Zeiss Distagon T* 3,5/18 vs Nikon 14-24, any final statements?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by bagnon, Sep 8, 2008.

  1. bagnon

    bagnon

    7
    Mar 23, 2008
    Spain
    From what I have read, it seems that the Zeiss has more distortion, and no better corners or flare resistance than the 14-24.

    Are out there any reviews or test to support a final statement regarding the new Zeiss?

    Kind regards.
     
  2. johan1967

    johan1967

    301
    Jun 30, 2008
    Netherlands
  3. bagnon

    bagnon

    7
    Mar 23, 2008
    Spain
    Thanks for the link. It's a pity, I had great hopes on this new lens, basically because it allows to user filters. My 14-24 is great, but some times I miss filters.

    Kind regards.
     
  4. Doug

    Doug

    Jan 17, 2006
    East TN
    well, do you want a prime with filter capability, or a zoom with AFS that does go WIDER. I think these are the major considerations. In a perfect world, perhaps take 1 of each and call in the morning. But you know there are alternate ways to satisfy the filterization and primal urges.

    For me, it's 17-35, nice zoom range, solid quality for landscapes, accepts filters.
    14-24, you know what you get.
    Zeiss prime, would be a luxury, someday maybe... In the meantime the 100mm satisfies my Zeiss urge pretty darn well. In fact some say the 50 and 100 ZF 2.0 lenses are Zeiss's best, bar none. So, take what you will from that.
     
  5. bagnon

    bagnon

    7
    Mar 23, 2008
    Spain
    Since i already have the 14-24, I'd love a prime with filter capability, but not to the expense of worse optical characteristics.

    I also have no shortage of ZF primes (35f2, 50f2, 85f1.4 and 100f2), but because they give me better image quality than equivalent Nikon lenses. If I loose AF and zoom, at least I ask for better performance.

    I guess I'll wait for more reviews of the 18f3.5.

    Regards.
     
  6. johan1967

    johan1967

    301
    Jun 30, 2008
    Netherlands
    Did you see this thread:

    https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=184878&page=7

    The pictures that Paul has made with this lens show that it is a very good lens in my opinion. Apparently in the lab this lens shows some (easy?) flare, vignette and distortion. As there is not a complete test of this lens available at this moment, it remains to be seen if this will be a problem in real world. Paul's pictures show that this lens is capable of very good pictures. I particularly like the colours, contrast and bokeh. I think I will buy this lens, but I will wait until Photokina with my decision. Perhaps Zeiss has some new lenses to present there. :smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  7. johan1967

    johan1967

    301
    Jun 30, 2008
    Netherlands
  8. bagnon

    bagnon

    7
    Mar 23, 2008
    Spain
    johan1967, thanks for the links and info.

    Yeahh, Paul can make any lens look gorgeous, but from what I read, I will keep me carring the 14-24 around.

    regards.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2008
  9. Zf 18?

    I just last week bought, used, then returned a ZF 18. I would have preferred a small, manual focus prime(ZF 18) instead of a bloated zoom with a motor inside(N 14-24), but this time my dough will go to Nikon. The lens I had was not defective. It had far and away the best detail rendition across the frame, at all stops, of any 18mm I've used(ZC 18/4, Nikon 18/4(not a good lens), Nikon [email protected]). HOWEVER, the illumination falloff with the D3(can't speak for film or other DSLR's) made the lens not usable 'till I stopped it down to f/5.6. Full improvement had to wait 'till f/8. Problem: I don't want an f/5.6 lens. IMO, this is the first of the ZF lenses where Zeiss' M.O. of sticking to established designs and improving them as computational power allows has failed them, at least as far as the D3 or FF DSLR user goes. The w/a zooms do not have this problem, supposedly due to their 'telecentricity'. Zeiss could have created a more telecentric design without this 'flaw', but chose not to. I do like their other lenses, though, and will continue to use them with pleasure.
     
  10. johan1967

    johan1967

    301
    Jun 30, 2008
    Netherlands
    Thanks for your reply. :smile:

    Is it possible for you to post one or two pictures that show the falloff. Much appreciated if you are able to do so.

    Don't you think this kind of falloff is unavoidable with a 18 mm lens when such a lens is able to use filters?
     
  11. [​IMG]I think that the amount of falloff is within the power of the designers to control; On the 'symmetrical-type' lenses for rangefinders/LF(Zeiss Biogon,Super Angulon, etc) the falloff is a necessary fact of geometry...there's nothing they can do beyond optimizing all other factors, except sell you a center filter. BTW, filters of any type or quality on super/ultra/extreme wide angles are a questionable proposition... the lens is looking almost sideways through the filter glass at the sides of the picture. But, yes..I'd like to be able to put a clear glass in front of it for 'dangerous' shooting.
    On retrofocus(inverted telephoto) lenses they can minimize the falloff to a great extent, and on the new-fangled w/a zooms they can do even better.
    I will try to post photos but the workflow is awkward and slow right now ...it may take a few days. Like I say, it was an outstanding lens at f/5.6.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 14, 2008
  12. The Zeiss 18 distortion is also something that is not desirable.
     
  13. I didn't mind the distortion, personally. It seems that the ZF 18 has 'variable distortion' depending on the image point location, which is apparently detrimental to those who would use software to correct out distortion, but actually is the 'old way' to correct distortion from pre-digital times when there was no easy way to make the correction.
     
  14. Don Giles

    Don Giles

    19
    Nov 2, 2006
    I like it

    I think the 18 is pretty awesome. I do not have the 14-24 but I do have the 17-35 and the 18 ZF kills it straight off starting from wide open. I have been working with the nice folks at PT Lens and Tom created a very good profile for the 18 ZF, takes all the distortion away! Both the 18, and 35 have been calibrated. I believe the 25 is also calibrated. On a D3 the 18 is very sharp across the frame with just the very, very edges soft at F8. By F11 everything is really nice and sharp, I believe this lens was made to shoot at F 11 -16.

    All my best,
    Don
     
  15. Is the profile available ? (if so where ?)

    Thanx Don.

    Kindest
     
  16. Don...
    making a 18 (wide open at F/3.5) to work at F/11-F/16 is quite a waste of work... isn't it? :confused:
    I mean, such lens has a very short hyperfocal distance, I guess you can easily get in a few meters it at F/4 - F/5.6.. why you should stop down so much ???
     
  17. Well you dont need to, it easily matches the 14-24/2,8 or surpass it @ corrensponding apertures from F/3,5 and up (apart from fall off).

    As for the fall off mentioned, wide open its very noticble, but from F/5,6 its really a non issue, and even wide open you can get away with fixing it in ACR.
     
  18. Leif

    Leif

    Feb 12, 2006
    England
    Depends how close the foreground is. Even at F16 I do not get the background in focus with the 14-24mm at 14mm!!! Do doubt some know all will point out that it is not a macro lens. :smile:
     
  19. LOL yes, but its close focus ability really makes for some fun/creative stuff.

    Eventhough when i use it as such ill keep around F/2,8-4.:wink: