Zeiss 21 2.8 on D800/E

[D&A]

Guy, If you do rent the Zeiss 18, I would love to know how it performs on a D800. Although I found the 18 wasn't quite the performer the 21mm was on the D700/D3s, it was certainly more than just a competant performer on those cameras. I too love the 18mm focal length, especially the spacing of 18 & 24mm. Hey, want a lens with a ton of mustache distortion and heavy vignetting but actually not half bad when it comes to center sharpness (at least with most samples)? Well look no further than the Nikon Af 18mm AF-D lens....LOL! It's tiny (compared to the Zeiss) thats for sure and has that crinkle industrial look finish too! What's not to like ...and to think how rediculously expensive this lens used to be.

Seriously, Nikon seems to have abandoned the ultra wide angle single focal length catagory, ever since they released the 14-24mm f2.8. There were rumors a while back for a replacement to their Af 14mm f2.8, but nothing so far has materialized, unfortunately

Thanks!

Dave (D&A)

 

[Dustbak]

Jack

I found the 50 to have lower contrast and weaker color than the newer 85/35/24. Maybe you are correcting this in post . I am sensitive to the color depth in the blue channel . The zeiss and the newer G lenses have stronger blues ..which of course is more visible around the ocean.

Solving the 50 choice is on my list .

Pffewww.... finally I see someone else that is noticing the same. I often go out with only the 35 and the 50 in my bag (I prefer the bag as small as possible when that is possible). Everytime I am surprised on the difference in color rendering and contrast between the 35 and 50. Nice to hear I am not the only one seeing this.

There allegedly is a patent for a new Nikon 50/1.2. I certainly hope there are plans on replacing the current 1.4 with a more spicy version which doesn't necessarily have to be 1.2 for me. I would like that though, I loved my AIS50/1.2. A new one in the line of the new 1.4G series would be welcome

Anyone tried the Sigma 50/1.4? I am normally shying away from the likes of Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Etc.. but a lot of people seem to be extremely satisfied with the Sigma.

'edit' I just see some others have writting something about the Sigma. Problem of reading through a thread and responding on a post before having read the posts after that.

 

[tashley]

The Zeiss 25 I have been wondering about too Tim. This one is a new design and it's supposed to be very good and I went back and forth with the Nikon 24 1.4 on it. I ultimately wanted AF fast wide wide angle which won the Nikon out. But I'm not using the Nikon as a landscape type tool so for me the AF wins this range

Here's a review for the canon version of the Zeiss... Sounds like neither it nor the Nik 24mm 1.4 is perfect for landscape but I bet they'd both acquit themselves perfectly well with a bit of stopping down...
Zeiss ZE Distagon T* 25mm f/2 (Canon EF) - Review / Lab Test

 

[glenerrolrd]

Roger, to be clear my 50 is a new 1.4G -- is that what you used? Mine and my 35/1.4G seemed almost identical to me, but admittedly I have not shot the 50 a lot yet. I will pay closer attention in the near future and follow up. I will add, I tested 3 copies at my dealer, one was softer and had lower contrast, so I assumed it was a dud. The other two were both very similar in look and I simply chose the one that required the least amount of AF correction on my body.

Jack

I tested the new G version . When Nikon introduced the G primes ..I was using the D3X ..so a decent test . I considered the 50 and I went thru all the test eports . 50 s always do well on resolution tests and 50 1.4 s are almost always excellent in the center . But the contrast and color on the one I tested was lower than the other G primes .

You could be right and I had a dud. I had a 24-70/2.8 that I thought was decent until I used my friends and shot them side by side . His was 2 levels better. So I returned the lens to Nikon with a note that I had done a side by side test . It came back significantly improved . My dealer friend told me to always tell them you tested against another copy otherwise you get a returned to spec message.

Isn t the other issue with the 50 the AF is slower than the 24/35/85 ?

Its so much cheaper less than $500 verse $1700-2000.

 

[D&A]

Roger, anything is possible with the 50mm your use or tested (or possibly with some samples of this lens)....but I too was not enarmored with the color response of the 50mm f1.4 G I shot with, especially when compared to some of the other fast f1.4 "G" single focal length lenses. As I stated above, the OOF areas when shot near or at wide open, were also just OK but nothing to write home about, in my opinion. Yes, the AF is quite slow but then so is the Af on the Sigma 50mm f1.4. In terms of Af speed, the older Nikon 50mm f1.4 D lens has them both beat in the AF speed department. Again, the 50mm f1.4 G is a good lens, just not one of my favorites in the 50mm range.

Dave (D&A)

 

[kuau]

Since I hve not received my D800 yet, and after reading this great thread my head is spinning now. Which 24mm works best at infinity? The Nikon or Zeiss, same goes with the 35mm and which versions
Steven

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Here is a excerpt from lens rentals on the zeiss 25

It’s really, really good. That should about cover it. Oh, you want details? OK.
It’s an interesting lens. Unlike previous versions in this focal range there is very little field curvature (unlike the 25mm f/2.8). In terms of pure resolution it’s superb, generating numbers in our testing similar to the legendary 21mm f/2.8. Sharper than the Nikon or Canon 24mm f/1.4 lenses when shot at f/2.0. Sharper than any 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm lens we stock at f/2.0. And that’s both in the center and overall (weighted average) sharpness.
But there’s a bit of a catch: that’s for testing at middle distances (10 to 25 feet). But at infinity (where the MTF charts are made) it doesn’t seem quite as good (it’s still good, but not amazingly good), so there are probably better choices for landscape work. But 25mm isn’t really a landscape focal length for most people, it’s more for reportage, street shooting, architecture, and video work. For these purposes, at middle distances, I’m not sure there’s a better lens available.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Okay on the 24.14 from lensrentals. I think better of this myself


Roger's Take
Roger Cicala
President of LensRentals.com
I’ll admit, first, that my expectations for this lens may have been unreasonable. I was expecting perfection. This is a very good, very wide aperture prime. But not perfect. On the other hand, every reviewer I’ve read seems to be drooling over themselves in an effort to heap their praises on it. So I thought I’d better look at it again before I opened my mouth because I didn’t want to look stupider than usual. They are lens reviewing experts after all, and I’m an old guy that runs a rental house. But if I agreed with them, then we’d all be wrong.
Not that I’m calling this lens bad: its excellent. Its as sharp in the center as anything you can shoot with. Nearly Zeiss 21mm sharp, which is the gold standard. Its a bit soft in the corners wide open, but still excellent compared to most 24mm lenses and even the corners are sharp by f3.5. Its got gorgeous bokeh. It has great color and contrast, and even the corners have very little coma or astigmatism. And its the desperately waited f1.4 prime we were all waiting for.
But the autofocus speed, while not a critical feature of a lens this wide, is best described as leisurely. More importantly its got some very detectible barrel distortion and interestingly the closer you focus, the more severe the barrel effect. Its pretty noticeable and not at all what I’d hoped for. I wouldn’t shoot architecture with it, unless I was planning to shoot raw and post-process out the distortion. Its still a very, very good lens but I’m less excited about it than most.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I went Nikon for AF and the look wide open but my intentions are not landscape with this lens. To me this is my reportage lens PR, fashion and the like.

 

[D&A]

As Guy has pointed out, it's a tough call at the moment when it comes to this focal length and landscape use. The Zeiss 21 is "that good" but I know Steven how you much prefer not going that wide (of how I recall...LOL). From memory, it was a difficult call at infinity as to whether the Nikon 24mm f1.4 or 14-24 Zoom @ 24mm was definitely sharper at these longer distances? Stopped down to f5.6-f8, where I believe you don't mind shooting Steven, I recall favoring the zoom set at 24mm over the 24mm f1.4 at similar f-stops. At closer range it was a somewhat different story.

Again this might all be a bit academic since I was initially testing performance on a D700/D3s and the D800 changes things quite a bit, especially achieveing sharp sides/corners with the zoom unless well stopped down. I'm starting the process of re-evaluating many of these lenses on the D800 now. The new Zeiss 25mm is still very tempting for a number of reasons and am looking forward to trying it out, so overall I wouldn't discount that lens just yet. Other than that, I still love the 24mm f1.4 for it's versitilty and look.

Dave (D&A)

 

[kuau]

Guy,
Thanks for your input.
For me, since living in Telluride, CO now, I still have my much loved Sinar arTec, with a 35,72,and 135mm lenses, the only problem is a lot of the good shooting here require long hikes, and my arTec kit is a little heavy for hikes over 2 miles round trip, my back starts killing me, Turning 50 is a real bitch.

So here comes the D800, I thought wow, now I can carry this on longer hikes and still get great IQ. So I was looking to put together a 3-4 lens kit for the D800, Looks like I may just have to rent them all out and give them a try, I am not a good WA shooter to start with but I still would like to carry with me a 24/25mm or even a 28mm lens would be nice.

Thats where I'm at.

Steven

 

[kuau]

Dave,
You got it correct I don't want a 21mm lens to wide for me.
I may just bypass the 24 all together and start at 35mm. Any advice there since I will be shooting at f5.6-f8 ?
Oh yeah did you get a D800 or D800/E btw.

Steven

As Guy has pointed out, it's a tough call when it comes to landscape use. The Zeiss 21 is "that good" but I know Steven how you much prefer not going that wide (of how I recall...LOL). From memory, it was a difficult call at infinity as to whether the Nikon 24mm f1.4 or 14-24 Zoom @ 24mm was definitely sharper at these longer distances? Stopped down to f5.6-f8, where I believe you don't mind shooting Steven, I recall favoring the zoom set at 24mm over the 24mm f1.4 at similar f-stops. At closer range it was a somewhat different story. Again this might all be a bit academic since I was initially testing performance on a D700/D3s and the D800 changes things quite a bit. I'm starting the process of re-evaluating many of these lenses on the D800 now. The new Zeiss 25mm is still very tempting for a number of reasons and I wouldn't discount that lens just yet.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

We are down in the sticky wicky area here. Obviously a easy bet is the Zeiss 21mm if you are willing to do a little extra work with PT lens but now I see CS6 out with some wide angle filter that may help. Now if your a 21 person than 28, 50 and so on is the preferred gap range. Otherwise its my setup 24, 35 , 85 type gapping. Always think SYSTEM here and build around your favorite glass or most preferred. My most anchor lens is the 35 so I built around that with 85 and 24. I added a 50 in there just for those moments I may need a little less distortion but wider than the 85. Here I went for sharpness not look in the 50 1.8. Really no wrong or right here except maybe getting your gapping correctly to you needs.

 

[D&A]

Dave,
You got it correct I don't want a 21mm lens to wide for me.
I may just bypass the 24 all together and start at 35mm. Any advice there since I will be shooting at f5.6-f8 ?
Oh yeah did you get a D800 or D800/E btw.

Steven

Steven, at this point, those who are actively shooting and testing these lenses with the D800 are more qualified to respond as my experiences up to date is primarily with the D700/D3s, except in a few cases where I had time to perform some quick lens tests with the D800. That will change soon of course as I am begining some active testing with that body.

So regarding 35mm lenses, I've used fairly extensively the Zeiss 35mm f2 and Nikon 35mm f1.4 . For strictly distant landscape use, I would have no hesitation to recommend the Zeiss as nice as the Nikon is. I feel the Nikon is a more of a "look" lens than strictly an ultrasharp, landscape type. How this will change on a D800, I cannot currently say. The wildcard for me personally is the Zeiss 35mm f1.4. I haven't had any experience with that one. If you're stopping down to f5.6 or f8, I personally for you use would choose the Zeiss 35mm f2 but with the cavet that it still performs much the same way on the D800. That is the big question with many of these lenses.

Dave (D&A)

 

[kuau]

Thanks Dave and Guy.
I may start with then a 35/2 Zeiss, 50/2 Macro Zeiss, 100/2 Macro Zeiss and then maybe the Nikon 180

Just a thought.

Steven

 

[D&A]

Thanks Dave and Guy.
I may start with then a 35/2 Zeiss, 50/2 Macro Zeiss, 100/2 Macro Zeiss and then maybe the Nikon 180

Just a thought.

Steven

I know I'm going to get hit over the head with this one...but I personally would select the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro over the Nikon 180. The recently discontinued Sigma non OS version of this lens if relative compactness is desired (although it's still heftier than the Nikon 180) or the recently released OS version if Image Stabilization is desired. Both have built in rotating tripod collars and optically speaking, I much prefer one of the Sigma's at any subject distance, macro or distant landscape.

Dave (D&A)

 

[glenerrolrd]

This is a really well thought out evaluation . Both the zeiss and nikon lenses seem to be optimized around a specific intended usage . The Zeiss 21 is clearly designed for landscape or subjects at a distance ...it does not handle well as a walk around lens. It is large with a huge 82mm front element making it almost impossible to use for street shooting and not much fun for even travel. On a tripod when IQ is critical to the desired rendering ...I agree its the Gold Standard for DSLR ..at least the best I have seen .

Here is a excerpt from lens rentals on the zeiss 25

It’s really, really good. That should about cover it. Oh, you want details? OK.
It’s an interesting lens. Unlike previous versions in this focal range there is very little field curvature (unlike the 25mm f/2.8). In terms of pure resolution it’s superb, generating numbers in our testing similar to the legendary 21mm f/2.8. Sharper than the Nikon or Canon 24mm f/1.4 lenses when shot at f/2.0. Sharper than any 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm lens we stock at f/2.0. And that’s both in the center and overall (weighted average) sharpness.
But there’s a bit of a catch: that’s for testing at middle distances (10 to 25 feet). But at infinity (where the MTF charts are made) it doesn’t seem quite as good (it’s still good, but not amazingly good), so there are probably better choices for landscape work. But 25mm isn’t really a landscape focal length for most people, it’s more for reportage, street shooting, architecture, and video work. For these purposes, at middle distances, I’m not sure there’s a better lens available.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Na we love ya Dave and I am probably selling my 180 as soon as I can order the 200 f2 but will say it's working nicely on the D800. Steven you can find the 180 used pretty easy

 

[kuau]

Guy,
So you have been pretty happy with your 180?
Of course the 200/2 is the bomb but defeats my purpose of keeping my kit as small as possible.

Steven

 

[D&A]

Na we love ya Dave and I am probably selling my 180 as soon as I can order the 200 f2 but will say it's working nicely on the D800. Steven you can find the 180 used pretty easy

Thanks Guy! Well I'd give up the Sigma 150 (or Nikon 180 for that matter) for the 200 f2 anyday ....that is if someone would kindly carry it for me while I'm out shooting...LOL!

Dave (D&A)