Zeiss Lens for Canon EF mount

[Drew 0]

Carl Zeiss has announced 2 new lenses for the Canon EF mount, Planar T* 1.4/50 and 1.4/85 by the end of the year, with more lenses to be announced later. Will the Distagon 3.5/18 and the rumored 2.8/21 answer the Canonites pleas for sharp wide angles? No AF but eTTL apparently works as do all modes.

At about $660 for the 50mm, it should be a great portrait lens topside and underwater. Without AF, I guess those big viewfinders are going to be more popular

[Drew 0]

Opps the Distagon T* 2.8/21 is real:

http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE0/WebV...12574C5004278BF

[loftus 42]

Leica has broken new ground with this lens

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091505..._50mm_f0_95.asp

Edited September 16, 2008 by loftus

[DesertEagle 2]

Is anyone currently using the Nikkor 14-24mm on an FX body? With a Nikon to Canon mount adapter, perhaps this would be a good option.

[craig 0]

Underwater, some people probably are using the 14-24 but there aren't any tests published. It may be an option for Canon shooters if it proves to be a good option for Nikon ones. ;-)

[Bent C 18]

Opps the Distagon T* 2.8/21 is real:

http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE0/WebV...12574C5004278BF

 

To a Canon shooter this is great news! However, it looks like a seriously long (in linear dimensions) wide angle lens. I guess it should be used behind a wide dome. Any ideas of any manufacturer providing dome extensions or focus gear for the 21/2,8? Or are there already solutions working?

Edited September 24, 2008 by Bent C

[james 0]

If you're going to mount an all manual lens onto a Canon body, why not use the really excellent Nikon 20mm AF-D? It's a lot smaller and cheaper and almost as sharp.

 

Cheers

James

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I never found the 20mm all that great on film. I still have it, but years ago once I got the 17-35mm (which I found sharper and produced much better colours) I stopped using the 20mm on film underwater. I shot it occasionally on DX:

 

I haven't tried it on FX underwater yet. But I will give it another chance if and when I get a camera. But I'll be surprised if it out performs the 17-35mm.

 

Alex

 

p.s. sorry for going way off topic!

[Bent C 18]

If you're going to mount an all manual lens onto a Canon body, why not use the really excellent Nikon 20mm AF-D? It's a lot smaller and cheaper and almost as sharp.

 

Cheers

James

 

I really like cheaper, smaller and almost as sharp . Does the Nikon work with automatic transfer of f-stop? As far as I understand it, the Zeiss will. However, my primary concern is still if there are solutions to housing that kind of lense behind a dome. Currently I use Ikelite, and have, to say the least, horrible corners with my 17-40, so either I am of to just using fisheye for WA or buy something totally different, and Nikon (or Zeiss) would be perfectly OK if performing.

[Drew 0]

If you're going to mount an all manual lens onto a Canon body

 

James, the Zeiss EF mount allows the use of electronic AV control. So you can adjust aperture from the camera. It's only focus that needs a manual ring. With the distagon 2.8/21, it could mean a big difference in resolution vs the Sigma/Canon alternatives. And I'm no Zeiss junkie. I just happen to like the contrast and colors from them.

[BHC 1]

Just to echo the comments above, the Nikon 20mm isn't really a great lens. I find it to be about the same sharpness as the Nikon 18-200 with equivalent chromatic aberration.