1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

For those interested: zeiss 18 vs nik 14-24

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Paul.r.lindqvist, Aug 23, 2008.

  1. Iv been sick all week so i havent had much time to go out, so the first test is done indoors. (this test was repeated 3 times, with the same result)


    Anyway here is the scene(my office)
    Camera: Nikon D3
    Whitebalance: Auto
    Exposure: Manual
    Support: Studio tripod, cable relase, mirror lock up.
    Focus: Live view 10x (manual)
    Format: Raw
    Converter: ACR
    Post processing: NONE

    Content removed
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2008
  2. Thanks Paul, everything posted is enlightening..
    Maybe it's just a personal impression, but for what I see the Zeiss looks also a bit more contrasty/more defined while rendering letters which are somehow more readable than the Nikkor; I'd like to add that it has (to me) more sense a wide angle prime to get out of troubles now and then than a very expensive ultra-wide-angle zoom which is still too short on the long end, even if used on DSLR, imho, the 17-35 on FF is a better (more useable) range.
     
  3. Wow, Paul - a very objective test <in my opinion> and you have presented proof to backup your conclusions. I agree with your findings based on the images. Seems like the Zeiss is a very good lens. I can't afford either, but I am happy with my 17-35 for now <I am still on DX>.

    Thank you for a very good test and I am sure others will appreciate your effort.
     
  4. BostjanP

    BostjanP

    34
    Jun 8, 2008
    Slovenia
    The objects are not in the same plane, so the lens with more field curvature may benefit in corner sharpness.
     
  5. Nikkor AIS

    Nikkor AIS

    Jun 5, 2008
    Alberta
    It's no surprise to me that a prime is sharper than a zoom. Thanks for taking the time to do the test.

    Gregory
     
  6. panda81

    panda81

    Feb 7, 2008
    Texas
    Thanks Paul. Another good reason to spend more $$ on camera gear :wink:
     
  7. Thanx guys.

    Remember this is ONE test, the diffrence in corner sharpness may very well be due to FC as BostjanP already mentioned.


    The substantial diffrence makes me suspect it is, time well tell when i have had some more time to test.

    Thanx.

    Kindest
     
  8. I think that is spot on, but otherwise with the images presented I agree with your conclusions. So, if you want corners more go Zeiss and if you want flexibility more then go Nikon. Bioth seem very strong contenders and few would quibble owning either. For me I kinda think the Zeiss is the more attractive package.
     
  9. JeffKohn

    JeffKohn

    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    I wonder about the field curvature as well, I noticed some ugliness in the corners of a few of your samples in the other thread that seemed like they could be due to field curvature. The bottom right corner seems "closer" than the top left, although even in the bottom right samples the ziess has the edge.

    Thanks for taking the time to post these, most useful. I look forward to future feedback and impressions as you get to know the lens.
     
  10. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    There is something very special about each and every Zeiss (ZF) lens and you are able to prove that. FC or not, it seems to spank the highly acclaimed 14-24 in this particular round of testing. Thanks for doing this, Paul, and especially whilst you're ill. Get better!
     
  11. Enjoyed that test Paul. Do we ever think Zeiss might do AF lenses for mounts other than Sony? Or is that exclusive? I know you love MF, but my eyes just can't do it well (I have odd, difficult to correct vision)...
     
  12. Thanx, guys, glad you found it interesting enough.

    Ill try to post my latest test, wich is a flat subject (wall) later tonight.

    Kindest
     
  13. johan1967

    johan1967

    301
    Jun 30, 2008
    Netherlands
    Thanx a lot for this excellent work. Knowing you as a passionate Zeiss fan, I must say that the test and testresults are very objective (to my opinion). You clearly don't work to a predefined result. I really appreciate that. :smile:

    Based on your first pictures a few days ago and this test, I think the first conlusion must be that the Zeiss 18\3.5 is an excellent lens that certainly can compete with the best lenses available today in this range. As I already have some Zeiss lenses, I can't go wrong with buying this one I think. I am looking forward to the next test-results.:smile:
     
  14. johan1967

    johan1967

    301
    Jun 30, 2008
    Netherlands
    On diglloyd.com there is a flare-comparison between these lenses. Zeiss is not so good I must say.
     
  15. Very interesting. I am looking forward to more.
     
  16. Rich: I highly doubt they ever will.

    Johan:Yes i havent had time to test the flare, but its certainly a little dissapointing, i was hoping for a little less then the Nikkor, it maintains contrast though.. lol

    William: And more wil come. .-)
     
  17. Flat wall test

    So to eliminate the effect of FC (field curvature) i tested the lenses with a flat subject. A wall... :) 

    Camera: Nikon D3
    Whitebalance: Auto
    Exposure: Aperture priority, due to the use of flash.
    Support: Studio tripod, cable relase, mirror lock up.
    Focus: Live view 10x (manual) on the Zeiss and AF on the Nikkor. (best result was obtained when using AF, mf with this lens simply to inconsistent)
    Format: Raw
    Converter: ACR
    Post processing: NONE

    Content removed
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2008
  18. Excellent test Paul - thanks for posting this.

    The Zeiss does look very very good. I was expecting the Zeiss might struggle against the 14-24 too be honest!

    The Zeiss seems to have more distortion as the lens front is rendered slightly flat (and oval) in the bottom right corner crop?

    I think your 14-24 isn't quite as sharp on the right as on the left?

    I am considering the Zeiss 25mm at the moment... 18mm is out-of-reach for me!
     
  19. JeffKohn

    JeffKohn

    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    Thanks for the additional testing. Zeiss definitely has an advantage in corner sharpness at wide apertures, with the gap narrowing somewhat as you stop down. 14-24 seems better with regard to distortion though.
     
  20. Well the Zeiss doesnt wipe the floor with the Nik 14-24/2,8. As far as corner sharpness is concerned it seems thus far to have the upper hand, but not to the extent the first test might have shown. Not for a flat subject anyway. .-) Still take into account focus "variation" both lenses where focused manually with liveview, i need to repeat it to make sure i didnt screw up.

    Distortion is without doubt less on the Nikkor, expected since its in the middle of its range.

    Kindest
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.