Indepth test of N14-24 vs Zeiss 21mm

[David Clapp]

http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/articles.php

Here it is, a contraversial result from 16-9.net. I finally got to test a 14-24 back to back with the king of wide angles and the results are somewhat unsettling if you are still championing the CZ....

David Clapp
http://www.davidclapp.co.uk
http://photo.net/photos/DavidClapp

[Panopeeper]

David, your narrative sounds a bit like you need to reassure yourself that you spent the money the best way.

The Nikon 14-24mm is undoubtfully a great lens, particularly as it has a wider area of usage, being a zoom. If I went to FF, I would consider it (it is even tempting for a system change). However, the Zeiss is IMO better in Zone C from f/5.6 to f/11, except for the vignetting. For a proper comparison, you should have lightened up the image for the crop (or make shots with +1/3 EV bias). Your comment

The 14-24 is pulling incredible definition for a zoom in Zone C, this is completely unexpected and I have to hand it to the 14-24 which appears marginally sharper and full of contrast

is IMO biased, it mixes up sharpness and contrast with brightness.

Another note: in order to achieve "consistent WB values on all shots", you should have shot a grey card and use that as WB, instead of using "Daylight" (who on earth is using "Daylight" etc. in landscaping?). That way you could have eliminated the color difference caused by the lenses.

Nevertheless, your comparison is valuable, thank you for it. What I would have liked to see is how you are focusing not infinity: using a spit screen, or the live view? How reliable is the result?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Please keep in mind that the Nikon is a wide angle zoom and that 14 mm. is so much wider than 21 mm. With the Zeiss you got a 21 mm lens.

On the other hand there is much more to lenses than sharpnes/MTF/resolution. I admit that I consider the MTF related part the most important one, but flare and hosting for instance are also of uttermost significance. Distorsion an chromatic aberration of the lateral kind are easy to correct in PS so I'm much more forgiving about those (Adobe, add "PTLens" functionality in Lightroom, PLEASE!).

That said I'm right now testing lenses on the Sony Alpha 900. I decided that my Minolta 20/2.8 is a keeper and canceled my order for a Sigma 12-24, which I think is basically a good lens if you get a good sample. I have bought an 24-70/2.8 ZA (having that Zeiss label). The 24-70/2.8 does not shine in my preliminary testing against the old 28-75/2.8 Konica Minolta lens I also have. Further testing may prove that the ZA 24-70 performs better. Both are good lenses, anyway.

Best regards
Erik

http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/articles.php

Here it is, a contraversial result from 16-9.net. I finally got to test a 14-24 back to back with the king of wide angles and the results are somewhat unsettling if you are still championing the CZ....

David Clapp
http://www.davidclapp.co.uk
http://photo.net/photos/DavidClapp

[Slough]

Interesting, but I do suspect that almost every photography forum on the planet now has a thread started by you with a link to your test. Actually I disagree with your conclusion that the Nikon lens wins. For one thing you did not test close up performance. But, the Nikon lens is clearly superb.

[Ray]

The quality and type of lenses available for a particular brand of camera are probably the most important factors to consider when choosing a system. I imagine that many photographers are wondering if they should switch to Nikon, primarily because of the availability of the Nikkor 14-24.

I've found, during the last few years, that my Sigma 15-30 is a lens that I've used frequently on both cropped format and full frame. I think it's likely that I'll continue to use my Nikkor 14-24 just as frequently, if not more frequently, except I'm a bit concerned about the hassles and disadvantages of using a lens via an adapter on a Canon body.

My 5D with Nikkor 14-24 attached had been sitting in my my camera bag unused for a week or so. As I was driving along the highway, an interesting sky caught my attention late in the afternoon. The sun's rays were bursting through some ominously dark clouds onto a swampy lake. I stopped the car, grabbed the 5D and discovered the battery was flat. I'd forgotten to remove the battery the last time I had used the camera. This is a quirk of the adapter on the 5D which I'd already noticed. Even when the camera is switched off, it's not really off. There's some current leakage which is sufficient to cause a fully charged battery to go flat within a few days.

By the time I'd located and fitted a spare battery, the moment had passed and the scene was no longer as interesting.

Unfortunately also, focussing is largely guess work, as I imagine it is with the Zeiss 21/2.8. At least with the 1Ds3 one has the benefit of Live View, but no such luxury on the 5D.

The camera I really want is an A900 with a Live View feature, the high-ISO-low-noise of a D700 or D3X, and a fully functional wide-angle zoom of the quality of the Nikkor 14-24. An upgraded 100-400 telephoto zoom which is razor sharp at F5.6 would seal the deal.

[Ray]

I should add, that I have already sent my letter to Santa Claus, to the subsidiary office at the South Pole. I've given specific details of my Christmas present. Sony A900 performance at ISO 200. D3X performance at ISO 6400. LiveView high definition LCD screen. 8 frames per second. Wide-angle lens performance at least equal to the Nikkor 14-24, and a 100-400 lightweight telezoom that is sharp at F5.6.

I also mentioned in my letter that I have constructed all by myself a specially strong Christmas stocking that can hold the weight of these presents, but unfortunately the stocking is not large enough to hold all the boxes. So I have requested that Santa remove all items from the boxes and discard such boxes. I'm interested only in the contents of the boxes.

I've also promised to be good and not to continue implying that MFDB users do not know what they are doing.

[BernardLanguillier]

I should add, that I have already sent my letter to Santa Claus, to the subsidiary office at the South Pole. I've given specific details of my Christmas present. Sony A900 performance at ISO 200. D3X performance at ISO 6400. LiveView high definition LCD screen. 8 frames per second. Wide-angle lens performance at least equal to the Nikkor 14-24, and a 100-400 lightweight telezoom that is sharp at F5.6.

You have just described a D3x haven't you? Now it is only for you to decide if you want to hate Nikon for charging 8000 US$ or not.

Cheers,
Bernard

[dwdallam]

I'm wondering is manufacturers will ever get 8, 000 US for a camera ever again. We shall see how fast teh 1DS3 and D3x "fly" off the shelves, especially in these economic times.

[Ray]

You have just described a D3x haven't you? Now it is only for you to decide if you want to hate Nikon for charging 8000 US$ or not.

Cheers,
Bernard

Have I really? I haven't seen the detailed comparisons. Does the D3X have the base ISO performance of the A900 with respect to DR and resolution? Does Nikon have a medium priced 100-400 lens that is really sharp at F5.6, better than the Canon 100-400 IS?

And, I almost forgot, does the D3X have in-camera image stabilisation. You've often mentioned this a s a good reason to buy the A900. Image stabilisation works with any lens.

[dwdallam]

Have I really? I haven't seen the detailed comparisons. Does the D3X have the base ISO performance of the A900 with respect to DR and resolution? Does Nikon have a medium priced 100-400 lens that is really sharp at F5.6, better than the Canon 100-400 IS?

And, I almost forgot, does the D3X have in-camera image stabilisation. You've often mentioned this a s a good reason to buy the A900. Image stabilisation works with any lens.

I thought test done between in camera stabilization vs lens stabilization had the lens type as better.

[Ray]

I thought test done between in camera stabilization vs lens stabilization had the lens type as better.

Show me the results. I'm not aware of them. In any case, the Nikkor 14-24 has no in-lens stabilisation, so I would prefer to use such a lens on the A900.

[Tony Beach]

Actually I disagree with your conclusion that the Nikon lens wins. For one thing you did not test close up performance. But, the Nikon lens is clearly superb.

The Nikon lens costs less and has a wider range.  At typical apertures, shooting a typical scene it is as good or better than the Zeiss in the images presented.  What do you base your opinion on?

At f/5.6, 15mm, and focused to .67 meters on a D300 (pixel density greater than the A900) the 14-24 resolves beyond Nyquist frequency:

[dwdallam]

Remember the guy is talking specifically about landscape, not close ups.

[Ray]

At f/5.6, 15mm, and focused to .67 meters on a D300 (pixel density greater than the A900) the 14-24 resolves beyond Nyquist frequency:

All lenses resolve beyond the Nyquist limit, at some aperture. Maybe not at full aperture, and maybe not in the corners, but certainly in the centre, from f2.8 to F11.

The Nikkor 14-24 is not the best at F2.8, but stopped down it's very good right into the corners of full frame.

How this performance varies with focussing distance would be interesting. I might do a comparison with my Sigma 15-30, but I'm hampered with the lack of a Live View focussing screen on my 5D.

[BernardLanguillier]

Have I really? I haven't seen the detailed comparisons. Does the D3X have the base ISO performance of the A900 with respect to DR and resolution? Does Nikon have a medium priced 100-400 lens that is really sharp at F5.6, better than the Canon 100-400 IS?

And, I almost forgot, does the D3X have in-camera image stabilisation. You've often mentioned this a s a good reason to buy the A900. Image stabilisation works with any lens.

The first comparions show the D3x to have better low ISO detail compared to all the other 20+ MP cameras, and roughly the same DR as that of the A900 (or a bit better).

The current 80-400 VR is in the same ball park image quality wise as the Canon, but is due to be updated in the coming months. It is not really sharp at 5.6, but such a lens will never be perfect wide open. If you need perfect image quality at f5.6, the Nikkor 200-400 f4 VR is the lens you need.

The D3x does not have image stabilization which is indeed a plus of the A900 if you don't like/cannot using tripods (mostly for wide angles).

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

The first comparions show the D3x to have better low ISO detail compared to all the other 20+ MP cameras, and roughly the same DR as that of the A900 (or a bit better).

Wow! That's the camera for me, except for the price.

The current 80-400 VR is in the same ball park image quality wise as the Canon, but is due to be updated in the coming months. It is not really sharp at 5.6, but such a lens will never be perfect wide open. If you need perfect image quality at f5.6, the Nikkor 200-400 f4 VR is the lens you need.

400mm at F4 is too heavy. I know it's possible to produce a lens that's sharp at full aperture. There are other examples in the Canon repertoire. What's wrong? I'm prepared to pay a bit more.

The D3x does not have image stabilization which is indeed a plus of the A900 if you don't like/cannot using tripods (mostly for wide angles).

I'm used to a lack of IS with my Sigma 15-30. Wide-angle lenses do not require fast shutter speeds, so it's not a major hurdle, but it would be nice and would be definitely useful.

[Slough]

I'm wondering is manufacturers will ever get 8, 000 US for a camera ever again. We shall see how fast teh 1DS3 and D3x "fly" off the shelves, especially in these economic times.

There is a very interesting post on Nikon Cafe from a pro, who refers to using a camera in quite horrendous once in a lifetime conditions. The dual CF card slots, heavy duty body and heavy duty sealing all mean that he is unlikely to lose shots due to camera failure. That alone pays the cost of the camera. As to how many such photographers there are, that is another question.

There are also a lot of rich amateurs for whom a Canon 5D2 or Sony A900 is good enough. (Sometimes more than good enough, but that's a side issue.) Clearly the D3x is not aimed at them, unless they are seriously rich. How many camera toting Russian oligarchs and Arab Sheikhs are there?

[Slough]

The Nikon lens costs less and has a wider range.  At typical apertures, shooting a typical scene it is as good or better than the Zeiss in the images presented.  What do you base your opinion on?

At f/5.6, 15mm, and focused to .67 meters on a D300 (pixel density greater than the A900) the 14-24 resolves beyond Nyquist frequency:

Reading the test I see they are comparable except wide open where the Zeiss wins. And the price is similar in the UK. (The US is not the only country.)

And I was referring to close ups, much closer than in your images, which is no test at all.

FYI at 14mm the Nikon has significant CA and curvature of field at close focus. The image rather goes to pot. But at longer apertures it is pretty good, but there is softening. I suspect the Zeiss will be better. We will see. Today I was using my 28mm F2.8 AIS which is superior at close focus, and small and light.

And you have forgotten that the Nikon is rather bulky and heavy. Not everyone wants that size. And it cannot take filters. Or not without clunky adaptors.

I know you'll go on about the 14-24mm range. That is a fair point. It is a case of horses for courses. Some people will prefer the Nikon, some the Zeiss. I suppose I don't really like a simple conclusion. Magazine reviews that assign one number (8 out of 10 say) to a lens are crass IMO. Real life is more complex.

[Tony Beach]

FYI at 14mm the Nikon has significant CA and curvature of field at close focus. The image rather goes to pot. But at longer apertures it is pretty good, but there is softening. I suspect the Zeiss will be better. We will see.

Zeiss makes a 14mm lens?

[Ray]

Bernard,
Whilst the lack of IS with a wide-angle zoom such as the Nikkor 14-24 is not such a big deal, it would be with the Bigma 50-500, so I think the upgrade to the A900 might be the camera for me. I'm sure Sony will improve high-ISO performance in their next model since there's been so much discussion about an apparent failing in this respect. I suspect a future upgrade will also include Live View. Also, a wide-angle zoom that's at least as good as the Nikkor 14-24 will surely be developed since there's a clear gap in the market here that needs addressing.