Equipment Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21

If you're a professional landscape or architectural photographer (or wanna be with change to drain) be sure to check out this awesomeness. For those of you unfamiliar with the history of this lens, look it up

 

Landscape photography, sure.

Architectural? No. (I know because I'm an architect, well designer, not legally allowed to call myself one until I get my license) We prefer medium-large format cameras because of the ability to change the angle of the lenses and the amount of detail you will get. Otherwise (as seen in another thread on here) you would have to perspective control the image in PS. Which in all honesty just sh*ts. If you're using a D/SLR, grab a PC lens. It will let you get shots you normally couldn't achieve with these non-tilt-shift lenses.

The photographer who started the "architectural photography" niche Julius Schulman (my professor was an apprentice of his) spoke at my previous school and still uses large format cameras exclusively for paid work.

Correction: You can get away with it on 1 story buildings because there isn't alot of perspective, but once you get anything higher you really need your PC lenses.

 

Maybe not architectural in the strictest sense of the word, but I can imagine a wide and fairly fast lens faring quite well when it comes to indoor work, such as for real estate property photos and such.

 

Sure I could see it for real estate use, just not published work. And sure it can be used for indoor work as long as the interior volume isn't very high. Otherwise you start to get converging lines if your sensor plane isn't parallel to the walls.

And fast lenses don't really matter since you should be stopping down to increase the DOF. And you SHOULD always use a tripod when doing architectural work so you can make sure your sensor plane is parallel to the wall plane.

I'd say this is more for landscape/nature folks on FF and PJs on cropped sensors (perhaps PJs on FF too)

 

Really? Because I know quite of few photogs who love this lens on a FF body for interiors as well as exteriors. Along with an UWA and a TSE and you've got yourself an excellent architectural kit.

 

Canon TSE 24mm

Nikon PC-E 24mm

Both of the major players make 24mm tilt-shift lenses. 21mm is not enough to warrant carrying it around considering if you only lose 3mm you gain tilt-shift capabilities which is extremely more useful unless you plan on carrying a ladder on every assignment you go to for tall architectural buildings or anything above 15-20ft.

And I am only speaking from photogs (professors and ex-co-workers) who exclusively photograph buildings (interior and exterior). They either work for some of the top 250 architectural firms in the USA and do all the photography the company requires or they are contractors that do only architecture work and are published in the likes of Architectural Record. That and a telephoto lens if the conditions permitted were all they used if they weren't carrying around the medium/large format equipment that is. I can see the use of an UWA at 14mm, but 21 and 24 doesn't justify having another lens when the 24TSE is more useful.

In short, that is all you need and a telephoto for shots of details or if there is nothing around the building, a shot from all the way across the field to compress the image.

No need for the Zeiss, although I am sure it is a nice piece of glass. If they turn it into a tilt-shift, then its a different story.

And the prices swing in favor of TS-E. 1400 pounds (sorry no symbol on my keyboard) for the zeiss? $1150 on Amazon for the Canon...

Edit: Woohoo for 100th post!

Please don't double post. There is an edit button you know...

 

The Zeiss kills all WA lenses as far as corner sharpness is concerned, its nearly flawless...when making large prints there is no better wide angle lens to use. The difference between 24mm and 21mm for interiors and tight spaces is massive--they each have their uses. While TSE's are nice...they only go 24mm wide, for anything wider your looking at distortion and severe corner softness (aside from the Nikkor 14-24) there is nothing that beats the Distagon 21mm as far as IQ is concerned.

 

When making large prints, you would usually prefer large format. There is no comparison between the IQ of large format and FF. You simply can't blow up a FF image to an 8x10 and expect it to have the same resolution as an 8x10 negative. Blow anything up to poster size and you can clearly see the difference. There are artists who will only hire photographers with large format cameras to archive their work for resolution power.

Nikkor, Rodenstock, Schneider, Sinar, Fujinon, and Calumet make large format 65mm lenses and through conversion factors to FF equals roughly 19mm. Plus you have the ability to tilt-shift. If you really want to push it, Schneider makes a 47mm, conversion makes it roughly 14mm. Its not for SLR but there are better options if architectural photography is your bread and butter.

And film isn't dead, people are just not smart enough to realize the resolution of 35mm film (depending on film speed) would need on average 23 MP. I have read some have concluded using ISO25 film, its 75MP. When you compare that to medium format, we just are not anywhere near that yet alone large format resolutions.

 

I'm beginning to think that some people only post to talk down to people and argue...

 

So am I...

 

no arguing, just discussing. as far as i can tell this thread is fairly civilized.

besides, discussion makes you smarter. you may learn something new

 

Exactly. As for your reply--medium and large format is nice, but remember not everyone shoots with them--so it the case of 35mm format, the Ziess is an outstanding lens to use...perhaps, if you get a chance, you should use one for your next shoot--since they just brought it back they should be easier to find. I can guarantee you will understand where, exactly, I am coming from.

Check this out, not the best image subject/composition wise, but look at the resolution/corner sharpness and lack of distortion. This is the original version of the lens.

Even Better

 

Way to contribute to the forum

 

ah, I never said I shot for the companies, I just know people who do. I can admit I don't have the technical know how or artistry that these guys do when it comes to architectural photography to make a building really pop.

Those are good pictures, just not great. First two pictures shows what I was talking about in terms of the advantage to using tilt-shift. First one has wayyy too much frontage in it and he didn't have a ladder ready. Second one shows him using his ladder because he is high enough to get the top portions of the building on the left. But it is all about what equipment you may want to carry. If I really needed the 21mm, I'd honestly rather buy the 14-24mm. Its IQ is just outstanding from wide open from center to corner.

But I can understand the lust for Zeiss glass. I tried the 50/1.4 out and loved the results. but its just too darn expensive.

 

It gets worse when you realize that Zeiss doesn't make some of Zeiss lenses, Cosina does. But people wouldn't pay top dollar if it had "Cosina" on it.

 

You're right about that, but they are all of Zeiss design and if what is posted on the website is in fact truth it makes no difference whether or not Zeiss glass is manufactured by Cosina--as long as the processes and materials are the same that is. I understand the price of the brand has a lot to do with final cost, but if the quality, both build and image, is the same/uncompromising who cares what name is on the lens. Alt. gear freaks would still pay top dollar for it as long as it provides good IQ/BQ.