Since I haven't seen anyone else testing these lenses next to one another so I don't see how I'm contradicting everyone? and there's really nothing extraordinary about my comments.
...according to my eyes, @14mm the 14-24 has linear distortion, and as far as I know pz never conducted side by side tests of these lenses, so I don't understand what you're referring to.
It's really quite simple, Photozone tested both lenses using the same methodology and measured barrel distortion on the 14/2.8 at 2.6% while they measured 1.4% barrel distortion on 14-24/2.8 at 14mm.
No review of these lenses anywhere will indicate that the 14-24/2.8 has more of a problem with its barrel distortion and than the 14/2.8 has with its barrel distortion -- you are the only person reporting that, so in that regard your comments are extraordinary and to be taken seriously should be accompanied by some proof. Now I've provided proof from Photozone that you choose to reject, so let me offer some more proof to challenge what you are claiming.
Here's what Moose Peterson says about this:
"What about distortion? Shooting wide at 14mm, you might be worried about barrel or edge distortion. At its minimum focusing distance to infinity, I pushed photos with straight elements at the edge of the frame. It was total fun seeing these images in the viewfinder with straight lines. After about two weeks of pushing the 14-24AFS to the extreme in this regard and it proving itself, I never hesitated to use the lens to its extreme. Compared to the older 14mm, the 14-24AFS has the same if not better performance in regards to distortion. Don't confuse the leaning in of straight lines when you point the lens up or down as distortion. That's just perspective."
Here's what Thom Hogan says about this:
"14mm – The 12-24mm f/4G DX lens on the APS-sensor cameras, the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G on the FX bodies. Optically, the 14-24mm is the better choice and has fewer optical problems, but the 12-24mm allows the use of (very thin) filters and is a reasonably close second (but it doesn’t cover the FX frame at 14mm). The 14mm f/2.8D has more distortion, more chromatic aberration, plus more edge effects when used wide open, so it is a distant third choice on any camera."
Now it's your turn, bring back a review or a test result that supports your claim and contradicts what everyone else I'm aware of says about theses two lenses.
I will accept this, you like the Nikkor 14/2.8 more than the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 -- there's nothing wrong with that. You have some reasons that may or may not have validity to them, such as not liking the greater contrast delivered by the zoom -- that's your prerogative and I say great for you. However, don't mislead people because you did some tests with unknown and uncheckable methodology that lead you to believe that the 14-24/2.8 was not rectilinear or that it suffered greater linear distortion than the 14/2.8; as far as that's concerned you don't have any proof and you can't find anyone that will substantiate your observation.