p.13 #2 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Now also updated with a 21mm comparison. I think the bottom line is that it's the next best thing to a Zeiss 21mm, but the 1Ds III ruthlessly exposes the difference between the best and the rest . . . .
p.13 #6 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
There are some fundamental differences between the Contax and the Nikon. In absolute performance the Nikon is truly excellent, however, it will be manual focus and stop down metering. If you want AF and auto aperture, then the Contax still is the only choice. It will depend upon your planned use.
Also, the design of the NIkon prohibits the use of any filters.
BTW, the 16-35mm and the Contax used in this test belong to me.
Currently, I own both and that will not change - each has its use.
p.13 #10 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
hubsand wrote:
Now also updated with a 21mm comparison. I think the bottom line is that it's the next best thing to a Zeiss 21mm, but the 1Ds III ruthlessly exposes the difference between the best and the rest . . . .
Mark, what is the distortion like in the Nikon zoom?
There can't be that much difference in the Nikon from 17-21 mm.
Very well spotted – I was wondering when someone would pick it up! The Nikon was actually mis-focused in that segment of the test: it's more distant than both Contax lenses, which means it's not showing as well as it should in the Zone B selection. I will be re-testing it with greater accuracy in the future. If you look at the Zone C sample, you'll note that the 14-24G and CZ21 are actually very close – though the Distagon is still a fraction better.
However, given the fact that I've been accused of 'vested interests' in 'promoting' this lens, I'd rather underestimate its performance that over-rate it. The conclusion stands, I think: the Zeiss 21mm is the best there is at 21mm – and the Nikon 14-24mm is the next best thing! I'll be proving that in forthcoming months as I test it against some Olympus and Leica contenders.
p.13 #12 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
pookipichu wrote:
Mark, what is the distortion like in the Nikon zoom?
Coming soon . . . but here's the bottom line: there is relative strong but simple barrel distortion from 14-16mm which gradually flattens out to very mild barrel distortion at 20mm, where it stays relatively flat until 24mm. There is no pincushion distortion, and at all focal lengths straight lines are rendered without troublesome twists or kinks.
p.13 #13 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
hubsand wrote:
Very well spotted – I was wondering when someone would pick it up! The Nikon was actually mis-focused in that segment of the test: it's more distant than both Contax lenses, which means it's not showing as well as it should in the Zone B selection. I will be re-testing it with greater accuracy in the future. If you look at the Zone C sample, you'll note that the 14-24G and CZ21 are actually very close – though the Distagon is still a fraction better.
However, given the fact that I've been accused of 'vested interests' in 'promoting' this lens, I'd rather underestimate its performance that over-rate it. The conclusion stands, I think: the Zeiss 21mm is the best there is at 21mm – and the Nikon 14-24mm is the next best thing! I'll be proving that in forthcoming months as I test it against some Olympus and Leica contenders....Show more →
Sorry Mark, I actually found you addressed that issue in the paragraph after the Zone C shots. I should have read further.
p.13 #14 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
One phenomenon I couldn't explain, the price of the Nikon 14-24mm dropped in the US, albeit not by much. One can be had for only slightly over $1,600 without any gimmicks. It was $1,799 when all this started... a few weeks ago. The supply seems to be ample as it is labeled "in stock" everywhere.
There can't be that much difference in the Nikon from 17-21 mm.
fellas, please be careful not to refer to the Nikon 14-24 as a "12-24." this is an easy mistake to make but one that in other contexts can make a lot of confusion.
p.13 #16 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
fourfa wrote:
fellas, please be careful not to refer to the Nikon 14-24 as a "12-24." this is an easy mistake to make but one that in other contexts can make a lot of confusion.
Thanks fourfa, don't know where that came from . Not enough sleep maybe.
p.13 #18 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
Mark I have a question for you. Have you tried some moderate sized prints (e.g. 16x24) or bigger using the 21mm distagon and the Nikon zoom at 21mm say f 5.6 or 8? I just wonder how much difference you would see in a print. Mark
p.13 #19 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
hubsand wrote:
Now also updated with a 21mm comparison. I think the bottom line is that it's the next best thing to a Zeiss 21mm, but the 1Ds III ruthlessly exposes the difference between the best and the rest . . . .
Are you saying that the on the 5D they will perform the same or closer to the same because of the lower resolution?
p.13 #20 · Nikon 14-24mm tested on Canon 5D/1Ds III
mark1958 wrote:
Mark I have a question for you. Have you tried some moderate sized prints (e.g. 16x24) or bigger using the 21mm distagon and the Nikon zoom at 21mm say f 5.6 or 8? I just wonder how much difference you would see in a print. Mark
Not yet . . . but I suspect the drawing style of the 21mm Distagon would stand out in any comparison, even if the slight resolution advantage it enjoys wasn't evident at that size.
The Nikon 'look' tends generally to be more like Zeiss' than Canon's 'house style', which is another reason why – in print, or on screen – the 14-24 seems to be the closest thing to a CZ21 right now.
. Not enough sleep maybe.