Nikon 14mm f/2.8 D sample variation??

[Geoff]

Anybody out there had experience comparing the 14mm AF D vs 15mm AIS or with sample variation of the 14mm?

Have been comparing a 14mm AF D lens to my old 15mm f/3.5 AIS and noticing very different performance results.  At indoor distances the 15mm easily outperforms the 14mm in terms of resolution off axis.  On axis they are about the same.   A somewhat amazing amount of curvature of field is the culprit for the poorer performance of the 14mm.  At infinity or near infinity distances, the 14mm easily out-resolved the 15mm off axis.  On axis, again, they are about the same.  Contrast is slightly better with the 15mm.  My tests were conducted at f/3.5 and f/8 for both.  Of course the 15mm is susceptible to phenomenal flare, which is why I was interested in "upgrading" to the nearly flare-proof 14mm.  However, after these tests, I am not sure that is a good idea, particularly since a majority of my ultra-wide use is indoors.

I have been testing all kinds of lenses with an optical bench type set-up for decades.  Lately (for Nikkor lenses) I have been using a D800 for such testing.  One item I have learned over the decades is the sample to sample variation among the old manual focus Nikkor primes is negligible.  This result surprises me.

[Erik Lund]

I fail to see where the sample variation is,,,?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I have the 14/2.8 and  both versions (f/3.5, f/5.6) of the old 15 mm Nikkor.

There is no doubt the 15/3.5 overall has the highest quality provided one (1) can live with its propensity for flare and (2)  deals with the CA in the work flow. If you think the f/3.5 has "phenomenal flare", just prepare yourself for a shocking encounter with its predecessor  f/5.6 . The f/3.5 is pretty sharp corner to corner, the f/5.6 is extremely sharp on axis and softens everywhere else, the 14/2.8 is something in between these two.

The CRC components can probably contribute to sample variations over time for such lenses in particular for samples seeing heavy use. My 15 mm lenses have held up very well, but I recently experienced a 24/2 that severely degraded its performance due to a CRC unit working itself loose over time. I used the 14/2.8 frequently with D1/D1X bodies back in time, for which it worked well enough, but it has been a little disappointing on modern cameras. If the 14/2.8 is deployed for IR, it also exhibits "phenomenal flare", by the way.

If excellent resistance against flare and a very wide angle of view are required, few lenses beat the 16/3.5 Fisheye-Nikkor.

 

[Geoff]

Oops, I guess I was not too clear....

I expected overall better off-axis performance for the much newer design (the 14mm) than the old AIS lens.  Generally that is true of newer designs.  Typically, newer lens designs have slightly diminished on-axis resolution (compared to old designs) but much better off-axis performance.  Talking resolution here.  The 14mm I have examined clearly fails to perform better off-axis versus the old 15mm at indoor distances.  I do not know if this is typical of the 14mm lens (I kind of doubt it) or if it is simply a poor sample of this lens--what I am referring to as sample variation.  Would like to see another 14mm lens to see what it does under the same conditions.

[Erik Lund]

The 14mm is really super good on DX and yes on DX in IR

Yes it looks like it's partly due to field curvature both samples I have owned had this and all tests show it. But I still use it

Also distortion is just barrel on DX

Mustache on FX, but there is s profile in ACR that takes care of that

Can be used with care on FX, when you keep the main subject Centeret or for panorama type images FX when you crop off top and bottom, to avoid the weak corners.

Have shot some with 15mm 3.5 and it's very nice Needs a CPU from Bjørn adjudted to comprnsate for its faults, much better metering.

Enjoy both

[chris dees]

There's a Sigma 14/2.8 as well. Pretty cheap (about €500,00 new) compared to the Nikon and according to some reviews I read not bad either.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Samyang also has a 14/2.8 which received quite good press. Probably lacking somewhat on internal robustness like most such cheaper offerings, but treat it with care and it might provide excellent service.

In terms of build and workmanship, those old 15 mm class Nikkors are heads and shoulders above the rest of the pack.

[Tristin]

Samyangs are apparently not made to be taken apart or serviced.  Otherwise I would give them a try.  Sure they are cheap enough that replacing a damaged lens isn't a bank breaker, but the disposability goes aginst my principles.

There is aso the Irix 15 f/2.4 which looks really interesting.  Hopefully it delivers.

[Erik Lund]

The Irix is still not available as far as I know,,, also try out the Zeiss ZM, there are threads on it here on NG and it's affordable on ebay co.uk

Samyang Et Al. build quality and sample variation is simply not ok for a Pro to risk,,,

The old 14 mm AF-D is build like a tank, metal casing with rear focus so no external parts moving actually more solid than an MF design, can be purchased second hand without any problems just make sure front and rear glass are pristine, it can/would show up in images if there are dirt or scratches.

BTW the 14mm hates shooting into the sun - unless you like colourful flares,,,