NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Jedi on December 29, 2016, 11:40:29
-
Hello, can you help me, please? I need an ultra-wideangle lens for my Nikon D810, for mountain landscape shoots, at f/8 and f/11. I don't know which one I could choose. My doubt is only between two lenses: Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 and Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8. I know very well the rendering of Nikon 24/1.4G, 35/1.4G, 24-70/1.4G and I love them. AF isn't a priority. The versatility isn't a priority. Budget is not a problem for 14-24mm or Zeiss 21/2.8. My problem; is the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 really more sharper than Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8? Is the corner sharpness better in the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8? I don't know Zeiss lenses, only their fame.... I have seen photozone.de values and there Zeiss 21mm's corner sharpness isn't better than the Nikon 14-24mm: are you agree? Are Zeiss's contrast and saturation better than Nikon 14-24mm? For me a Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 and a Zeiss Distagon 18mm f/3.5 are sufficient as focals: I don't need 14mm......, but if Nikon is better, i would choose 14-24mm.
Thank you!!
-
The New Zeiss 18mm 2.8 ZM Milvus is by far better than the previous ZM UWA versions, it is a completely new optical design.
The zoom is nice but only to be selected if you don't mind coloured flare issues,,,
-
I don't know the differences between them regarding the aspects you talk about, but I suspect they are minimal.
I have both and they are terrific lenses.
The zoom has disadvantages if you need to use filters (there is an adaptor, but it is not practical) and if you have to carry it in a trek, for instance ( it is a pig).
-
The 14-24 is a hell of an indoor lens in my book. In adverse weather conditions I would always prefer a lens with a filter / front lens protection option and get larger angles of view with stitching: mountains do not run away.
Plus I would consider the 1.8/20mm AF-S-Nikkor and the Sigma 20mm F1,4 DG HSM
Indoor panorama with 14-24.
17 picture series @70 Megapixels per picture, one row at 14mm.
Terrific detail rendering:
-
I love pigs, in fact I'm a trekker who walks a lot in mountain with a full big backpack 45-60 litreswith 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, 24-70mm f/2.8E VRII and others fixes lenses.
-
Milvus is too expensive....., only Distagon 21/2.8, if it id really more more more sharp than Nikon 14-24, also in the corners....
-
The 21mm ZF has more vignetting in the corners, sharpness is on par. see Photozone.de
-
The 14-24 is a hell of an indoor lens in my book. In adverse weather conditions I would always prefer a lens with a filter / front lens protection option and get larger angles of view with stitching: mountains do not run away.
Plus I would consider the 1.8/20mm AF-S-Nikkor and the Sigma 20mm F1,4 DG HSM
Indoor panorama with 14-24.
17 picture series @70 Megapixels per picture, one row at 14mm.
Terrific detail rendering:
Do you prefer 20/1.8G or Sigma to Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 for sharpness??? I didn't think this kind of choice!! Isn't Zeiss much more sharp than Sigma and Nikon 20/1.8G?
-
I think actually the Nikkor 20mm AFS 1.8 is just as sharp as the Zeiss 21mm at f/2.8,,, also you will be shooting at f/8 or 11 so really it comes down to all the other things than sharpness wide open,,, It is much more important not to have flare for instance!
-
I think actually the Nikkor 20mm AFS 1.8 is just as sharp as the Zeiss 21mm at f/2.8,,, also you will be shooting at f/8 or 11 so really it comes down to all the other things than sharpness wide open,,, It is much more important not to have flare for instance!
For the flare what's the nest?
-
Nest? what do you mean?
-
"The best", excuse me!!
-
I have settled on Zeiss ultrawides (15 f2.8 Distagon) and wides (21 f2.8 and 25 f2 Distagon) over Nikkors. The ability to use filters for protection and a PL are big plus factors. Although the 20 f4 AI and 20 f3.5 AI are very useful for a lightweight outfit. And these 20mm Nikkors do not flare
I have not carried out enough tests yet but the www consensus is nearly all Zeiss lenses are in a unique realm of optical performance and build quality. Here's a recent shot with 21 f2.8 on D500. And couple of links fyi
https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/09/12/zeiss-21-distagon/
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/446-zeisszf2128ff?start=2
https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/ZF/publish/21Distagon.html?dglyPT=true
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx
-
Correction, sorry!. The previous photo is with my 15mm f2.8 Zeiss (a superb optic in its own right); here is the same scene taken with 21mm f2.8 alos on Nikon D500. Note flare, although the filter normally attached for protection was removed
-
I would never use a filter in front of these lenses unless in a very hostile environment,,, BTW the Zeiss 15mm 2.8 ZF Milvus now comes with a removable lens hood.
One of the old slow aperture MF Nikkors are probably the least flaring, I agree,,,
-
The 21mm ZF has more vignetting in the corners, sharpness is on par. see Photozone.de
This is my assessment after having both lenses for 8 years. Both lenses have roughly the same amount of flare and ghosts, but the ghosts from the 14-24 are less attractive to my eye.
-
Yes, the 14-24 has these congested rainbows,,,
-
I have both the Zeiss 21/2,8 and the Nikkor 14-24. For landscape photo, the Zeiss is brilliant (literally). It gives the photos a 3-dimensional look with excelllent microcontrast, whereas photos with the Nikkor seems duller and more anemic in comparison. The weakness of the Zeiss is the moustache-shaped geometric distortion, but it doesn't matter for landscapes. The Nikkor 14-24 has strong focus shift, and is best focused with the working aperture, otherwise photos may not have optimal sharpness - sometimes clearly visible.
The Zeiss 21mm/2,8 is one of the lenses I never will sell :)
-
They're gold informations for me, thanks, thanks, thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Hello, can you help me, please? I need an ultra-wideangle lens for my Nikon D810, for mountain landscape shoots, at f/8 and f/11. I don't know which one I could choose. My doubt is only between two lenses: Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 and Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8.
I have experience with neither lens, but at apertures of f/8 - 11, issues like wide-open vignetting and sharpness are not relevant. Most (all?) modern lenses (and even many not so modern lenses) will perform very well here. The main things to consider are contrast and flare as has been mentioned, and also:
- color rendition, contrast, distortion and other optical qualities. Mustache distortion might not be a problem for landscapes, but it is for sea-scapes
- size, weight, portability - is it a lens you can easily carry, or will you be tempted to leave it home because it is too big?
- AF vs MF performance - is AF accurate, for MF is the focus ring well damped with a long focus throw?
- filter size - does the filter size match other lenses you already have or will you need to buy another set?
- focal length - there is a big difference between 24 amd 14mm
-
Airy reported that the flare control of Macro Planar 50/2.0 is improved on the Milvis version, although the optical design hasn't changed. The same could apply to 21/2.8, I guess?
-
@Jedi: You ask me for sharpness but that is not what I would aim for in your shoes. Detail rendering and transitions seem to be more important to me.
Sometimes a lens that delivers very fine details does not deliver a high contrast at the same time, so the picture is "softer" or "less sharp" than the same picture taken with a more contrasty lens that might not deliver as many details.
Transitions are even more subtle. A friend of mine compared my fast Nikon primes with his bread & butter pro Zooms and said: There is a clear point of sharpness, but all the other persons in the frame are clearly recognizable and pleasently rendered. There is no abprupt border between the sharp and unsharp parts, but a very subtle transition between the zones which makes the picture lovely to look at.
In my personal taste I am not a big fan of the very technical rendering some of the Zeiss optics show, I like the more subtle character of 1.4/24G or 1.4/105G or 1.4/58G the crazy rendering of a 1.4/35Ai-S or the 1.2/55Ai ...
In your case I would try to locate some photographers near you, who have the lenses you are interested in, talk to them and try the glass if you like the detail rendering and transitions ar f/5.6 f/8 and f/11
PS: picture of transitions with the 1.4/105E Nikkor
-
I have both the Zeiss 21/2,8 and the Nikkor 14-24. For landscape photo, the Zeiss is brilliant (literally). It gives the photos a 3-dimensional look with excelllent microcontrast, whereas photos with the Nikkor seems duller and more anemic in comparison. The weakness of the Zeiss is the moustache-shaped geometric distortion, but it doesn't matter for landscapes. The Nikkor 14-24 has strong focus shift, and is best focused with the working aperture, otherwise photos may not have optimal sharpness - sometimes clearly visible.
The Zeiss 21mm/2,8 is one of the lenses I never will sell :)
Thank you, one never stops to learn
-
Let us, in the interest of completeness, mention the cyan color shading that the ZF 21/2.8 creates in the far edges and corner areas of the 24x36 frame. It is extremely faint, and most of time cannot be detected. If I spend a couple of hours walking through and snapping away in a landscape shooting environment, I typically have had the shading be noticeable (on both my old D3 and my current D800/E) in something like 1 out of 25 or 1 out of 50 shots.
[Added, July/2019: The cyan shading of the 21/2.8 Zeiss (mine is a ZF) is very noticeable IF you are photographing large neutral or pale-colored subjects...architecture, pale-toned outdoor spaces... under even overcast light.]
Maybe the cyan shading could have been reduced/eliminated by the supposed new AR coatings on the newer Milvus edition of the lens?
-
Sometimes a lens that delivers very fine details does not deliver a high contrast at the same time, so the picture is "softer" or "less sharp" than the same picture taken with a more contrasty lens that might not deliver as many details.
Do the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 deliver softer or less sharp pictures? Is it less contrasty than the Nikon 14-24mm? It is the same difference between Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 14-24mm, is it true?
-
In your case I would try to locate some photographers near you, who have the lenses you are interested in, talk to them and try the glass if you like the detail rendering and transitions ar f/5.6 f/8 and f/11
There isn't a photogrpher near me who has got Zeiss lenses.......
-
Do the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 deliver softer or less sharp pictures? Is it less contrasty than the Nikon 14-24mm?
No. The photos it creates look different to the educated eye, but cannot be said to be 'softer' or 'less sharp'. The 14-24 will more closely match the 'look' of the other Nikon lenses you mentioned.
It is the same difference between Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 14-24mm, is it true?
No. In terms of sharpness at the sides/edges of the 24x36 frame, the 17-35 needs f/11 to do what the 14-24 and the Zeiss 21 do at f/2.8. At f/4, both the 14-24 and the ZF 21 are way ahead...and stay ahead... of the 17-35.
-
No. In terms of sharpness at the sides/edges of the 24x36 frame, the 17-35 needs f/11 to do what the 14-24 and the Zeiss 21 do at f/2.8. At f/4, both the 14-24 and the ZF 21 are way ahead...and stay ahead... of the 17-35.
But if we don't consider only sharpness, 17-35mm is less contrastly of 14-24mm and reads much more details im the shadowes than the 14-24mm. 17-35mm is an,old style Nikon lens such as 85mm/1.4D, 28mm/1.4D, 105mm f/2DC, 135mm f/2DC. Is the difference between 17-35mm snd 14-24mm the same difference between 85mm f/1.4D and 85mm f/1.4G? Isn't true also betweebnDistagon 21mm f/2.8 and Nikon 14-24mm?
-
No. Zeiss lenses are typically very contrasty.
-
No. Zeiss lenses are typically very contrasty.
Ah, ok. I have seen many pictures on the web of the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 and they're very wonderful!! I will buy it and not the Nikon 14-24mm, but i will buy also the Distagon 18mm f/3.5. I don't need focals under 18mm.
-
No mention of the nikkor afs 20mm f/1.8g?
-
I think actually the Nikkor 20mm AFS 1.8 is just as sharp as the Zeiss 21mm at f/2.8,,, also you will be shooting at f/8 or 11 so really it comes down to all the other things than sharpness wide open,,, It is much more important not to have flare for instance!
No mention of the nikkor afs 20mm f/1.8g?
-
Plus I would consider the 1.8/20mm AF-S-Nikkor and the Sigma 20mm F1,4 DG HSM
-
I have the 21 Zeiss Milvus and 20/1.8 Nikkor. I compared the 14-24 and 20/1.8 specifically for resistance for flare and ghosting and the prime was much better than the zoom in this respect. With the 14-24 this was sometimes an issue when doing landscape by the sea at sunrise/sunset; the image was riddled with ghosts. The 20/1.8 has also turned out to have excellent AF and I noticed that with the 14-24 there was greater uncertainty in focus in indoor shots with people in the foreground which I would focus on; the 20/1.8 just nails focus time and time again. However, despite excellent AF, the manual focus on the 20/1.8 is annoying and my lens has some slack when turning the MF ring and changing the direction of turn, making it slow to achieve perfect focus manually. Also at infinity I have noticed field curvature and some coma and gravity seems to affect the plane of focus a bit, making it difficult to get stars across the whole image sharp at the same time, or at least requiring great care in selecting the focus point. I got the Milvus because I wanted a nice manual focus ring for landscape and astro-landscape shots. It has turned out excellent for landscape. I have not compared the 21 and 20 side by side; I use each lens for different applications now. The 20/1.8 for events and interiors, the 21 for landscape. The 20/1.8 is easily what I would choose if pressed to own only one superwide angle lens. The 14-24 is excellent in its own right, particularly for interiors, but one problem was that I tended to slip the zoom too easily to 14mm end (I realize it was me doing the slipping, not the lens) and did not like the extreme angle of view, preferring the 17-24mm part of the range. I feel the 14-24 is at its best for interior and real estate images where shift can be simulated by cropping from a wider angle of view image. It has comparatively little vignetting and very even colour across the frame, making it particularly suitable for interiors with white walls. However, the zoom is a heavy lens for a wide angle and in practice I rarely took it with me to shoot because of this. The 20/1.8 is so lightweight that I don't have to think twice about including it in the bag, so it has become one of my most used lenses. Its only major flaws are the manual focus and slight tilt of the plane of focus depending on gravity and orientation of the lens at infinity focus. For general use I love it, and it contributes to my kit by being a light weight yet excellent fast wide angle. I pair it often with the 58/1.4 which is also light weight.
Landscape shots with the 21 Milvus
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/28449813294/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/24389788834/in/album-72157608284582293/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkka_nissila/28994364911/in/dateposted-public/
-
Ah, ok. I have seen many pictures on the web of the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 and they're very wonderful!! I will buy it and not the Nikon 14-24mm, but i will buy also the Distagon 18mm f/3.5. I don't need focals under 18mm.
Be aware that the Zeiss 18/3,5 does not have the evenness of high sharpness from center to side that the Zeiss 21 has. You will notice the difference.
-
There is also a new Zeiss Milvus 18/2.8 for Canon and Nikon mount DSLRs. This in addition to the Zeiss Batis 18/2.8 for Sony FE mount.
-
There is also a new Zeiss Milvus 18/2.8 for Canon and Nikon mount DSLRs. This in addition to the Zeiss Batis 18/2.8 for Sony FE mount.
I'll bet that the new Milvus 18mm is really nice.