Zeiss 21 2.8 on D800/E

[Guy Mancuso]

Diffrent distortion. The Nikon 24 is barrel only, easy fix. Zeiss is barrel and mustache need PT lens to correct. CA correction on Nikon is a check box and gone. Frankly every Leica summilux is technically not perfect wide open. Ask yourself are you buying MTFs or a lens.

 

[tashley]

Any thoughts on the Zeiss 25mm f/2?

That's also the one I'm most interested in..

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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

 

[FredBGG]

Ask yourself are you buying MTFs or a lens.

True.... the look of the 24mm 1.4 wide open is very nice

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes this is what won me on the Nikon was this wide open performance like the 35 also. These two lenses are a lot like Leica summiluxes of old but with actually better wide open performance . Like controlled veiling for one. At F2 the 35 and 24 1.4 lenses is when killer sharpness comes alive also but still has nice bokeh. Stopped down the corners come in faster on the 35 but by F8 the 24 looks real nice. Nikon upped there game on these G lenses much better than the past ones I have used. Some folks will like the Zeiss glass but so far I only see two that seem to stand out over Nikon the 21mm for sure and the Zeiss 100 but the rest have some issues. I still have a question mark on the newer 25 tough so it could be very good but I hear infinity is not its strong suit, but midrange is.its worth testing to find out.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

One thing also from MF shooters especially we will have to look more closely with these faster 35mm lenses since they will have lens performance stuff we need to control more like CA for one bokeh fringing and such as most of our MF glass was pretty well corrected at 2.8 and slower. So we have to on the lookout here as this is not something we really are used too or maybe better said hidden at 2.8 and we did not have to deal with it.

 

[Jack]

True.... the look of the 24mm 1.4 wide open is very nice

I just have to say that this is impressively shallow DoF for a 24mm lens on a full-frame 35!


...

Crap. We know what this means. :ROTFL:

 

[glenerrolrd]

Been using the Zeiss Zf lens now for about 2 years . The biggest plus is overall color depth and contrast ..they may not be much if any sharper(than the new Nikkor s) but they have significantly more punch . I ve shot a ton with the 18/3.5 and the 21/2.8 down at our pier and have not been hurt by distortion . The CA is a different story . The 18 and 21 are decent but the older designs 25/2.8,28/2,35/2,50/1.4 and 85/1.4 all have issues .

I don t think anyone will be truly unhappy with the IQ of the 21/2.8 ZF2 . But both the 18 and 21 are big and not too handy . I use them on a tripod (and I don t shoot much that way). The new 15 mm is a beast .

The 24/35/85 G Nikkors are pretty special and hard to ignore . I need to work more with my 24 as I think the pecking order is best first ...85/35/24 . It is interesting that the Nikkors maybe optimized for close to middle distances where the Zeiss are better at infinity .

The one I want to try is the 35/1.4 ZF2 but its designed for available light and has superb bokeh ..but is cursed with a long throw like a Noctilux . This may have been designed more with cinema in mind . And the 35/1.4 G is so good its hard to go that way .

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Best F-mount WA-thread ever. Answers all the questions that have been grinding in the back of my head for a while. Great info everybody :thumbs:

 

[jagsiva]

How does the much talked about 14-24 compare with the ZF and Nikon primes, if shooting at F8? I very much like the convenience of the zoom.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Been using the Zeiss Zf lens now for about 2 years . The biggest plus is overall color depth and contrast ..they may not be much if any sharper(than the new Nikkor s) but they have significantly more punch . I ve shot a ton with the 18/3.5 and the 21/2.8 down at our pier and have not been hurt by distortion . The CA is a different story . The 18 and 21 are decent but the older designs 25/2.8,28/2,35/2,50/1.4 and 85/1.4 all have issues .

I don t think anyone will be truly unhappy with the IQ of the 21/2.8 ZF2 . But both the 18 and 21 are big and not too handy . I use them on a tripod (and I don t shoot much that way). The new 15 mm is a beast .

The 24/35/85 G Nikkors are pretty special and hard to ignore . I need to work more with my 24 as I think the pecking order is best first ...85/35/24 . It is interesting that the Nikkors maybe optimized for close to middle distances where the Zeiss are better at infinity .

The one I want to try is the 35/1.4 ZF2 but its designed for available light and has superb bokeh ..but is cursed with a long throw like a Noctilux . This may have been designed more with cinema in mind . And the 35/1.4 G is so good its hard to go that way .

I would say the pecking order is just about right Roger 85 is just scary good and than 35 , 24 and honestly the 35 gets the most use so really hard to ignore the Nikon i agree. The old days I would say get the Zeiss now I'm just not so sure these damn G got it going on and maybe that Zeiss color is just a tick away in processing and than the manual focus hassle and the choices get tougher. Love to hear more on the 18mm though as I thought for the landscape work it could be fun. But I have to remember myself to be careful here since I have the tech cam that is truly my very wide awesome file stuff. Which given both lenses I have is a 18mm and a 42 TS lens equivalent 35 that is. So I'm not so concerned on the Nikon side for landscape. Street , PR, fashion and all that stuff is my Nikon kit. I don't mind a little crossover though. :grin:

 

[Jack]

The 35/1.4 is the one I leave on my camera all the time -- it's an awesome lens. Surprised nobody else has mentioned the 50/1.4G in the 1.4 group though. I find it a teeny bit sharper center to corner than the 35 wide open and they seem to be mostly equal after that, so we're probably splitting hairs as to which is better. But from what I've seen, if pressed I'd rate them 85//50/35/24 in the 1.4 lenses.

 

[glenerrolrd]

The 35/1.4 is the one I leave on my camera all the time -- it's an awesome lens. Surprised nobody else has mentioned the 50/1.4G -- I find it a teeny bit sharper center to corner than the 35 wide open and they seem to be mostly equal after that, so we're probably splitting hairs as to which is better. But from what I've seen, I'd rate probably 85//50/35/24 in the 1.4 lenses.

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 .

 

[FredBGG]

This comparison tool looks quite handy:

Nikon 24mm f/1.4G AF-S ED Nikkor Lens Distortion Test Results

 

[D&A]

While we're on the subject of rating some of these popular lenses, I am quite impressed with the 24 f1.4 G, 35 f1.4 G and 85 1.4G although I have to say now that I had a brief chance to shoot the new 85 f1.8G on the D800...in some ways I almost prefer it to the 1.4G. The Zeiss 21mm is an absolute gem and a while back I tested it against a excellent sample of the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 set at 21mm. Color response of both lenses were entirely different but resolution (sharpness) across the frame was quite close. I'd almost give the edge to the Zeiss. Unfortunately at the time, I didn't really test specifcially for distortion.

I've also used/tested the Zeiss 18mm, another fine lens from Zeiss although performance wise, it was somewhat behind the Zeiss 21mm. Regarding the Zeiss 100mm, I put it up there along with the 21mm although I don't yet have a handle regarding potential CA issues with its use on the D800.

Lastly I am not so enamered with the Nikon 50mm f1.4G. A very good lens but color response as mentioned is not to my taste nor is the OOF areas particulary attractive when shot at or near wide open.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I here a lot of folks look at the Sigma 50 1.4 also. Personally I'm not a big 50 fan, but I do have a need once in awhile for one and have to say for 229 dollars the cheapo 1.8 G is sharp as hell. It's one of those stick in corner of bag pockets. LOL

 

[Jack]

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 .

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.

 

[Gary Clennan]

The ZF21 is hands down the sharpest WA lens I have ever used. It also has ridiculous depth of field which is much more than one would typically expect. I also have the ZF25 f/2.8 which is almost as sharp as the 21. You really can't go wrong with either....

 

[D&A]

I here a lot of folks look at the Sigma 50 1.4 also. Personally I'm not a big 50 fan, but I do have a need once in awhile for one and have to say for 229 dollars the cheapo 1.8 G is sharp as hell. It's one of those stick in corner of bag pockets. LOL

The Sigma 50mm f1.4 was a lovely lens on the D700/D3s. It's OOF areas when shot wide open are extremely attractive, which reminds some of the Nikkor 58mm f1.2 Noct in some ways. I was surprised by this when I tested both side by side, not all that long ago. Resolution wise between f1.4 and just short of f4, it's excellent in the center of the frame but quickly goes very soft towards the sides and and corners. To improve those areas, it has to be shot at beyond f5.6. This is a 50mm designed for it's "look" more than anything else. Produces a very delicate image.

I haven't tested it on a D800, but my gut feeling is unless stopped down to at least f8, its going to disappoint those looking for a fast sharp lens. For that, I would agree with Guy, for shear sharpness alone, one cannot go wrong with the 50mm f1.8G., especially at its reasonable price point. It really doesn't have "a look", but it's most certainly sharp!

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Right now I'm looking in the 18mm range which is a natural gap for me having the 24mm. This one I know is a real tough cookie to find. Outside the zooms there are Sigmas, Tokina, Tamron, Nikon and of course the Zeiss. I'm leaning at the Zeiss but have to say all bets are off if Nikon pulls out a 17mm TS lens. I may just go rent the Zeiss and see how it is on the D800 . I have not read one report yet with that combo. I may just have to play guinea pig on this one. I think Tempe camera here in town rents it so it would be easy for me to do.