3 Nikon mount lenses @ 18mm (for Guy)

[fotografz]

Guy, just did a controlled Interior shoot test of my entertainment center using the Nikon 17-35/2,8, 14-24/2.8, and Zeiss 18/3.5. After all this work, I didn't want to have this get lost in the other thread

Method: HD tripod with D700 mounted. Mounted 17-35/2.8 @18mm and squared up as best I could ... locked down the tripod ... manual focused using LV @ 10X ... manual metered @ f/6.3 ... then without moving anything ... swapped out for the 14-24 set at 18mm at same f stop ... focused at 10X ... then swapped out for the Zeiss 18mm at f/6.3 ... focused @ 10X ... opened all 3 in ACR and adjusted nothing ... toggled between each to see the differences.

(Any slightly off kilter squaring up is irrevelant as all 3 lenses were then shot without changing anything.)

Conclusion: generally, for this type application, the Nikon 14-24 is the superior optic of the 3. Slightly less distortion over the Zeiss, and much better than the 17-35 ... less vignetting than either lens.

Zeiss is slightly cooler (as we all already know) ... however, the Zeiss was more "color accurate" to the real thing. The white brick walls were dead on the money where both Nikon lenses had a very slight reddish cast when closely inspected.

Note 18mm setting on 14-24 is not exactly accurate compared to the 17-35 and Zeiss 18mm ... it reads 19mm when set dead center on the 18mm marking ... but from looking at the images I think that is even ambitious and the field of view is even narrower than 19mm.

Out toward the edges sharpness/resolution of detail is very close between the Zeiss and 14-24 ... but here is an observation that everyone will love to hate ... the 17-35 beat both the Zeiss and 14-24

So, were I doing interior architecture work my weapon of choice would be the my Rollei view camera and Schneider Digitar 28/2.8 with the H3D/39 back ... BUT if I had to use a DSLR it would be the 14-24/2.8.

For travel and street photography it'd be the Zeiss 18, and for landscapes where verticals and distortion were less of an issue I'd use the 17-35 ...at least my copy of that lens since it seems to be excellent.

Solution: buy them all :ROTFL:

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Thanks for the comparison Marc! This is the kind of stuff I like to see. I only have the 17-35 out of this bunch, but I think it is all I need. I would probably sell it and go for the Zeiss if the Zeiss had AF, but I just can't get used to the backwards focusing on all the Nikons. Distortion is a bit of a pet peeve for me -- most of my photography has been on rangefinders with Leica or Mamiya 7 lenses, so I am just not used to seeing it. One thing I like about the 17-35 is that it seems better to me at 24-28mm than the 24-70 zoom -- it is not as sharp, but it has less distortion. Since 24mm is my favored wide angle focal length, I prefer the 17-35 at that setting if I have the choice. The 17-35 even fared very well versus the 19mm Elmarit when I tested them both. The 14-24 looks like it has the least distortion of the bunch at 18mm though. Not too surprising...most of these types of zooms have the least distortion in the middle of their range.

Thanks again for the comparison, it was very helpful.

 

[Vivek]

Solution: buy them all :ROTFL:

Thanks for the comparison, Marc

(and the conclusion as well :ROTFL.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Interesting the Nikon 14-24 seems to have less barrel and that is a zoom. Makes no sense. Not surprised by the 17-35 it is a great optic designed for Full Frame Film. Marc thanks for running this test. It proves one other thing to me at least use my Phase back and a digitar lens. Interesting you have the 28 2.8 digitar. I heard that lens was not as good as the 24mm. I would rather have the 28mm for interiors.

Just looking back look at the 18mm on the right side bowing out

 

[Terry]

Nice self portraits on the television screen .

 

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Nice job Fotografz.

I dont own the 17-35/28 anymore, so i havent had a chance to compare it.

Im a little suprised that @*F/6,3 the 17-35/2,8 is best in the corners.

The Nikkor falls behind in the corners from F/3,5 even up to F/8. The Zeiss has a more even performance across the field, so it would be my choice for landscapes.

The Nikkor certainly has a more reddish tone to it, and is my first choice for interior, becuase its a zoom and it can go to 14mm. Its also a lens that has excellent center performance upclose wid open and can become a very creative tool.

Any chances of posting 100% crops of the corners ?

Ill try to post some comparison pics later today.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Marc
Thank you for that - excellent work, especially with respect to distortion.

However, My interest with these lenses is mostly landscape, and I think you have simply missed testing the weakest point, which is the corners.

I got rid of my 17-35 a couple of years ago, because the corners were impossibly soft on the Kodak SLR/n - the EDGES were fine - simply an arc around the corners. This wasn't really improved by stopping down either.

The remarkable thing about the 14-24 is that it doesn't suffer from this (see my shots in the other thread).

So, although the distortion issue is, of course, very relevant, I still haven't really any clue as to how good the 18mm zeiss is in the corners (the 25mm for instance is not really that great - even stopped down)

 

[fotografz]

Hi Marc
Thank you for that - excellent work, especially with respect to distortion.

However, My interest with these lenses is mostly landscape, and I think you have simply missed testing the weakest point, which is the corners.

I got rid of my 17-35 a couple of years ago, because the corners were impossibly soft on the Kodak SLR/n - the EDGES were fine - simply an arc around the corners. This wasn't really improved by stopping down either.

The remarkable thing about the 14-24 is that it doesn't suffer from this (see my shots in the other thread).

So, although the distortion issue is, of course, very relevant, I still haven't really any clue as to how good the 18mm zeiss is in the corners (the 25mm for instance is not really that great - even stopped down)

Good observation, I will test all three for corner sharpness.

This test was for Guy who needs an Architectual solution and was considering the 14-24 or ZF18 (I just added the 17-35 because I have one) ... I assumed distortion was a major consideration (who wants to sit there correcting every shot for barrel or pincusion distortion?) Vignetting is a no brainer fix and can be batch processed out as it is a constant. I have actions preset for certain W/A lenses.

 

[Bob]

Nice self portraits on the television screen .

I likes Irakley's better
-bob

 

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Sadly i dont have beautiful room to show for, nor a scenery, im still a bit under cause of the flue.

Anyway here is a scene(my office)
Camera: Nikon D3
Whitebalance: Auto
Exposure: Manual
Support: Studio tripod, cable relase, mirror lock up.
Focus: Live view 10x (manual)
Format: Raw
Converter: ACR
Post processing: NONE

Full scene Zeiss @ F/11

Full scene Nikkor @ F/11

Center crops

F/3,5

F/5,6

F/8

 

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Top left corner crops

F/3,5

F/5,6

F/8

 

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Bottom right corner crops

F/3,5

F/5,6

F/8

 

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

I assume the usual sample variation argument will fit like a glove for some.

Should be noted though that My D3 + 24-70+14-24 was turned in for a checkup last month. All adjusted and checked to be within spec. NPS has its treats.

Conclusion
Well this is only one test...

Corners: Zeiss without doubt
Center: A wash
Barrel distortion: Nikkor, check the right side (doors)
Flare: Yet to test
Vignette: Without doubt Nikkor

And your offcourse entitled to form your own, based on the material.

 

[fotografz]

Nice job Fotografz.

I dont own the 17-35/28 anymore, so i havent had a chance to compare it.

Im a little suprised that @*F/6,3 the 17-35/2,8 is best in the corners.

The Nikkor falls behind in the corners from F/3,5 even up to F/8. The Zeiss has a more even performance across the field, so it would be my choice for landscapes.

The Nikkor certainly has a more reddish tone to it, and is my first choice for interior, becuase its a zoom and it can go to 14mm. Its also a lens that has excellent center performance upclose wid open and can become a very creative tool.

Any chances of posting 100% crops of the corners ?

Ill try to post some comparison pics later today.

I didn't say "best in corners", I said "out toward the edges." :shocked:

I wasn't testing for the corners ... this was for Guy to see relative distortion @ 18mm between the ZF18 and 14-24 ... I just added the 17-35 for kicks ... which is a lens I use at weddings on the D700 because I like the range to size ratio and balance on the smaller D700.

No axe to grind on any of the three ... I paid my money for all three so am relatively unbiased

When I get a minute, I'll try a controlled corner test. :thumbup:

 

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

I truly didnt mean to critize your test in anyway, i fully understand that it was a test for Guy, and a good one at that it seems.

Sorry about the mixup, i assumed edges was same as corners, my bad.

I was just curious regarding the 17-35, cause i never found the 17-35/2,8 to be that good until you stopped it down a bit.

Just for the record, i didnt steal any of my lenses... I think most of us pay for our gear.

 

[fotografz]

I truly didnt mean to critize your test in anyway, i fully understand that it was a test for Guy, and a good one at that it seems.

Sorry about the mixup, i assumed edges was same as corners, my bad.

I was just curious regarding the 17-35, cause i never found the 17-35/2,8 to be that good until you stopped it down a bit.

Just for the record, i didnt steal any of my lenses... I think most of us pay for our gear.

:ROTFL:

What I meant was that I have all three lenses.

I like your corner test ... saves me doing one for myself. Shows the merits of the ZF18 for certain applications. The Zeiss is clearly the winner there by a good margin.

Whew, good thing too, it wasn't a inexpensive investment ... although my main reason for getting it was it's size compared to the other choices.

Most of my 35mm DSLR stuff is more casual applications that aren't that demanding in terms of enlargments. I really like the ZF18 for over-all snap and separation of colors ... which is also important to me when converting to B&W ... I hate color casts ... especially reddish color casts when using channel conversions on photos with people in them ... :thumbdown:

 

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

Hehe np

Yes my main reason to acquire the ZF18 was size and filters for trips, i will be using it mostly for scenery.

With a H3D i can totally understand that.

Yes removing color casts can bee tideous especially when it comes to people pictures.

 

[httivals]

How is the curvature of field on the Zeiss 18mm? One problem I've found with my Canon wide angle zooms and the Oly 18mm, was that the field of focus was not flat. It is extremely difficult to hold depth of field in a near/far composition when you are low to the ground, and it's not just depth of field calculations coming into play. It's also because as you reach the extreme corners on some wide angle lenses, the point of focus curves inward.

I assume the usual sample variation argument will fit like a glove for some.

Should be noted though that My D3 + 24-70+14-24 was turned in for a checkup last month. All adjusted and checked to be within spec. NPS has its treats.

Conclusion
Well this is only one test...

Corners: Zeiss without doubt
Center: A wash
Barrel distortion: Nikkor, check the right side (doors)
Flare: Yet to test
Vignette: Without doubt Nikkor

And your offcourse entitled to form your own, based on the material.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Great tests folks. Bottom line it looks like the Nikkor has the best distortion , less vignetting and good color . Plus you have other focal lengths to use. So for interiors or when distortion counts the best choice out of the three. The Zeiss like the Zeiss 18mm for the M8 is very sharp across the board but suffers vignetting and distortion much worse but overall for most folks maybe a better choice. Since most folks don't need the best at distortion anyway. It's smaller and travels better. What I find interesting is there is a real difference it seems between them. This maybe a simple choice between the type of shooting one does for sure. Awesome test folks and i know I appreciate everyones efforts and so do the other forum members. This is what makes this place great is the sharing of info we do and even better the respect we have for each other.

 

[jonoslack]

I assume the usual sample variation argument will fit like a glove for some.

Should be noted though that My D3 + 24-70+14-24 was turned in for a checkup last month. All adjusted and checked to be within spec. NPS has its treats.

Conclusion
Well this is only one test...

Corners: Zeiss without doubt
Center: A wash
Barrel distortion: Nikkor, check the right side (doors)
Flare: Yet to test
Vignette: Without doubt Nikkor

And your offcourse entitled to form your own, based on the material.

I don't much like the look of the Zeiss corners, but they're much better than the nikkor, which are horrid.

Paul, one thing I can say categorically, is that you should take your nikkor back - I'm not getting corner results even faintly like that:

Admittedly, it's f8, but it's 100% crop at 18mm - it doesn't look much like yours does it!

My opinion is that this indicates a real problem with any lens testing, that the sample variation often varies more than the difference between one model and another.

I just can't see that your lens is okay though, if it were mine I'd be straight back and on to Nikon


Unless, of course, it's simply out of focus?

All the best