sometimes it comes across as antagonistic. Maybe I suffer from that too so I am sensitive to it when I see it. Certainly something to be careful of in a forum like this.
-
Two posts of mine where this awesome lens was used:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6320.0.html
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6314.0.html
-
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6314.0.html
i believe you can see the distortion in the roof line?.. am i mistaken?
-
The ACR/Lightroom canned profile for this lens does an OK...meaning not perfect but adequate for most purposes...job of correcting the wave distortion. In theory, one could make a more perfect correction profile if desired. Note: I shoot a lot of older buildings in the L.A. area, and often the building surfaces and lines sag and shift over time, and are no longer square and straight.
-
AF has its uses, too, of course, although it is not essential in every situation (especially at 20/21mm...) and not everyone really cares. But I find it useful. Even when on a tripod with static subjects, it is nice to have Live View do the focusing for me (just by touching the screen with the D850!). I find it both accurate and fast. It also works well even when the scene is dark or the light is very bright making the LCD screen had to work with.
And I have just started to generate focus stacks with the D850, which it does very quickly and easily with its focus shift feature.
Personally, I love my 20mm f/1.8G and find it VERY hard to leave behind. I have reversed lenses a few times, but it's not really my thing. The big front end of the 21mm seems a little awkward for that purpose, but reversing lenses is awkward to begin with (at least to me).
I don't mind MF lenses, but I tend to like them if they are small or otherwise special. I do have a Voigtlander 40mm f/2 (small!) that I really, really like. And the 105mm f/2.5 AI, naturally (small and special). I also have an 85mm PC-E that is wonderful (special!). And I plan to save up for the 19mm PC-E, too (special!).
But I will add that at least it the 21mm focuses the right direction! I don't even like my AF lenses to manually focus the wrong (i.e., anti-Nikon) direction, which is one thing that sours me on Sigmas and most other third-party lenses.
Just some thoughts.
Jim
-
yeah.... reasonable ACR correction....
-
i believe you can see the distortion in the roof line?.. am i mistaken?
This is a very old building and that roof is not straight because of age, not the lens.
-
This is a very old building and that roof is not straight because of age, not the lens.
ok.. my mistake
-
Jack, I did not intend to be sarcastic. I was merely pointing out that max aperture is important to people too. If I were choosing from that list the Nikon would be my first or second choice.
It was sarcastic, Jack.
If you would have only meant to point out "that max aperture is important to people too," that's the way you would have said it ;)
Instead, you chose to illustrate your point with a rhetorical, sarcastic question ... which is okay ... I just played it back.
I was totally cool with it, still am :)
.....
No comment on that individual. His tone came first as well, but wasn't in the same spirit as yours, and he completely missed the fact I was joking with you.
..... The enthusiasm and effort you put into your posts is admirable, but sometimes it comes across as antagonistic. Maybe I suffer from that too so I am sensitive to it when I see it.
Certainly something to be careful of in a forum like this.
We all can be sarcastic at times ... as well as over-zealous.
For this reason, it's just as important to be able to realize sometimes a person's sarcastic comments are sometimes made in fun ... or to illustrate a point (as you did) ... and not get too upset over them.
It's also important to finally "let it go," and move back on topic, so we don't derail would could be a good discussion :D
-
Two posts of mine where this awesome lens was used:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6320.0.html
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,6314.0.html
Very nice ... I seem to be following your taste in lenses :)
-
the Zeiss 21/2.8 has severe mustache distortion if I remember correctly.. i seem to recall a shot with waves in the rails on train tracks.. this is why i skipped over this zeiss... i think it doesn't control flare well also
It's true.
I have been following this lens for about 10 years. The mustache distortion held me back as well.
One thing I am beginning to notice is that the best thing anyone can do is stop "reading opinions," and start seeing for oneself.
he more I stop reading reviews, and follow my eyes (other people's images), and especially the more I see for myself, the more I realize all lenses have strengths and weaknesses.
Once you understand where not to use a lens (say, architecture for this one), and where the lens really shines, the better results you'll get.
The key is to determine how any given lens will augment, or detract from, your own personal work.
Even technically 'perfect' lenses (like the Otii) have price, weight, lack of reproduction ratio, etc. as drawbacks that take away from certain applications.
It's like the Zeiss 25mm f/2.8 ... lots of detractors, mostly those who read charts, but never actually used the lens.
(The classic example was Diglloyd lambasting the Zeiss 25mm f/2.8, based on his 'desk review,' and doing a complete turnaround, to sing its praises, after using it the field.)
Back to the 21mm ...
I have seen some terrific images from many photographers who actually own/use the lens. Since I've always been curious, I figured I would buy and actually own/use the lens myself.
By purchasing the lens to 'see for myself,' this will enable me to render the best opinion anyone could possibly give me for how it would adapt to my work, and that is my own ;D
-
One thing I am beginning to notice is that the best thing anyone can do is stop "reading opinions," and start seeing for oneself.
he more I stop reading reviews, and follow my eyes (other people's images), and especially the more I see for myself, the more I realize all lenses have strengths and weaknesses.
i actually bought this lens years ago from B&H and sent it back.... basically you can never have too many lenses.. i just need to cherry pick due to cost.
-
AF has its uses, too, of course, although it is not essential in every situation (especially at 20/21mm...) and not everyone really cares. But I find it useful. Even when on a tripod with static subjects, it is nice to have Live View do the focusing for me (just by touching the screen with the D850!). I find it both accurate and fast. It also works well even when the scene is dark or the light is very bright making the LCD screen had to work with.
Good point, Jim.
We all have different hot buttons ... I prefer MF myself ... blowing-up the LCD and manually-focusing the details. Makes me feel "I" am more involved in the process.
And I have just started to generate focus stacks with the D850, which it does very quickly and easily with its focus shift feature.
I've yet to try this. It may force me to do a complete turnaround in both method and lens preferences :)
Personally, I love my 20mm f/1.8G and find it VERY hard to leave behind. I have reversed lenses a few times, but it's not really my thing. The big front end of the 21mm seems a little awkward for that purpose, but reversing lenses is awkward to begin with (at least to me).
It is a little awkward (4 rings needed), but it works well. Once in place, it seems to offer a HUGE working distance compared to other 4:1 options.
I'll post some photos eventually, and I will also compare the working distance to other options.
I don't mind MF lenses, but I tend to like them if they are small or otherwise special. I do have a Voigtlander 40mm f/2 (small!) that I really, really like. And the 105mm f/2.5 AI, naturally (small and special). I also have an 85mm PC-E that is wonderful (special!). And I plan to save up for the 19mm PC-E, too (special!).
Yep. If a person actually reads the charts, the Leica is the all-around most useful, lightest weight, etc. If it wasn't $2,800, I might have opted for it though.
What's special for the Zeiss 21, however, is the micro-contrast, where all the tiny details are retained. It's what gives the "3d effect" Zeisses are known for ... and, this one supposedly is the summit for this class. We'll see.
But I will add that at least it the 21mm focuses the right direction! I don't even like my AF lenses to manually focus the wrong (i.e., anti-Nikon) direction, which is one thing that sours me on Sigmas and most other third-party lenses.
Just some thoughts.
Jim
We all have our fussy points :)
Mine is "what lens gives me the most options (with good quality) for the least money?"
I wouldn't have bought this lens, new, for $2,000. But I would (and did) buy it new for "1,100."
I will use it for the entire season, and if I don't like it, I can probably still sell it for $1,000 (I take good care of my stuff).
Buying new lenses, well, is actually cheaper than renting them, if you add everything up :)
-
i actually bought this lens years ago from B&H and sent it back.... basically you can never have too many lenses.. i just need to cherry pick due to cost.
I may do the same as you.
I bought the Zeiss 15mm, then sold it. After thinking about it, I bought it again ... and it's not going anywhere.
Also bought the Zeiss 135mm, twice, and got rid of it, twice. I will not buy it again: it's too limited.
If this lens is noticeably-better then my 20mm UD, the 20 UD goes (and I am pretty sure that's happening).
And if the Zeiss does a better job at 4:1 macros (when reversed) than my forthcoming 2.5x-5x zoom, it's going to be what I'll use for the studio (the zoom will be for the field).
-
Completely opposite extreme, but I had a Nikon 500mm f/8 Reflex (the newest one, which is to say it was made about 35 years ago). I always liked it but it was virtually impossible to focus on anything at a distance, so I seldom used it. Back when I had a D200, I finally sold it after having it for about 20 years in order to help fund a 70-200mm f/2.8G VR (the first one). Now that we live in a Live View world, not to mention the D850's larger eyepiece, I would love to have it back.
-
Lens porn: 2-image stack I took of the lens I got yesterday.
-
Couple of landscape shots taken with the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon T*
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/_DSC6099.jpg)
Laguna Canyon, CA
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/_DSC6663.jpg)
Barker Dam Oasis, Joshua Tree, CA
-
Reversing The Lens
You need 5 rings to reverse this beast to your camera (one as a lens hood, the other 4 to reverse the lens).
The 82mm front thread requires an 82-77mm stepdown ring, which I then attach to a 77-72mm stepdown ring.
I connect a 72-52mm stepdown to the BR-2A, which reverses to my camera.
I connect the 82-77 + 77-72 combo to the 72-52 + BR-2A combo ... and I am ready to shoot @ 3.9x magnification.
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/_DSC2738.jpg)
BR-3 (=Lens Hood), BR-2A (connects 52mm thread to Camera Body)
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/resize (1 of 3).jpg)
Completed Reversal (right side)
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/resize (2 of 3).jpg)
Completed Reversal (left side)
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/resize (3 of 3).jpg)
Completed Reversal (details)
First stacking effort with lens ...
(http://johnkoerner.org/examples/2018/04-18/Zeiss 21mm f2.8, 30-Image Stack at f4.jpg)
Green Oak Crab Spider ♀ (Diaea livens)
My subject is a peculiar species, found only on certain Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) habitats. I found her while hiking Laguna Canyon, CA.
The stack itself was 30-image effort taken at f4. Aside from some subject movement, the results were decent, but not as sharp as I'd hoped.
-
I like these images a lot.
No sign of any moustache! Lol
It took a lot of effort (and money) to reverse mount the lens.
-
I like these images a lot.
No sign of any moustache! Lol
It took a lot of effort (and money) to reverse mount the lens.
Thank you sir :)
Lol, nope, no mustache 8)
Actually, the Sensei-Pro rings (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1068055-REG/sensei_sdrpa_8277_pro_82_77mm_aluminum_step_down.html) are pretty cheap ($9.95 - $14.95). The BR-3 is $34.95 and the BR-2A is $35 even.
Though cheaper than the Nikon rings, the Sensei-Pros are every bit as sturdy, and are packaged much classier. (The lens is resting on the plastic display case each comes in.)
I merge the 82-77 and 77-72, and keep them both together in the 82-77 case.
I merge the 72-52 and the BR-2A and keep them both together in the 72-52 case.
Much nicer way to store than the tiny 'cardboard boxes' the Nikon counterparts come in.