Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 vs Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 for mountain landscapes?

[pluton]

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.

[Erik Lund]

Yes, the 14-24 has these congested rainbows,,,

[Bjørn J]

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

[Jedi]

They're gold informations for me, thanks, thanks, thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Roland Vink]

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

[Akira]

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?

[Frank Fremerey]

@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

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[pluton]

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?

[Jedi]

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?

[Jedi]

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.......

[pluton]

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.

[Jedi]

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?

[Ilkka Nissilä]

No. Zeiss lenses are typically very contrasty.

[Jedi]

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.