freaklikeme wrote:
If you look at the original problem that fast 24s were developed to solve, giving photographers their "normal" FOV and DOF at roughly half the shooting distance of fast normals, then I think there's a segment of shooters, reportage and event where crowds build at the least opportune moments and space is always at a premium, who are truly thrilled by the 24L II. And justifiably so. The extreme edges suffer, but otherwise it's a well-corrected pleasure to use.
+1
I disagree with Luka, my Nikon 24/1.4G wide open is sharper than their 35/1.4G in the center and is as sharp in the center as my other fast (< 2) lenses like C/Z 35/1.4, Rokkor 58/1.2, etc. The corners are not that bad wide open and not usually required to be uber sharp for wide open shooting. When the 24/1.4G is stopped down, its corner and center performance is equal to the Nikon 14-24G which is pretty close to Zeiss 21 for sharpness.
I just used it last weekend for a friends wedding on my 7d and it performed well in the low-light.
When I got my Nikon 24/1.4G last year I always had the idea to use it on a next generation NEX camera like the NEX-7 (when it is available) for social shooting situations. It won't be as small as a M9 and 35Lux but much cheaper. Of course with the crop factor you lose a lot of the lens's ability to isolate the subject from the background due to the narrower DOF when on a FF camera.
I will still always prefer a FF NEX and was hoping that the NEX-7 was FF or 1.3 crop like M8 and at least a step in the right direction of becoming FF but I guess Sony doesn't think that is the right business strategy.
I wonder how much of the extra gain in resolution from 16MP to 24MP of the NEX-7 is mitigated when using their E-lenses like the zoom.
Wayne, the CZ 35/1.4 and Rokkor 58/1.2 aren't exactly champions of optical performance wide open.
However you missed my point guys - it's simply that as a rule, the shorter the focal length the more difficult it is to make a good lens. There are exceptions of course - the 21 Distagon to take a very simple example. I'm not familiar with the 24/1.4G but it could be an exception as well. Nikon's faked MTF chart (simulated, not real) does indeed show the 24/1.4G being better than the 35/1.4G but at the same time even if we would assume they are real they show that it is noticeably weaker than the 35 Lux ASPH (real, measured MTF charts). So it could be simply that the 35/1.4G is weaker than it could be. It is after all some $400 cheaper than the 24/1.4 G.
I don't want to speculate about that though as I'm completely ignorant of Nikon glass. The point was just that wider lenses are as a rule more difficult to construct.
Can't ignore the issue of price though, $400 difference may be enough to make someone buy it or not buy it. There are always lenses I have wanted but that I found to be just more than I cared to spend for them and I passed.
Also have to consider that not everyone who's in the market for a given lens, such as a 24mm f1.4 G is interested in corner performance. Some are of course, but then to others, they may be looking for a fast wide for wedding work.
We always seem to just present the hobbyist landscape, cityscape, abstract or whatever you want viewpoint on this forum, which is what a lot of people shoot and we seem to judge (or obsess if you will lol) about things like corner performance, how a lens renders, color separation etc.
Thats all well and good, but not everyone buying a lens is concerned about those things. A given brand could produce a lens that meets all of our requirements but perhaps not at a price that a working professional could justify in this economy.
I think its an overall balance between performance for enthusiast, usability for professionals and cost at least in terms of what the big two are bringing to market.
Other makers can cater to more of a niche market with a more dedicated product.
denoir wrote:
Wayne, the CZ 35/1.4 and Rokkor 58/1.2 aren't exactly champions of optical performance wide open.
However you missed my point guys - it's simply that as a rule, the shorter the focal length the more difficult it is to make a good lens. There are exceptions of course - the 21 Distagon to take a very simple example. I'm not familiar with the 24/1.4G but it could be an exception as well. Nikon's faked MTF chart (simulated, not real) does indeed show the 24/1.4G being better than the 35/1.4G but at the same time even if we would assume they are real they show that it is noticeably weaker than the 35 Lux ASPH (real, measured MTF charts). So it could be simply that the 35/1.4G is weaker than it could be. It is after all some $400 cheaper than the 24/1.4 G.
I don't want to speculate about that though as I'm completely ignorant of Nikon glass. The point was just that wider lenses are as a rule more difficult to construct. ...Show more →
Jeff, of course - I entirely agree. I think demanding corner performance at f/1.4 for anything wider than 50mm is just pointless. First it's not going to happen, second you are very unlikely to use such a lens in a situation where you both want f/1.4 and need sharp corners. On the contrary usually the field curvature towards the edges of fast wide lenses makes the subject pop.
douglasf13 wrote:
Come to the rangefinder lens dark side, Tariq!!
Ha ha. Been there of course. I ended up selling my rangefinder lenses and re-investing the money into my FF a900 system as it seemed like there was more bang for the buck in doing so. The NEX 7 sure is tempting.
denoir wrote:
Jeff, of course - I entirely agree. I think demanding corner performance at f/1.4 for anything wider than 50mm is just pointless. First it's not going to happen, second you are very unlikely to use such a lens in a situation where you both want f/1.4 and need sharp corners. On the contrary usually the field curvature towards the edges of fast wide lenses makes the subject pop.
millsart wrote:
Can't ignore the issue of price though, $400 difference may be enough to make someone buy it or not buy it. There are always lenses I have wanted but that I found to be just more than I cared to spend for them and I passed.
Also have to consider that not everyone who's in the market for a given lens, such as a 24mm f1.4 G is interested in corner performance. Some are of course, but then to others, they may be looking for a fast wide for wedding work.
We always seem to just present the hobbyist landscape, cityscape, abstract or whatever you want viewpoint on this forum, which is what a lot of people shoot and we seem to judge (or obsess if you will lol) about things like corner performance, how a lens renders, color separation etc.
Thats all well and good, but not everyone buying a lens is concerned about those things. A given brand could produce a lens that meets all of our requirements but perhaps not at a price that a working professional could justify in this economy.
I think its an overall balance between performance for enthusiast, usability for professionals and cost at least in terms of what the big two are bringing to market.
Other makers can cater to more of a niche market with a more dedicated product.
...Show more →
Ok, I think I understand you now, if a dslr lens is less sharp than the M 35Lux ASPH and 50Lux ASPH, then it is a weak lens and "aren't exactly champions of optical performance wide open". :^)
wayne seltzer wrote:
Ok, I think I understand you now, if a dslr lens is less sharp than the M 35Lux ASPH and 50Lux ASPH, then it is a weak lens and "aren't exactly champions of optical performance wide open". :^)
Actually, the 35 Lux ASPH isn't all that hot wide open compared to the 50 Lux ASPH, so I'm not sure it counts
No, but seriously, I think the 24/1.4 is probably quite a bit sharper wide open compared to the CY 35/1.4 and Rokkor 58/1.2. It's like five generations newer than those old girls. I think you were just a bit too generous to them.
And don't take me wrong, I love both the 35/1.4 and 58/1.2, but it's not for raw optical performance that I got them.
denoir wrote:
No, but seriously, I think the 24/1.4 is probably quite a bit sharper wide open compared to the CY 35/1.4 and Rokkor 58/1.2. It's like five generations newer than those old girls. I think you were just a bit too generous to them.
And don't take me wrong, I love both the 35/1.4 and 58/1.2, but it's not for raw optical performance that I got them.
DId you just refer to my entire collection as "old girls"?
I can't print what my RFs said to that one, but my nFD 24/2 and AIS 55/2.8 just laughed.
They are sharp MILFs who will wipe the floor with your modern glass
uhoh7 wrote:
DId you just refer to my entire collection as "old girls"?
I can't print what my RFs said to that one, but my nFD 24/2 and AIS 55/2.8 just laughed.
They are sharp MILFs who will wipe the floor with your modern glass
Hehe, I'm going for a hi-score. I've managed in very few posts to insult Nikon users, Zeiss users, Minolta users, Leica users etc
I think I have a talent for this
I'm always forgetting an important principle - to paraphrase H.L Mencken:
We must respect the other fellow's camera gear, in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
denoir wrote:
I'm always forgetting an important principle - to paraphrase H.L Mencken:
We must respect the other fellow's camera gear, in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
denoir wrote:
I'm always forgetting an important principle - to paraphrase H.L Mencken:
We must respect the other fellow's camera gear, in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
How many middle aged fathers do you know who are convinced of these things?
the saying by god knows who, that I seldom forget:
denoir wrote:
Wayne, the CZ 35/1.4 and Rokkor 58/1.2 aren't exactly champions of optical performance wide open.
However you missed my point guys - it's simply that as a rule, the shorter the focal length the more difficult it is to make a good lens. There are exceptions of course - the 21 Distagon to take a very simple example. I'm not familiar with the 24/1.4G but it could be an exception as well. Nikon's faked MTF chart (simulated, not real) does indeed show the 24/1.4G being better than the 35/1.4G but at the same time even if we would assume they are real they show that it is noticeably weaker than the 35 Lux ASPH (real, measured MTF charts). So it could be simply that the 35/1.4G is weaker than it could be. It is after all some $400 cheaper than the 24/1.4 G.
I don't want to speculate about that though as I'm completely ignorant of Nikon glass. The point was just that wider lenses are as a rule more difficult to construct. ...Show more →
I didn't miss that point. I think it was very well made in your "curse of the crop sensor" comment, and I agree. But I disagree that fast 24s are incapable of producing anything good wide open.
bluetsunami wrote:
I wish, in that video, they had mounted the Zeiss to the NEX-7 so we can get a better idea how it looks size wise (though this was done in the promo video). It looks roughly the same size as the Kit zoom lens if not a little smaller.
Glancing at the MTF I think if I want something smaller and a little more balanced (in regards to stopped down performance) I may just spring for the ZM 25/2.8 instead.
Edit: Just read some specs and the Zeiss 24/1.8 is actually smaller (in length) than the ZM 25/2.8. Although I'm not sure if the Z 24/1.8 measurements are with the caps...
Zeiss 24/1.8: 63mm diameter x 65.5mm length (with caps?)
Zeiss ZM 25/2.8: 53mm diameter x 71mm length (with caps) ...Show more →
The kit lens measured (not by me) 62mm x 60mm, a little smaller than the Zeiss 24/1.8.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Ha ha. Been there of course. I ended up selling my rangefinder lenses and re-investing the money into my FF a900 system as it seemed like there was more bang for the buck in doing so. The NEX 7 sure is tempting.
I'm thinking of giving it a go with my existing line up and an EF adapter (since most of my lenses are now Leitaxed for EF), assuming the EVF is good. The larger body is a big plus, but I think I'd be more comfortable with a little extra dead length between the the controls on the lens and the body when looking through the VF. Just a theory, of course, and I don't think I'll walk around with it mounted to the AIS 135/2 or either of my fast 35s, but I've got smaller lenses, too. I have no idea if they'll stand up to 24mp, but, given the experience I had with the NEX-5, I'm sure it'll be fun to find out.
denoir wrote:
Hehe, I'm going for a hi-score. I've managed in very few posts to insult Nikon users, Zeiss users, Minolta users, Leica users etc
I think I have a talent for this
I'm always forgetting an important principle - to paraphrase H.L Mencken:
We must respect the other fellow's camera gear, in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
Someone was a little full of himself today. Or, to quote Francois de La Rochefoucauld, "We speak little if not egged on by vanity."
denoir wrote:
Fast 24mm lenses, Carsten, I said fast - i.e f/1.4 or larger. And the comment about the 24 Lux ASPH might indicate that I was indeed including M lenses in the statement.
Ah, missed the word fast. Then I agree (except that you appear to be generally discussing the new Zeiss 24/1.8, so f/1.8 should presumably be the starting point). Although I would like to see what the 24/1.4 ASPH can do wide open before being final.
