Diglloyd just added some comparisons between the ZF 18mm and 14-24mm Nikkor to his ZF review. The long and short is the Nikkor rather smacks the Zeiss around Granted the Zeiss is much more portable. There's also a smaller comparison with the 16-35 MkII.
Too bad you need to pay to read it. Sorry. With the plethora of free review sites (or advertising based), I feel no need to pay for access to a site that only has like 9 reviews on it anyway. Unrealistic web model in today's world.
Jman13 wrote:
Too bad you need to pay to read it. Sorry. With the plethora of free review sites (or advertising based), I feel no need to pay for access to a site that only has like 9 reviews on it anyway. Unrealistic web model in today's world.
Except the reviews are so very nice! Wikis and advertising supported sites haven't yet killed the businesses based around artful distillations of specialized knowledge, released for a fee. Trade journals being the most obvious, and as strong as ever.
I found it worthwhile to purchase, at least with respect to the ZF review. I wouldn't pay the prices for the other purchaseable stuff, though, save the $5 for the blog.
I feel that I got my money's worth. Especially since each of the ZF lenses are roughly a thousand a piece when all is said and done. I was pleasantly surprised with the info for the 2.8/25 and 2/35 Distagons, and also the "Hollywood Nuveau" Distagon.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Diglloyd just added some comparisons between the ZF 18mm and 14-24mm Nikkor to his ZF review. The long and short is the Nikkor rather smacks the Zeiss around Granted the Zeiss is much more portable. There's also a smaller comparison with the 16-35 MkII.
This is really surprising. I had the impression they were pretty equal in IQ from what I've read so far. Not going to purchase a membership with this website but I'm sure more info will be available soon.
Jammy Straub wrote:
Diglloyd just added some comparisons between the ZF 18mm and 14-24mm Nikkor to his ZF review. The long and short is the Nikkor rather smacks the Zeiss around Granted the Zeiss is much more portable. There's also a smaller comparison with the 16-35 MkII.
Without wanting to take custom away from Lloyd, I would have expected the Zeiss to resolve slightly better centre frame at most apertures, but the Nikkor to compete strongly in all other areas: it's a very, very special zoom. That it should outperform the Zeiss so convincingly is plausible. I'll be testing the 14-24G against the new Zeiss lenses as soon as they're available in ZE; no more adaptor issues to worry about!
Will be certainly looking forward to your comparisons. I hope you'll be able to add the new ZA zooms to the mix as I believe it would be very interesting to see how they perform against ZE primes.
Btw, very nice article about old Contax lenses comparison on your site. Very informative.
hubsand wrote:
Without wanting to take custom away from Lloyd, I would have expected the Zeiss to resolve slightly better centre frame at most apertures, but the Nikkor to compete strongly in all other areas: it's a very, very special zoom. That it should outperform the Zeiss so convincingly is plausible. I'll be testing the 14-24G against the new Zeiss lenses as soon as they're available in ZE; no more adaptor issues to worry about!
(I haven't yet paid Lloyd to read his reviews and can't find any reviews on getdpi - maybe someone can provide a link?)
Based on what I've read, I've concluded that the 18mm ZF isn't guaranteed to deliver significantly better IQ than the Canon 16-35mm, and doesn't compare to the 14-24 Nikkor.
Although I'm a 5D/40D user, I've been tempted to buy a Nikon D700 just to be able to use the 14-24 Nikkor - but can't justify the expense of buying yet another body that limits fine printing to A3 (11.7×16.5 in) rather than A2 (16.5×23.4 in).
gmojay wrote:
Based on what I've read, I've concluded that the 18mm ZF isn't guaranteed to deliver significantly better IQ than the Canon 16-35mm, and doesn't compare to the 14-24 Nikkor.
Still waiting to see more direct comparisons, but strictly from the IQ point of view, this lens seems to be at least equal or slightly better than the Nikon zoom at 18mm. But of course, sharpness is not everything. I own the older Contax version and while I admit that pixel peeping in the corners doesn't do this lens any favours, but it has the full set of Zeiss characteristics. I get wonderful colors and contrast and incredible electric blue skies and all the rest. The 18mm 3.5 can only be better.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Still waiting to see more direct comparisons, but strictly from the IQ point of view, this lens seems to be at least equal or slightly better than the Nikon zoom at 18mm. But of course, sharpness is not everything. I own the older Contax version and while I admit that pixel peeping in the corners doesn't do this lens any favours, but it has the full set of Zeiss characteristics. I get wonderful colors and contrast and incredible electric blue skies and all the rest. The 18mm 3.5 can only be better.
I'm sure that the 18mm 3.5 can produce very nice photos, even though it seems to be virtually ignored compared to the interest in the 21mm Distagon.
Having spent $2000 on the 16-35mm MkII, I'd just like to be confident that my next big purchase is on a consistently sharp lens.
Granted the Zeiss is much more portable. There's also a smaller comparison with the 16-35 MkII.