p.1 #1 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
well I picked up the Nikon 24 1.4, I already had the Nikon 14-24, (one of them will be going, not sure which one yet) and lately I've been considering adding a Zeiss lens to my lineup ( maybe the 50mm f2 MP). All of these lenses are very well regarded and fully tested by others much more competent than myself. However with the 24 1.4 and 14-24 in hand I had the opportunity to grab my friends Zeiss 21 2.8. So out of curosity I took a few quick grabs in an effort to see how each lens delivered in terms of color, contast, and bokeh.
As I said quick test... no brick walls or MTF charts. So these were done handheld on a D300, manual, f 2.8, ISO 800 1/320s. Color mode was Landscape with in camera sharpening up a bit. These are straight out of the camera only resized for the web and shot a jpegs.
#1 is the 24 1.4
#2 is the Zeiss
#3 is the 14-24
#4 is the Zeiss taken a little closer, just trying to figure out manual focus.
Three great lenses, fun to be able to play around with them. Thanks for looking.
Jack
p.1 #2 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
as a follow up now that I posted these. To me the Zeiss looks a little more contrasty (not sure if that's a word) and has a little more color depth. As far as exposure goes these are all natural light looking at #3 and #2 number 2 seems a little hotter and maybe the result of changing cloud cover.
Jack
p.1 #3 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
Well you're definitely comparing 3 legends, so I doubt you could go too wrong with any of them. I bought the 14-24 not that long ago, and to this day I wonder if I should have done the Zeiss instead. As it is I sure can't afford both (it's not a FL I use all that often), so I'm thinking of picking up the ZF.2 25/f2.8 instead, which is less expensive than the 21. I'd have trouble parting with a third of the trinity I think...
p.1 #5 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
Just playing with these lenses in my backyard I think it's becoming clear that if you are going to have just one of them (which is my intent) it really boils down to your style of shooting. They all have their obvious strengths.
-The Zeiss is a piece of beautiful craftsmanship and the IQ, colors, etc are great but for what I typically shoot (moving subjects) not having AF will take some time to get used to.
-Nikon 24 1.4 - Awesome lens and I like shooting with primes but am I really going to shoot a ton below 2.8 with this lens? Otherwise I have it covered with the 14-24.
-Nikon 14-24- Not much to say about it that hasn't already been said. Only knock is the lack of filters.
My early thought keep the 14-24 incredible optics, nice range, and I don't use filters anyway other than the occasional polarizer.
Jack
p.1 #7 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
In my eyes the Zeiss images looks more tangible than Nikons, as always. Nikons if used well, can look tangible too but with Zeiss, it always consistent, this tangible charasteristic, even with older optics. But FFS, it's too expensive, lol.
p.1 #8 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
All compelling arguments except for one....unlike the vaunted Zeiss 21 and the awe-inspiring Nikkor 24/1.4, my 14-24 can shoot...... a rectilinear 14mm. And unlike the Zeiss, there isn't the "moustache" distortion at 21mm, making it a superior choice for architectural shots.
p.1 #9 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
. . . And, I see the Zeiss as being under-exposed, and that's why the colors look richer. I find the Zeiss over-rated, and if I want a manual focus, I'll pick up an older Nikon.
The images here are all too small to accurately judge sharpness (and even contrast), but outside of the underexposure issue on the Zeiss, the shots all look good.
I'm in agreement with j.liam -- the 14mm is a strong argument! An awkward lens for sure, but a versatile one. I'd have to keep the 14-24 and the 24/1.4! These lenses are screaming for you to move into FF sensor.
One other thing to consider, as you wonder how often you'd shoot the 24/1.4 wide open -- the lens will perform better when closed down. So you'll have an amazing lens at 2.8, whereas a 24/2.8 will only start looking good at f/4 to 4.5. Best quality is always a few stops from wide open. Wide open is great for emergency grab shots (and fun), but not necessarily the best for final or important shots.
p.1 #10 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
Aside from the focus inaccuracy widely reported on the 24/1.4 (the reason why I hesitated getting one), reputable reviewers such as Lloyd Chambers and (the disagreeable) Bjørn Rørslett note that it is dead-on sharp from f/1.4 onward. Agree with 'gunzorro' re: frequency you'd be shooting the 24. If you're a wedding or event shooter and get in close with subjects in dim surrounds, you may have found your muse in that pricey hunk of glass.
I owned the tiny Nikkor 24/2 AIS for many years and it was a shame that its performance was not up to the likes of the 28/2 when shot wide open. Thing is that FF cameras like the D700 and D3s have such great high-ISO performance, does the speed really warrant the expense and size of super-fast glass? Fun and all but at a steep price.
p.1 #12 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
Gunzorro wrote:
One other thing to consider, as you wonder how often you'd shoot the 24/1.4 wide open -- the lens will perform better when closed down. So you'll have an amazing lens at 2.8, whereas a 24/2.8 will only start looking good at f/4 to 4.5. Best quality is always a few stops from wide open. Wide open is great for emergency grab shots (and fun), but not necessarily the best for final or important shots.
This is all true, of course, but less and less relevant, especially for people shots, where razor sharpness is far from the only consideration. Lenses like the 24 f/1.4 are PLENTY sharp wide open for people shots, and the same is true of the 14-24.
p.1 #14 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
Erik -- That's a nice example of what I call a "fun" shot. Certainly not what I'd consider best image quality, but sometimes content is more important than image quality.
p.1 #15 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
Gunzorro wrote:
Erik -- That's a nice example of what I call a "fun" shot. Certainly not what I'd consider best image quality, but sometimes content is more important than image quality.
You honestly think that photo could be better if only it was more sharp??
Edit: To state it differently, I think that if there's anything wrong with that shot, it's not a sharpness issue. Not even close.
p.1 #16 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
Gunzorro wrote:
Erik -- That's a nice example of what I call a "fun" shot. Certainly not what I'd consider best image quality, but sometimes content is more important than image quality.
wouldn't content always be more important than image quality?
p.1 #17 · Zeiss 21 2.8 vs. Nikon 24 1.4 vs. Nikon 14-24 quick test...
Ha-ha! You wouldn't know it from some shots posted on various forums' threads!
Obviously, content and subject are always the reason for a quality picture. My point is that usually I consider technical execution with things like focus, exposure, color balance, etc. to be critical and of top importance to convey the subject. But then there are other times that the technical aspects can fly out the window, and we still have an interesting subject. I've seen some shots with Lensbabies, TS lenses, and minimum DOF that are quite interesting. But carried on too long, such attempts become over-wrung novelties, done for their own sake, and the content and subject are merely an excuse to use a gimmick. When the content falls secondary to optical gimmick, then we have shlock.
I had the ZF 21 and favor the Nikon 24 for its versatility. They are just as sharp as each other but the 24 has the ability to go to 1.4. The Nikon 24 also takes the same filter as my 16-35, 85G and 70-200.....not an odd 82mm size or no filter at all. I think the only, albeit big one, advantage of the ZF 21 is the superior micro contrast providing for that typical 'Zeiss' rendering.
These lenses are screaming for you to move into FF sensor. 
