Indepth test of N14-24 vs Zeiss 21mm

[vandevanterSH]

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.

From Bill Caulfeild-Browne's "second opinion" of the Sony:
"I use Capture One for my Phase One files and in loading some of them into C1 last week, I unintentionally included my high ISO Sony files.
Well - they looked like shots from a different camera! All of a sudden ISO 800 looked pretty good, ISO 1600 was clearly usable and ISO 3200 was acceptable in a pinch. (6400 remains in no-man’s-land.)"
*********
Interesting!!

[Slough]

Zeiss makes a 14mm lens?

I think you understood well enough. But why miss a chance to argue.

[Ray]

From Bill Caulfeild-Browne's "second opinion" of the Sony:
"I use Capture One for my Phase One files and in loading some of them into C1 last week, I unintentionally included my high ISO Sony files.
Well - they looked like shots from a different camera! All of a sudden ISO 800 looked pretty good, ISO 1600 was clearly usable and ISO 3200 was acceptable in a pinch. (6400 remains in no-man’s-land.)"
*********
Interesting!!

I understand that use of different converters can produce marginally different results in respect of noise. Reading threads about the A900 on this forum, I see that Aperture and Iridient's Raw Developer get good ratings with the A900. Unfortunately I don't have a Mac system. Changing camera systems involves some additional expense in lens purchases. I wouldn't be too happy if I also felt compelled to buy a new computer in order to get the lowest noise from my A900 conversions.

DXOMark claim to produce test results which are independent of the characteristics of individual converters. Their results indicate that the 5D2 has at least a stop more of both S/N and DR than the A900 at high ISOs. The Nikon D700 is better by an even wider margin, but one might expect that because its pixels are larger.

The high ISO performance of the A900 is clearly not bad. It may very well be good enough to produce usable results at ISO 6400, for certain purposes and at a certain, fairly small, print size. However, on the high-ISO noise front, it's clearly not there amongst the lowest noise cameras currently available, such as the 1Ds3, 5D2, D700, D3 and D3X.

[Guillermo Luijk]

I am seriously considering the Nikon 14-24 for Canon FF via adaptor. Can anyone tell me if the quality of results can be reduced somewhat because of the adaption? or this is totally impossible and the optics would yield exactly the same quality as on a Nikon mount? (I don't mean losing auto focus or aperture control, I know the limitations for these).

BR

[akclimber]

I am seriously considering the Nikon 14-24 for Canon FF via adaptor. Can anyone tell me if the quality of results can be reduced somewhat because of the adaption? or this is totally impossible and the optics would yield exactly the same quality as on a Nikon mount? (I don't mean losing auto focus or aperture control, I know the limitations for these).

BR

I have a 16-9 adapter available here: http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/  I've used it with a 5D and Nikon 14-24.  The combination produces outstanding results.  The 16-9 adapter is a high quality converted Fotodiox adapter.  It's the only adapter I own but I have read that adapters can indeed affect the image quality of the adapted lens so it may pay to stick with higher quality, well known adapters (fotodiox, haoda, camraquest, etc.).  Of course, others use inexpensive adapters and get great results so who knows....?

Check out the alt gear forums here for lots of info on adapters, alt lenses, etc.:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55

Here's a direct link to a 14-24 thread:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/660637

Here are my thoughts on the lens and adapter (also posted here someplace):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/656020/0#5840548

Merry Solstice & thank you for your work on the noiseless exposure blend/RAW conversion software!

[Slough]

I am seriously considering the Nikon 14-24 for Canon FF via adaptor. Can anyone tell me if the quality of results can be reduced somewhat because of the adaption? or this is totally impossible and the optics would yield exactly the same quality as on a Nikon mount? (I don't mean losing auto focus or aperture control, I know the limitations for these).

BR

There is a test somewhere in a non-English language (Italian?) comparing results on a D3 and a 5D. There is a slight variation in sharpness across the field.  IIRC the Nikon was sharper at the edges, softer at the centre. The explanation is possibly that the 5D has a weaker AA filter, but the Nikon microlenses are better off axis. But these differences were very small.