thrice wrote:
The Tokina 16-28 is sharper than the Nikon 14-24 as well.
Every time a new lens is put up against the 14-24 there are claims the new lens is better, and every time those claims turn out to be wrong. The 14-24 is still the sharpest UWA lens in the word across the frame, esp. at the stopped-down apertures that is typical for its use.
Here are photozone's 14-24 and 16-28mm results btw. At the wide end it's not even close: NIkon 14-24 Tokina 16-28
It will be interesing to see the numbers from photozone on the Zeiss 15, since they refocus to eliminate curvature of field. In my experience the Zeiss 15 is quite heavy at it.
Optics in general ... UWA in particular is always a series of compromises / tradeoffs.
The bane of the NIkon is distortion, Zeiss vignetting, Tokina, softer corners. Nobody makes a lens that handles all of these simultaneously. COF and other optical issues are also part of the equation.
For me, the issue isn't picking the one that is the best amongst the good ... instead, pick your poison (resolution, distortion, vignetting, cof, flare, etc.) and stay away from it, or at least have a strategy for dealing with it.
To me, the Nikon has more distortion, the Zeiss more vignette and the Tokina has nervous bokeh, while the Samyang has more distortion as those things that "put me off".
hiepphotog wrote:
Very likely due to focus shift. This is well-documented by Lloyd Chambers.
just curious, why would there be focus shift on a nex-7? I would think you would stop down to the aperture you wanted to shoot at and then focus for the highest level of contrast. especially if you are doing a test where you want to take the time to show each lens at it's best.
redisburning wrote:
just curious, why would there be focus shift on a nex-7? I would think you would stop down to the aperture you wanted to shoot at and then focus for the highest level of contrast. especially if you are doing a test where you want to take the time to show each lens at it's best.
You caught me right there . They did not really say how they focused. So I automatically assume that they focused and stopped down metering like in the old day. But with the LV and manually aperture control, the focus shift argument is not valid.
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 many fans, but images are clinical and lack the vitality, fine colour and contrast that the CZ lens brings with it. The Samyang is terrific value.
That DP site really need to ensure that scaling and exposure of test images is at least the same for each lens. The Nikon has nasty CA even at f11 in their images.
Regarding Kent's trade-offs, many users add vignetting to images or are ambivalent about it, but not many wish to add CA or distortion. Apologies in advance if I make no sense Ed, it wouldn't be the first time!
Having owned excellent copies of the Nikon 14-24/2.8 and the Tokina 16-28/2.8, I'd say that center sharpness is better on the Tokina, and corner sharpness is about equal (on a 5DII). They are very close though, especially at the corners, and copy to copy variation probably plays more of a role than anything else. I really prefer the better color and contrast (including micro-contrast) of the Tokina , and the 16-28 focal range.
It's been on my radar (research based), but I've not had the occasion to try one out yet. Would love to see some of your work with it (remembering your WA Tamron stuff from quite a while back) as we have some similar perspectives.
philip_pj wrote:
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 many fans, but images are clinical and lack the vitality, fine colour and contrast that the CZ lens brings with it. The Samyang is terrific value.
That DP site really need to ensure that scaling and exposure of test images is at least the same for each lens. The Nikon has nasty CA even at f11 in their images.
Regarding Kent's trade-offs, many users add vignetting to images or are ambivalent about it, but not many wish to add CA or distortion. Apologies in advance if I make no sense Ed, it wouldn't be the first time!...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!
The 14-24 would be smaller if it was f/4, but the lens as it is fulfills the general promise of a lens sold for 'professional' use: Acceptable quality can be had wide open.
The biggest issue I have with the image quality of my 14-24 is that it doesn't match the 'look'of my generally preferred lenses, the Zeiss ZFs. The 14-24 shots--taken at the same time in the same existing-light setup--- stand out as being lower contrast and with weaker color
. They did not really say how they focused. So I automatically assume that they focused and stopped down metering like in the old day. But with the LV and manually aperture control, the focus shift argument is not valid.
