Nikkor 14-24 lens verses the ziess distagon 21mm
Aug 25, 2012 15:06:07 #
I'am thinking of buying the ziess distagon 21mm f2.8 lens over the nikkor
14-24 2.8.any one out there used both lenses who could offer an objective
Opinion .i just bought a Nikon d800and i'am looking for the best wide angle
Lens for landscapes.
Would appreciate any feedback.
14-24 2.8.any one out there used both lenses who could offer an objective
Opinion .i just bought a Nikon d800and i'am looking for the best wide angle
Lens for landscapes.
Would appreciate any feedback.
Aug 26, 2012 09:46:12 #
Aug 26, 2012 10:13:35 #
Bill:
Thanks for the suggestion .i have used them both . I still can't make a
Determination. I hope t talk with someone who has tried them both.
Thanks again.
Thanks for the suggestion .i have used them both . I still can't make a
Determination. I hope t talk with someone who has tried them both.
Thanks again.
Aug 26, 2012 10:53:57 #
Aug 26, 2012 11:24:00 #
Aug 26, 2012 13:58:38 #
Nikon's Nikkor 24mm f1.4 is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses and would be excellent for your landscape photography. Also, rememebr the Zeiss is manual focus only!
Aug 26, 2012 14:37:20 #
For landscape , manual focus is a definite plus . Also , Zeiss build quality is in a class akin to that of an old Rolls Royce .
Aug 26, 2012 14:46:36 #
If you want to SAVE some money look at the Rokinon 24mm F1.4 - $600 on e-Bay ......
Dec 12, 2012 20:26:58 #
The Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 is supposed to be the best wide angle lens in the world, and better than both of these isn't it? I've heard no wide angle is sharper, and that this beats the primes.
Dec 12, 2012 20:44:16 #
Stef C wrote:
The Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 is supposed to be the best wide angle lens in the world, and better than both of these isn't it? I've heard no wide angle is sharper, and that this beats the primes.
I know the Nikon 14-24 is held in high regards. The Zeiss and Rokinon are right up there also, but they are manual focus. I know we are talking Nikon here, but the Canon 24 and 17 TSE are right up there also - they are manual focus also. See Ken Rockwell's site for good info on the Nikon.
Dec 12, 2012 20:49:34 #
Dec 12, 2012 20:50:49 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
Stef, I'd be careful quoting Ken Rockwell too closely, his opinion flaps in the breeze.
The lens you mention as being sharper than both is actually one of the lenses being considered.
I very much doubt if the 14-24 is better than the Zeiss at 21mm. I am unaware of any lens that is better than this Zeiss at 21mm.
As the OP has used this Zeiss he will obviously be aware of the smoothness of the feel of the lens and the quality of the images from it.
I havent used the 14-24 so cannot comment on its feel.
I suppose what you have to weigh up is:
is 21mm wide enough for you,
is the bulbous front element on the 14-24 a problem,
is the extra size and weight a problem,
is a 16-35 a better option
is the 18mm Zeiss in the picture.
I know what I would buy - the Zeiss.
But I also know that I would want wider.
The lens you mention as being sharper than both is actually one of the lenses being considered.
I very much doubt if the 14-24 is better than the Zeiss at 21mm. I am unaware of any lens that is better than this Zeiss at 21mm.
As the OP has used this Zeiss he will obviously be aware of the smoothness of the feel of the lens and the quality of the images from it.
I havent used the 14-24 so cannot comment on its feel.
I suppose what you have to weigh up is:
is 21mm wide enough for you,
is the bulbous front element on the 14-24 a problem,
is the extra size and weight a problem,
is a 16-35 a better option
is the 18mm Zeiss in the picture.
I know what I would buy - the Zeiss.
But I also know that I would want wider.
Dec 12, 2012 22:20:03 #
lighthouse wrote:
Stef, I'd be careful quoting Ken Rockwell too clos... (show quote)
No opinions given - go to the website and look at the images yourself and judge !
Dec 12, 2012 23:29:20 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
imagemeister wrote:
No opinions given - go to the website and look at the images yourself and judge !
Hi George my comments were more directed at Ken saying that the 14-24 was the best wide angle ever and better than any prime.
Its just that you posted your post while I was still composing mine.
I was glad that you posted Kens comparison link so that people could see the "flapping in the breeze" I spoke about.
Another point that may be relevant.
I can't remember where I saw it (maybe the DXO lens comparison site) but I have seen a comparison that shows the 21mm Zeiss as being sharper on a Nikon than on a Canon.
Either way it is a damn fine lens.
Dec 13, 2012 10:21:50 #
lighthouse wrote:
Stef, I'd be careful quoting Ken Rockwell too clos... (show quote)
I wasn't quoting rockwell. I was quoting like 5 different sources that have said nothing compares to the 14-24mm in terms of sharpness, and overall quality
Read the reviews on photozone, or the youtube videos on the 14-24mm. Numerous sources, both respected and unknown have said it. I've never used it, so I can't attest, that's just what I've heard. I've been doing a lot of research on the Nikon wide angles lately, and the only knock on the 14-24 is it's weight and lack of filter utilization.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.