The Z15 have stupid hood design by my opinion, this integrated hood increase size and almost does not works like a hood - very wide angle. The huge front cap can be used as a plate for soup
For me send to Germany was very expensive and I ordered the parts for modification (for same money but in this case I'll keep old parts). I am planning to replace myself. The front cup will be from Hasselblad H lenses (95mm): http://www.henrys.com/58072-HASSELBLAD-95MM-FRONT-LENS-CAP.aspx
I guess the replace operations not so difficult... Let's see
I rented a D800E and the Zeiss 15mm and the 14-24mm Nikon to test it out at night and honestly there was not a huge difference between the two in pure image quality terms at f8~f9:
Sneakyracer wrote:
Awesome, thx for posting. Wondering why they just do not sell the lens like that in the first place.
Not sure, I purchased my copy shortly after it was available for sale, at that time the mod wasn't available. I think they should make both versions available rather than having to send it off to Germany for the mod. With or without it's a fantastic lens.
I wish they had rigged up some type of removable hood as part of the mod. I guess that would have driven up the cost even more. But there are times where I'd still want the hood...and right now it's an all or nothing decision.
Interestingly I contacted Zeiss US about the process for the modification and here is their reply back:
" There are currently three options available for using cut filters with the ZEISS Distagon 2.8/15 SLR lens
1) Lee Filters and Fotodiox both produce filter holders which mount to the front of the lens. This would allow the use of cut filters without modifying the lens. This is a less expensive solution and the shade would stay intact for those occasions when you do not need to use a cut filter.
The lens should be shipped to:
Carl Zeiss Camera Lens Division
Attn: Distagon 2.8/15 Lens Shade Modification
One Zeiss Drive
Thornwood, NY 10594
3) Purchase a new lens which has already been modified lens through an authorized Zeiss dealer in the U.S. This configuration is managed as a special order and you will not find it listed on any of our dealer's web stores.
Product: Distagon 2.8/15 ZE (modified without lens shade)
Item: 2069-923
List Price: $3,288
Product: Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2 (modified without lens shade)
Item: 2069-924
List Price: $3,288
Please note, once the lens has been modified, it will not be possible to attach a lens shade to the front of the lens.
Sincerely,
Carl Zeiss
Camera Lens Division "
I didn't realize you can actually purchase the modified version, special order however.
MIRANDA1 wrote:
Interestingly I contacted Zeiss US about the process for the modification and here is their reply back:
" There are currently three options available for using cut filters with the ZEISS Distagon 2.8/15 SLR lens
1) Lee Filters and Fotodiox both produce filter holders which mount to the front of the lens. This would allow the use of cut filters without modifying the lens. This is a less expensive solution and the shade would stay intact for those occasions when you do not need to use a cut filter.
The lens should be shipped to:
Carl Zeiss Camera Lens Division
Attn: Distagon 2.8/15 Lens Shade Modification
One Zeiss Drive
Thornwood, NY 10594
3) Purchase a new lens which has already been modified lens through an authorized Zeiss dealer in the U.S. This configuration is managed as a special order and you will not find it listed on any of our dealer's web stores.
Product: Distagon 2.8/15 ZE (modified without lens shade)
Item: 2069-923
List Price: $3,288
Product: Distagon 2.8/15 ZF.2 (modified without lens shade)
Item: 2069-924
List Price: $3,288
Please note, once the lens has been modified, it will not be possible to attach a lens shade to the front of the lens.
Sincerely,
Carl Zeiss
Camera Lens Division "
I didn't realize you can actually purchase the modified version, special order however. ...Show more →
I don't think LEE 150 can work with ZEISS 15 F2.8, because that adapter designed for NIKON 14 24 only
I had and returned a Ziess 15. I have a hard time finding any UWA landscape scenes that don't require shift to keep level. Very nice lens but my 17TSE was a better choice for most scenes I encountered.
After I returned it, I got a 16-35 for the versatility of a zoom on those occasions when I could shoot level or near level and a 14 Samyang for when I really needed 14. (not often)
The 16-35 is my most used WA lens because it will AF and I never got good at MF. In fact that was also a problem with the Zeiss, and hard stop infinity did not seem to work either. Funny, the Samyang can be focused to a preset distance on the scale, the Ziess seemed to be a bit shy of infinity at hard stop. The 16-35 in AF using live view focus nails it every time.
I use the 17TSE when I need shift. Its sharper than the 16-35, but only when I nail manual focus. Not often.
The ability to use screw in filters on a 15 is not a big deal, I seldom use polarizers below 35mm because of the uneven sky problem. I do use ND grads however and they don't work as screw ins. My 17TSE takes any filter in my system with my homemade filter holder and lee system. I use the same filters on all my lenses.
The Ziess was a great starlight lens, but in my opinion, there is still too much noise for large printable images at high ISO on my 5D3. Star images look great at web size but are usually too dark to print. If it won't print well I am not very interested.
ben egbert wrote:
I had and returned a Ziess 15. I have a hard time finding any UWA landscape scenes that don't require shift to keep level. Very nice lens but my 17TSE was a better choice for most scenes I encountered.
After I returned it, I got a 16-35 for the versatility of a zoom on those occasions when I could shoot level or near level and a 14 Samyang for when I really needed 14. (not often)
The 16-35 is my most used WA lens because it will AF and I never got good at MF. In fact that was also a problem with the Zeiss, and hard stop infinity did not seem to work either. Funny, the Samyang can be focused to a preset distance on the scale, the Ziess seemed to be a bit shy of infinity at hard stop. The 16-35 in AF using live view focus nails it every time.
I use the 17TSE when I need shift. Its sharper than the 16-35, but only when I nail manual focus. Not often.
The ability to use screw in filters on a 15 is not a big deal, I seldom use polarizers below 35mm because of the uneven sky problem. I do use ND grads however and they don't work as screw ins. My 17TSE takes any filter in my system with my homemade filter holder and lee system. I use the same filters on all my lenses.
The Ziess was a great starlight lens, but in my opinion, there is still too much noise for large printable images at high ISO on my 5D3. Star images look great at web size but are usually too dark to print. If it won't print well I am not very interested.
I have both Ts17 and Zeiss 15/2.8 and largly agree with Ben.
I don't use cp filters or ndgrads on a uwa lens because it causes more work than it cures and most of the effect can be achieved with autobracketing and blending.
In day time. and near dawn or dusk hours the TS17 is by far the best lens because you don't have to choose between using 1/2 the image [you have to level and crop the bottom off with Zeiss to achieve non warped trees] or having warped trees and leaning mountains in your pictures. With the zeiss and samyang you have to choose.
But for night shooting of the milky way or northern lights, the Zeiss is the best lens. If you are on a really good sky tracking equipment the advantage narrows(requires 1/2 the exposure for Zeiss vs Ts17), however the TS17 requires good light to manually focus which is a challenge in the dark . The canon ts17 focus settings move quickly vs slowly on zeiss and it permits finer focus and the infinity focus is easy to find on the zeiss and very hard to find on the TS17 in the dark.
However, there the samyang is a strong possibility for night shooting too. The zeiss is definitely better for ca and not having mustached barrel distortion, but they are suprisingly close given the price differences. And both f2.8
So for most people, the combination of TS17 and Samyang 14/2.8 combination is a cheaper and better choice.
I still would print milky way shots that come from the Zeiss though which is one area that I may not agree with Ben.
Zeiss seems to be getting the "snob factor" down really well. It's disappointing to see, because they used to be such a fair and good value. I thought the 15 might be pretty good from Zeiss. Pass. IMO once I saw that price, this lens is way overpriced for a MF wide prime. Sorry Zeiss, you missed the mark on this one as well as the 4K 55mm. IMO
I think it all depends on what level of optical performance you are are willing to settle for. For some phtographers the incremental improvements in performance that Zeiss offers are not worth the significantly higher cost and I fully understand that. In the case of the 15mm focal length I did not care for the compromises I would have to make if I had purchased a lower priced alternative. Do I wish Zeiss lenses cost less? Of course, but I also realize that you often times get what you pay for.
The Zeiss 15mm f2.8 performs much like the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8G, except it's a little bit sharper, and lacks the Nikon's focus shift/field curvature issues.
I tested the 15mm Zeiss and my 14mm L II is as sharp all over the frame. The only downside of the Canon is that it has more CA, specially closer to the borders of the frame. the 15mm Zeiss has little to none. That is impressive. The 14-24mm was also very good and very close to the Zeiss. But the Zeiss is easier to filter (no hood version available). No need for those huge 150mm filters.
