Has or does anyone own a 25mm f2 Zeiss lens and a Nikon 24mm f2.8 lens?
Is the ZEISS lens a LOT better? I have owned Hasselblad and know from experience those lenses are fantastic. I also own Nikon and think the lenses are good, such as a 24mm f/2.8. I am now wondering how MUCH better is the Zeiss lens. I am aware of the DoX charts and measurements, but do NOT believe they always translate correctly when a lens and body are used in the field.
IF you have had experience with the Zeiss and Nikon lens, I would appreciate your findings. thanks
You're going to judge good or poorly written opinions to guide your decision over images of lines on charts? Really?
I am simply asking IF anyone out there has owned these two WA lenses and how they compared, in their opinion.
I own the Nikon WA and it is very sharp and performs well. I am just wondering IF someone out there has the Zeiss 25mm f/2 T Distagon and how much they like it...
alphadog wrote:
I am simply asking IF anyone out there has owned these two WA lenses and how they compared, in their opinion.
I own the Nikon WA and it is very sharp and performs well. I am just wondering IF someone out there has the Zeiss 25mm f/2 T Distagon and how much they like it...
I don't have experience with the lenses questioned. My experience with other Zeiss lenses are they are superiorly constructed and deliver superior optics, better than the corresponding Canon lenses. The all-metal versions are very solid
and heavy. The prices are expensive, but no really outrageous for this level of performance. It really comes down to the price you want to pay.
As you read the opinions, look for comments that say the price is worth it, remembering that what the general UHH community is willing to pay may not be the same as you. Read the specifications of the lens carefully. Many of these lenses have a 'focus confirmation chip', but are not actually AF-capable on Nikon and Canon bodies. Is a manual focus
only lens worth the price? Your camera may beep for focus, or the AF points light in the display, but you do the focusing. Confirm / disprove this potential issue for each lens and your candidate camera body(s).
Alpha - Good luck with your inquiry. I can help a bit but not as fully as you would like. Many years ago I owned the Nikon AF 24 2.8. At the time I was not very impressed and sold it fairly soon after. I now use several Zeiss primes on my d850. Closest to your inquiry is the 21 2.8ZF.2. I find that this lens and several other Zeiss lenses are substantially better than their Nikon counterparts. The 25 f2 was always held in very high regard and had stellar reviews.
I would steer you towards reviewers like lenstip, dustin abbott & Imaging resource. Lenstip in this case has reviews of both of these lenses which can be compared directly. A really amazing objective MTF test is done by OLAF optical out of Lensrentals. If you are comfortable reading these tests they are tons more informative than the theoretical ones put out by most manufacturers. For a wide angle lens this is a very high quality result. Sadly they do not have a readily available test for the Nikon 24 2.8 for comparison.
Another source, optical limits also has objective tests on both of these. And yes, the Zeiss resolves significantly higher.
Yes, well stated and I agree fully... thanks for the input. Now IF canon provided an 800mm f6.3 for $6500, I would get it with 5R body and that would be my last rig needed for nature work.
Thank you for your feedback... regards, richard
Even if you print 20x30 inch images your Nikon 24mm f2.8 is a very good performer. That was the lens the late Galen Rowell used very often for his landscape photography.
Is the Zeiss lens superior? Most probably yes but I question if it will be more useful to your photography than the Nikon lens.
While still in research mode, take a look at the 25mm milvus.
Camerapapi. I love galen's work. He valued the 24mm manual for its size and weight. Now, with higher resolution bodies, I value tools which enable highest quality results.
alphadog wrote:
Has or does anyone own a 25mm f2 Zeiss lens and a Nikon 24mm f2.8 lens?
Is the ZEISS lens a LOT better? I have owned Hasselblad and know from experience those lenses are fantastic. I also own Nikon and think the lenses are good, such as a 24mm f/2.8. I am now wondering how MUCH better is the Zeiss lens. I am aware of the DoX charts and measurements, but do NOT believe they always translate correctly when a lens and body are used in the field.
IF you have had experience with the Zeiss and Nikon lens, I would appreciate your findings. thanks
Has or does anyone own a 25mm f2 Zeiss lens and a ... (
show quote)
Here is an interesting article on a different Zeiss lens.
Makes one think about spending all that money.
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/the-345-yongnuo-85mm-f-1-8-fe-lens-outperforms-the-3990-zeiss-otus-lens/
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
alphadog wrote:
Has or does anyone own a 25mm f2 Zeiss lens and a Nikon 24mm f2.8 lens?
Is the ZEISS lens a LOT better? I have owned Hasselblad and know from experience those lenses are fantastic. I also own Nikon and think the lenses are good, such as a 24mm f/2.8. I am now wondering how MUCH better is the Zeiss lens. I am aware of the DoX charts and measurements, but do NOT believe they always translate correctly when a lens and body are used in the field.
IF you have had experience with the Zeiss and Nikon lens, I would appreciate your findings. thanks
Has or does anyone own a 25mm f2 Zeiss lens and a ... (
show quote)
I have owned both. My personal choice however is the AUTO FOCUS 25 Zeiss on my Sony a1.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.