Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

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

3 end

Archive 2008 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

ziyadj
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

I also use Kindai adapters for my Contax and Leica and they are superb but expensive.

Dec 19, 2008 at 06:51 AM

kosmoskatten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

Since you guys seem to be in the know and online, like all the time, I am going to throw this topic related question right at ya:

I have the opportunity (i.e. the funds) to pick up the 14-24mm today, just in time before christmas. I have a Canon 5D. Should I wait for the new improved adapter with the aperture lever is introduced, hoping that it will be, or do I risk ending up with the lens closet camping for the better part of next year?

I am not too eager on switching and ditching but I am very tempted by the Nikon lens for sure. The 5D mkII is not yet available over here but I can see the Nikon lens and it being a good match.

Oh, and the buying decision is tax related, I need to spend some company money before the fiscal year is over. I was going to get the 5d MkII but since none are available I though the Nikon lens would be sweet.

Dec 19, 2008 at 07:34 AM

montespluga
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

as for the lever adapter, Mark might know more.

I went for the 14-24 and Marks adapter, version_08, and I'm not looking back at all; for the first time since going digital, I' m satisfied with all my lenses; the YCZeiss starting at the higher end of the 14 - 24.

It's a nobrainer, go4it....

Edited on Dec 19, 2008 at 08:36 AM · View previous versions

Dec 19, 2008 at 08:20 AM

David Clapp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

edwardkaraa wrote:
Even small variances in adapters can cause the lens to produce less than optimal results. I have no doubt that hubsand's adapter is first class, but the adapter used on the 21 gives me a fair share of doubt.

I completely agree with what you have written, its reasons like this that I request that you guys read and absorb the reviews. I can't say the adapter is totally exact, all I can go by is my own findings and results. We're like backyard mechanics, tinkering with engines trying to get the best performance. Until I meet another 'mechanic' with a different outlook, I can only assume I have got it right. I will certainly elaborate on what you have written in the summing up page.

ziyadj wrote:
David, thanks for that excellent report. I own a CZ 21 and am very happy with its performance. It is nice to see lenses that are meeting its standard of performance. It would be very interesting to know why the results and conclusion is different than the 16:9 (Hubsand) results, which shows the CZ 21 as the much better lens. The bottom line for me is that both lenses are amazing. The 14-24 is a zoom lens that offers versatility with regard to composition, however the CZ 21 allows easy use of filters (which is important to me).. Maybe I...Show more →

Thats why I said it may be contraversial. Who knows, if the lens needs calibrating or there are adapter issues (which I throughly checked before starting mind you) then the outcome may have been different. The main thing is that its another opinion for you all to read.

I may have a sharper Nikon than Mark's; the problem is the more lenses that get tested to find a 'good one' (I dont have the money or influencial contacts for this!) the more the test becomes about 'copy to copy consistancy' and company reputation, not a sharpness and contrast comparison test that I set out to do.

We all have to get off the ride somewhere I guess and get out shooting (!) I totally agree about filters, I use the lens at the coast more than anything, so its not so much of an issue for me, but if it was a huge problem, I would be looking for a prime or just reach for my 17-40 (which is a good one luckily)

David

Dec 19, 2008 at 08:35 AM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

pascal03 wrote:
Damn.... I never thought the day would come when the CZ21 would be dethroned ...

Thanks for posting the results.

One test dethrones a lens?

(Oh well, anything to make the CZ21 cheaper is good news to me)

Dec 19, 2008 at 11:09 AM

David Clapp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

There's only two of this combo I know of now, so agreed! It's just my findings

Dec 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM

pascal03
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

cogitech wrote:
One test dethrones a lens?

(Oh well, anything to make the CZ21 cheaper is good news to me)

Actually Paul... this is not the first time the Nikon zoom has been tested against the CZ21. In fact, I think Mark (hubsand) tested them first (before the adapter was available for sale to the general public), and there were quite a few reports that kept popping up from time to time on how good the 14-24mm really was. Reports like this one and Mark's I can actually trust as they don't have the typical fluff behind them like one would find in a magazine test report.

This is just another test confirming the same. Eventually, one has to throw in the towel and say "yes Nikon... you win the resolution, corner sharpness, distortion etc. game, you have better performance than the supreme wide angle lens of all time".

Now that I am shooting Nikon as well, this is good news to me. As soon as I sell my Converted Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8 N, I will be picking up one of these 14-24mm's myself.

It's too bad the Nikon just will not have the "Zeiss-ness" factor available - no lens can... then again, no lens is perfect

Dec 19, 2008 at 11:31 AM

edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

While I have no problem in believing that the Nikon could be sharper than the 21 in some areas at some apertures (even though I myself fail to see it in the crops since the differences seem absolutely negligible and more to the Zeiss advantage. I can see more contrast in the Nikon crops, which might lead you to believe it is sharper, but I could swear I can see better details in the Zeiss) there still is the issue of the adapter (which is one of the worst adapters available in my own experience), as well as the field curvature characteristics which could be different between the 2 lenses, hence the need of:

1. Using a precision adapter such as the Kindai.
2. Comparing more scenes with different compositions.

Moreover, the new Zeiss version of the 21 seems to offer ample improvements in the zones B and C judging from Zeiss' MTF graphs. So it would be interesting to compare these 2 as well.

Dec 19, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

pascal03 responded:

Actually Paul... this is not the first time the Nikon zoom has been tested against the CZ21. In fact, I think Mark (hubsand) tested them first (before the adapter was available for sale to the general public), and there were quite a few reports that kept popping up from time to time on how good the 14-24mm really was. Reports like this one and Mark's I can actually trust as they don't have the typical fluff behind them like one would find in a magazine test report.

This is just another test confirming the same. Eventually, one has to throw...Show more →

Although Mark's test showed the two were competitive, I see it as suggesting the CZ 21 was still a bit better. The results are not that discrepant, but the two lenses seem closer in David's tests. I don't think you could say from Mark's tests that the Nikon zoom dethroned the Zeiss prime but rather that the prime was only a tiny bit better. David's test to me shows basically equal performance beyond f/2.8. I would say that Mark's test could be considered a split decision for the Zeiss and that David's test shows a draw.

Dec 19, 2008 at 12:16 PM

dcmiller
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

kosmoskatten wrote:
............

I have the opportunity (i.e. the funds) to pick up the 14-24mm today, just in time before christmas. I have a Canon 5D. Should I wait for the new improved adapter with the aperture lever is introduced, hoping that it will be, or do I risk ending up with the lens closet camping for the better part of next year?

I ordered the adapter Aug 2 and asked for a refund two weeks ago when I found a used one. The lens aperture can be held open with a little wedge of plastic for temporary use on a regular Nikon adapter.
Thanks for reminding me to email Mark.

Dec 19, 2008 at 12:18 PM

jjlphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

Before we all throw the CZ21 out with the bath water, consider a few important things. The CZ is more compact, easier to use a filter (if needed), easier to shoot with if you are doing hand held work and prefer to dial in to f5.6, f8, or whatever. I did receive my adapter, but I do not have my Nikkor lens yet (It's the ecomony stupid*). I merely see the Nikkor 14~24 as another tool to add to my arsenal.

* Coined by James Carville and used during Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.

Dec 19, 2008 at 12:30 PM

jaetie
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

i just think its a testament to how well the japanese companies are churning out zooms like the 14-24G and 70-200 F4L IS that truly rival all the haloed primes of old.

Dec 19, 2008 at 01:17 PM

wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

David,

Thanks for all your time and effort in doing this lens comparison.
Lens comparison's always get doubted here due to the usual sample variation-my lens copy is better than yours cry, the way you conducted the test wasn't good enough, and my personal favorite that the test results were fixed so Mark could sell more adapters.
Alot of us having been happily using the Nikon 14-24G lens over the last year since Mark did his first comparisons and gave up this debate along time ago.

The fact is that Nikon has helped us all out by delivering this incredible ultra wide angle lens which no one has yet produced a prime lens which SIGNIFICANTLY beats this lens in its range. I for one hope that lens technology is advancing and hopefully will keep up with constant increases in sensor resolution and will not be sad if the ZE 21 next year trumps it by a fair margin without the infamous mustache distortion. No, I won't cry lens sample variation.

I like Steve's point that the CZ21 is no longer the king or undisputed heavy-weight but now maybe wins by only a disputable split-decision.

David, do you know if Mark seriously plans to produce a lever version of the adapter any time this decade?

Dec 19, 2008 at 01:18 PM

Andi Dietrich
Offline
[X]

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

I think both lenses are great. Zeiss made "the lens" at the time, now Nikon has matched it and went a step ahead in lens design (zoom/vignetting).

As a Canon user I would wait for the Zeiss ZE21 for the comfort of use, still most Canon users would probably be more interested in the range under 20mm.

Dec 19, 2008 at 07:02 PM

Ulff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

So if the image quality (and price) is very comparable between both lenses at 21mm, it comes down to the question, if one wants to use a bulky lens, which covers 14-24 or a smaller and lighter prime at 21mm. This question cannot be decided with tests. I made this decision in favor of the prime, because weight and size is an important factor for me in lens usage.

Dec 19, 2008 at 07:33 PM

pdmphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

I pulled my Nikon 14-24G out of the closet and took three quick pics in my backyard at 21mm ( f2.8, 4, 5.6).

I am getting much better results at f/2.8 compared to your result. Maybe your f/2.8 result is affected by focus error or the adapter

The Zeiss isn't the only lens in your test that may have been affected by the adapter. I did my test without an adapter, using my Kodak SLR/n (Nikon FF 14MP w/no AA filter).

Of course, it could also be copy variation, but I haven't heard much complaints from Nikon users. How's your lens at 14/2.8? Mine is stunning at wide open for a 14mm lens. If yours isn't it may be a sign of copy variation or an adapter issue.

I should have a little free time this weekend. I'll try to get a proper result posted at those three apertures from my combo at 21mm. I can also post a 14/2.8 shot for comparison.

Dec 20, 2008 at 03:20 AM

David Clapp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

Remember this is a super fine and very punishing detail test, I shot my backyard with at 2.8 when I first got the lens and I was rather pleased with the results.

See if you can do the same style of busy composition I would be interested to look at them. Get on a bridge or something to eliminate foreground. I am going to have another go at the f2.8 when I am driving over the bridge at soe point just to check it out again, there may have been some error.

Ulff wrote:
So if the image quality (and price) is very comparable between both lenses at 21mm, it comes down to the question, if one wants to use a bulky lens, which covers 14-24 or a smaller and lighter prime at 21mm. This question cannot be decided with tests. I made this decision in favor of the prime, because weight and size is an important factor for me in lens usage.

Yes fair enough, the lens size and weight isn't for everyone. What is important is that testing shows that you wont compromise on quality with either systems.

Dec 20, 2008 at 06:04 AM

montespluga
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

Ulff wrote:
So if the image quality (and price) is very comparable between both lenses at 21mm, it comes down to the question, if one wants to use a bulky lens, which covers 14-24 or a smaller and lighter prime at 21mm. This question cannot be decided with tests. I made this decision in favor of the prime, because weight and size is an important factor for me in lens usage.

Off course, the range from 14 - 24 and its IQ makes the Nikon very pleasant for shootings like interiors, when you can't step back, and a 21 mm isn't wide enough ...
carring 4 primes in that 14-24 range, lets say, a 24 mm, a 21 mm, 17 mm and 14 mm are heavy too...

Therefore the question is about the specific jobs as well....

Dec 20, 2008 at 06:45 AM

brainiac
Offline
[X]

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

Thanks David - great test. Personally, I don't like the purple/green CA in the zone C crops from the Nikon, and f2.8 is quite important to me, so bearing in mind the size and weight difference I still think I will hang on to my Contax 21.

On the issue of conflict between reviews, I think both you and hubsand have done very good and very helpful tests. At the level we are scrutinising these files, it's not very surprising that one 14-24 was better than one Zeiss 21 and another 14-24 was worse. I don't think it nullifies either test, but just shows that there is variance in lenses, adaptors, and testing conditions that are out of the control of us mere mortals and hubsand. Both tests provide very useful insight into how these lenses should perform.

Great work - thanks for sharing.

Dec 20, 2008 at 08:37 AM

jjlphoto
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · TEST: 14-24 and CZ21mm

Hey, if I can find one of those Contax collectors who will pay top dollar for my CZ21, I'll gladly sell it and buy the Nikkor, but only if I can make a tidy profit to make it worth my while.

Dec 20, 2008 at 10:26 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.