pappleg

Newbie to this forum but not photography. Had my own darkroom for many years and used everything from 35mm to 4X5 and switched to digital some 20 years ago-been using DX for years and with retirement last year decided to move to the dark side going full frame all the way with Nikon D810 24-120mm Nikkor, 60mm F2 Micro, and 80-400 Tele Zoom. Happy with all until a recent landscape landscape project shooting the 18 holes of the golf course I work part time and I began seeing some of the limitations while editing out golf carts and golfers in the far backgrounds of some holes in Lightroom/Photoshop. The 24-120 while fine for everyday shooting is slightly soft in big enlargement of images for editing so considering a prime wide angle of 20-25mm for landscapes. Conflicted over choices and as yet cannot pull the trigger-looking at Nikkor 20mm F1.8 and 24mm F1.8 and F2.8 as well as Zeiss Distagon 21mm F2.0 and 25mm F2.0 and 2.8. Prices range from $1k-$2k so none are cheap and I am all are capable but reviews, as usual, are all over the map and sales folks are reluctant to give straight opinions one way or the other. Any thoughts that may help me in this dilemma?

Thanks all in advance.

Patrick

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The wider angle of view is a significant difference. But if your images with the 24-120mm are not sharp enough you need to look at better technique.

pappleg

I believe my technique is solid, all Manfrotto tripod mounted, stopped down to F5.6 or more, most 8 or 11, and though I did not have a cable release yet, do now, but used self timer for shutter actuation. Are you suggesting that at large enlargements that a zoom should be as sharp as a prime lens? My plans forward are extensive travel and lots of landscape photos so I want best images possible before post processing including HDRs and Panoramas. I simply do not want to regret my final decision.

Thx Patrick

cmc65

I think you should try renting a couple for test run. It may help.

aellman Loc: Boston MA

Based on a long history, in a same focal length lens comparison, I don't think you can beat a Zeiss lens. >Alan

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Welcome to the forum.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It is common knowledge that a 5x zoom lens is not going to match a decent prime lens. Only someone who uses only zoom lenses would not understand that. A 24mm prime is about twice as sharp as a 24-120 zoom at its best focal length, which is probably not 24 mm.

According to Camera Lens Ratings by DxOMark the best lens in that range is the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.8G ED at about $750 but there are other sites with different rankings.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

A 24-120mm zoom is not even close to the sharpness of any decent prime lens in that range.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Neither of these lenses is perfect, and neither is a dud. Reviewers must point out any shortcomings, or imagined shortcomings, they perceive. Balance the good and the bad in the reviews you're read, and buy one or the other. Ask me about any camera or lens I have, and I'll tell you I like it. I rely on reviewers and testers to point out the high and low points of products before I buy.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

My go to Nikon landscape lens is the 16-35 F4. I go 20X30's with no problem. With that said the Zeiss lenses are hard to beat, however, for landscapes you are limited with a fixed focal length lens. But WOW, are they sharp, but so is the more versatile 16-35.

William Royer Loc: Kansas

I have, use and like both the Nikon 20mm and the Zeiss 21mm Zf. Use on D810. Don't think you can go wrong either way; both are great. Obviously I'd read the many reviews. For my $.02, when I choose one for deliberate shooting of landscape etc., I usually lean toward the Zeiss. I simply like the way it renders a scene

alfeng Loc: Out where the West commences ...

Do you really need a wideangle lens with autofocusing capabilities?!?

I can't speak to the 20mm Nikkor or the 21mm Zeiss lenses which you are thinking of, but why not just opt for a vintage 24mm f2.0 Nikkor AI lens (which I recall was supposed to be a superior lens when compared to its slower Nikkor f2.8 variant; and, which is probably the basis for the 24mm f1.8 lens you included as a possibility) which will cost you a fraction of what the latest iteration of the lens will cost?

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

The above is not bad advice. As a golfer and photographer I will say that a course is a most difficult subject. The wider you go then visually the subject near your horizon gets very small. I have had my best success going longer with a portrait lens in portrait configuration and then stitching together a pano.

Also the 810 with all those pixels is subject to micro blur and if you are at F5.6 your DoF will not be large enough.

Lastly, get a Nikon wireless remote and then shoot mirror up and electronic front curtain turned on. I've had better sharpness with this than the timed release. I have not figured out how to do both at same time. Some of the third party remotes do not function properly in all shooting modes.

And if you do go with a wide angle I have found 24 or 28 to be a sweet spot. Wide enough to be dramatic without the distortion and diagonals created by a super wide. Nikkor's 24 has had good ratings for years. I use the Zeiss Batis 25 and Otus 28 for most of my mountain landscapes, or the 85 or 135 for panos.

Good luck.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

You should also be looking at Sigma 24 1.4 and 20 1.4's - and saving money to boot !

pappleg

Thanks to all the responders, we are mostly all on the same page. I have been leaning toward the zeiss but can rent locally a nikkor then conditionally buy a zeiss that I can return if direct comparison favors the nikkor. In my 4X5 days I used 121 and 210 Schneiders and the sharpest photo I ever made was with a crown graphic using a 1930's era meyer anastigmat of an old courthouse where one could see peeling paint on the cupola windows some 500 feet away when enlarged to 16X20. I am convinced the Germans still make the best optical glass on earth. I'll post side by side images once obtained for the benefit of those convinced that a zoom can match a prime. Don't get me wrong, I love my 24-120 for general work but realize it's limitations in relation to primes. Thanks again for your affirmations