Used Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZF.2 Series Lens for Nikon F Mount SLR Cameras

2014-03-19T21:00:00

Blows away my previous ultra-wide angle (canon 10-22 for a crop). Love the contrast and rendering, not sure what could be better. Get the focus correct and you'll be happy.

BRYAN S.

2013-10-31T21:00:00

Have not done a full shoot including this yet (do high end architecture), but the test shots I have run exceed expectations. It is a beautiful piece of glass, and I am sure that it will pay for itself in satisfying results. Have found no fault yet.

Architect

2013-10-08T21:00:00

OK, I get it. Every person has a different purpose for their photo thing. If you buy this lens, I'm guessing it may be that you are into architecture or landscape work. If so, you have a winner here. For architectural images, keep it level, keep it focused, and you have images that rival not so long ago Hasie ultrawide stuff. Seriously. I do not think such users will be let down. For hand held street stuff, you have to be WAY more tuned in to get great images that normal with autofocus etc. But - yes it is a great lens if you can deal. Really!

Preston R.

2012-11-23T19:00:00

I am a Zeiss fan. I have a Zeiss 21mm f2.8 that I use on a Leica M9 and it is extraordinarily sharp and contrasty corner to corner, so I really looked forward to getting this 15mm lens to use with my Canon 5DIII. Ultra wide lenses are a big hole in the Canon line. Both the Canon 14mm and the 16-35 zoom are great in the center but poor to useless in the corners. I have been getting by with a Canon 17mm TS/E which has very good IQ overall and is uniquely versatile due to the tilt/shift functions, but it is huge and doesn't take filters. Unfortunately, I ended up returning the Zeiss 15 due to two big defects. One was the focus calibration. Infinity focus was way short of the infinity mark and hard stop on the lens. With all other manual focus lenses (in addition to the 17mm Canon and 21mm Zeiss I own 3 Leica M lenses) I can dial the lens to infinity and fire away if I don't have to focus closer. With the Zeiss 15, the distance marks on the lens were useless and I had to rely on the focus light in the camera. That was more than an inconvenience. The focus ring takes up most of the front part of the lens and moves very easily. It is hard to hand hold the lens without touching the focus ring and affecting the focus with each movement. That problem is avoided with other manual focus lenses by holding the focus ring tight against the hard stop and most are designed to make it easy to hold the lens without touching the focus ring besides. In effect, the Zeiss 15 can only be used on a tripod. In addition, the lens cap does not clip on. It is held by a tight fit, but it is not tight enough. When I tilted my lens down the cap immediately fell off. You could not carry this lens around mounted on the camera with the cap on. These defects are inexcusable in a lens that costs nearly $3,000. Finally, although the IQ was very good, it was not better than the Canon 17mm overall. So I would recommend the Canon 17mm TS/E to a friend looking for a good ultra wide for a Canon DSLR. It is not quite as wide as the Zeiss but it is much more versatile and useable, and in a static scene it can be shifted to produce three precisely positioned shots that can be stitched to produce a panoramic shot wider than an fisheye (and much wider than the Zeiss) with no distortion.

George