Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #19 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm |
Nikon may have done better if they made the 14-24 an f4 lens, as the res wide open is very poor, and the CA is disturbing. Perhaps they may have been able to fit a filter ring to it then and make it a reasonable weight and size. In this day an age it is starting to look like a dinosaur. It also costs $2000. Focus shift will become a more serious matter with the new sensors now emerging, and Nikon DSLRs still use OVFs I believe.
It has fine sharpness at middle apertures and that seems enough to please...Show more →
I'm testing the two lenses right now to see if the CZ is worth adding to my stable as a complement to my 14-24. At least as compared to the Zeiss, I find nothing you've written to be true. I'm capturing and comparing day and nighttime city scenes on a D800, tripod mounted, at f/2.8 and f/8. Differences in corner sharpness an resolution at either aperture are almost impossible to detect, but what is easily detectable is significant vignetting with the Zeiss. What am I missing?
I was thinking that this would be an easy decision, but it turns out that the qualities of the Zeiss (from an imaging perspective) are extremely difficult to discern as compared to the Nikon. I love the CZ build quality; beautifully damped focus ring, and a metal hood that just effortlessly drops on. But in comparing it to the Nikon from an IQ standpoint, it is nowhere close to being a slam dunk. Indeed, given the vignetting at f/2.8, I don't think I'd want to use the CZ for any night-sky work. I might like it for wide-angle landscapes where I want to use a polarizer or ND filter, but that seems like a pretty narrow group of uses for a $3000 lens!