Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2012 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm
  
 
Sami Ruusunen
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


snapsy wrote:
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


Problem is, testing uwa lens perfomance close range on test charts is pretty useless (like the Photozone does). Most uwa lenses are optimized on infinity and their close focusing perfomance is not that great.



Jul 03, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


Keith B. wrote:
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


If by "acceptable" you mean barely distinguishable from and occasionally better than the ZF 15 at all apertures, I agree. I've been shooting all kinds of landscape subjects at various times of day and night with both lenses, and the only difference I can see is that the Zeiss vignettes at 2.8. Otherwise it's very hard to tell the images apart. My wife and I were ready to be convinced, since the Zeiss is such a delight to use.. the focus ring is perfectly damped, and the hood slides on like it was air-cushioned. But we get the images home, and they simply look the same as each other... the differences are subtle but certainly not better in any objective sense. Sharpness is about equal (and stellar) from both lenses, color seems ever so slightly warmer on the Zeiss, and center contrast ever so slightly higher. But the Nikon has better overall corner performance. From an IQ standpoint, the Zeiss seems to have little advantage over the Nikon, despite all the accusations of mediocrity or mere acceptability of the latter. Indeed, for the night sky shooting I like to do, The Zeiss seems like it would be inferior, given how dark it gets at the edges. I haven't had the chance to shoot stars with it yet (hard to do in LA), but I've heard from others who have tried it that the coma effects, along with the vignetting, make it a poor choice vis-a-vis the Nikon.

It can take a dark filter though, which keeps me interested.



Jul 04, 2013 at 09:32 AM
dreamplayer
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


Wide open at f2.8, the zeiss is much sharper than nikon and CA less than nikon.
When they stopped down to F5.6, both are sharp.
Zeiss vignettests stronger than nikon.
Zeiss has much more microcontrast and give you 3d effect.



Jul 04, 2013 at 11:44 AM
wiseguy010
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


And now we get exactly the same discussion as a few years ago with the then new Zeiss ZE/ZF 21/2.8 and Nikon 14-14/2.8.

I think that based on some tests the Nikon 14-24/2.8 might be a little sharper than the Zeiss 15/2.8 and 21/2.8 and the Nikon might have some other advantages (or not), but I would never trade my Zeiss lenses with this Nikon (or any other Nikon). Actually I sold all my Nikon lenses after I got my first Zeiss lenses. With Zeiss I finally got colour, (micro)contrast and dept in my pictures that I always to some extent missed with my Nikon lenses. But I am aware that not everybody does see it the same way as I do.




Jul 04, 2013 at 06:45 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


As many of us are aware, not everyone sees photographic imagery in the same way. Human vision is a complex topic but Arka you may wish to explore further.

'the only difference I can see is that the Zeiss vignettes at 2.8. Otherwise it's very hard to tell the images apart.'

I can assure you many people see a large, often very large, difference in the output purely due to the otical qualities of Zeiss lenses, including fine examples like the 15mm Distagon. Some will include your customers if you sell your work now or in the future.

In fact, Zeiss make a very successful living from the hard-nosed professional assessments made by the cinematic, photographic and publishing industries. These professionals 'put their money where their mouth is' because they 'see' the differences that the Zeiss product makes to their business needs - essentially high quality imaging.

Zeiss would also be simply unable to command the premium price for their product if they merely produced lenses with output that was indistinguishable from Canon and Nikon product lines. As we see, they are very successful at selling the various lines of lenses to these (and others like A, E and X) mounts, even with little promotion - quality is often discovered by word of mouth.

I say this to elevate the debate above the usual level we see, and to show respect for those with a different opinion to many Zeiss users, who are profoundly aware and appreciative of the often superior image quality of Zeiss lenses.

This may interest those who have not seen it:

A small experiment:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/



Jul 05, 2013 at 12:12 AM
Mescalamba
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


Some people simply have low resolution eyes..


Jul 05, 2013 at 02:34 AM
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


Arka wrote:
If by "acceptable" you mean barely distinguishable from and occasionally better than the ZF 15 at all apertures, I agree. I've been shooting all kinds of landscape subjects at various times of day and night with both lenses, and the only difference I can see is that the Zeiss vignettes at 2.8. Otherwise it's very hard to tell the images apart. My wife and I were ready to be convinced, since the Zeiss is such a delight to use.. the focus ring is perfectly damped, and the hood slides on like it was air-cushioned. But we get the images home,
...Show more

In my opinion the Zeiss corner performance did not lag the Nikon except for the presence of vignetting - in fact I found the Zeiss's extreme-corner geometric distortion a bit less ugly. I would also add that the Zeiss is a little bit less prone to flare from in-frame light sources. Otherwise, spot on.



Jul 05, 2013 at 06:53 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Lee Saxon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


philip_pj wrote:
Zeiss would also be simply unable to command the premium price for their product if they merely produced lenses with output that was indistinguishable from Canon and Nikon product lines.


Whether the rest of your post is right or not, this line definitely isn't. Zeiss's CP rehousings of the ZF line. Leica "special editions" with goofy $20k paint jobs. Hasselblad Lunar. Apple computers, phones, and especially tablets. All inferior (or at best identical) products for which idiots pay a premium due to "reputation" and perception (both of which are just clever marketing - remember, "What you call love was invented by guys like me to sell nylons.").



Jul 05, 2013 at 06:59 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


Lee Saxon wrote:
In my opinion the Zeiss corner performance did not lag the Nikon except for the presence of vignetting - in fact I found the Zeiss's extreme-corner geometric distortion a bit less ugly. I would also add that the Zeiss is a little bit less prone to flare from in-frame light sources. Otherwise, spot on.


The comparison from 3d-kraft.com linked to on the first page in this thread, shows about twice as much lateral chromatic aberrations for the Nikon as for the Zeiss. For the Nikon, it is on a level that is very noticeable. Is this something that doesn't happen with your copies, or do you rely on software correction for this?



Jul 05, 2013 at 07:16 PM
simonw
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


Lee Saxon wrote:
Whether the rest of your post is right or not, this line definitely isn't. Zeiss's CP rehousings of the ZF line. Leica "special editions" with goofy $20k paint jobs. Hasselblad Lunar. Apple computers, phones, and especially tablets. All inferior (or at best identical) products for which idiots pay a premium due to "reputation" and perception (both of which are just clever marketing - remember, "What you call love was invented by guys like me to sell nylons.").


The CP's are not just rehoused Z lenses. They have a different aperture system for starters.

And I also don't like being called an idiot because I use a Mac.

Cheers, Simon W.



Jul 05, 2013 at 08:14 PM
snapsy
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


3-D effect is impossible to quantify without both lenses shooting the same scene under the same conditions. Border performance is easier to see and again the 14-24mm is unmatched @ 14mm across the frame when stopped down, which is again demonstrated by the side-by-side review link posted in this thread.


Jul 05, 2013 at 08:17 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


snapsy wrote:
3-D effect is impossible to quantify without both lenses shooting the same scene under the same conditions. Border performance is easier to see and again the 14-24mm is unmatched @ 14mm across the frame when stopped down, which is again demonstrated by the side-by-side review link posted in this thread.


Not to make the 14-24 a lesser lens, but the Zeiss 15 mm really needs to be stopped down to f/8 to get full resolution in the corners with the D800. The mentioned test shows f/2.8 and f/5.6
I will take the Zeiss image quality across the frame over Nikon at apertures f/2.8 and f/8 (the latter due to Lateral CA), but prefer the Nikon at f/5.6.



Jul 05, 2013 at 08:37 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


'Zeiss's CP rehousings of the ZF line'

Sweet cheeses on a bicycle. In the interests of informing readers, here is a fact containing piece on the matter:

http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/cp2vszf2/

"After all, they are in fact the exact same glass but in a different housing, right? Sort ofÖ There are quite a few features that really separate the two lenses no matter how similar their heritage is.

The ZF.2s are Zeissí latest all manual still photo lenses. They just happen to make very pretty images when mounted to a motion picture camera as well as a still photo camera. The Compact Primes take it a step beyond pretty images and provide a professional set of features that can be very valuable to a cinematographer and his/her crew.

Iíll start with the optics. Zeiss says that the CP.2 lenses use hand-picked elements that really increase the consistency and accuracy of the lenses. I canít attest to this as I havenít seen any difference in the glass or the test results produced by the Compact Primes, but it looks good on a brochure.

The next item is the aperture. The ZF.2 lenses use a fairly standard 9 bladed iris whereas the CP.2 lenses utilize a much more rounded 14 bladed iris. This isnít just a numbers game. A rounder aperture makes for rounder bokeh, smoother background blur at wider apertures.

This brings me to my next difference. The Compact Primes will provide a much smoother, creamier bokeh thanks to the 14 bladed aperture design but you wonít be able to pull off the crazy shallow depth of field shots because the CP.2 lenses are all limited to f/2 (T2.1) at most. For example, the 50mm ZF.2 tops out at f/1.4, a commendable aperture. The same lens, optically, is limited to f/2 (T2.1) on its CP.2 cousin. This means that youíll have to work a little harder to get that nice creamy bokeh to really melt in the background. Onto round two, the housings.

The CP.2 lenses wipe the floor with the ZF.2s in this category. ÖAlmost. The Compact Primes all have a uniform, internal focus housing which means the is no telescoping of the barrel and the focus and iris gears are all the same distance from the mount. This is handy when swapping lenses during a shoot since you donít have to think about repositioning your follow focus or motors.

Speaking of gears, yeah, the Compact Primes come equipped with cine-standard 32-pitch gears where the ZF.2 lenses sport a knurled grip instead. This can be overcome fairly easily with the addition of a Cine-Mod focus gear but youíre still not going to gain an aperture gear even with the Cine-Mod on the ZF.2 lenses.

The focus movement of both lens series is superb. Smooth, viscous, and accurate. But the Compact Primes take the movement a step farther, rotating almost 300į. The ZF.2s vary from lens to lens ranging from a manageable 90į to a pleasing 275į on some focal lengths. This isnít a deal breaker considering some shooters these days have become accustomed to quicker, shorter focused pulls on still lenses but there is no denying the expanded focus throw of the Compact Primes is far more accurate. The focus scales on the CP.2 have far more marks that are spaced nicely and very easy to read with precise witness marks for each distance.

The ZF.2 lenses use a traditional photo distance scale with a convenient depth-of-field range engraved right on the lens, but lack the quantity and accuracy of distance marks that the CP.2s feature. On a similar note, the focus rotation direction of the ZF.2 lenses is what most cinematographers would consider backwards."

Thanks for your contribution, Lee.




Jul 06, 2013 at 06:01 AM
Mark K
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · Nikon 14-24 vs new zeiss 15mm


snapsy wrote:
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


Can't agree more



Jul 09, 2013 at 04:44 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password