The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Zeiss 21 2.8 on D800/E

gustavo

New member
I´ve read and read a lot of sites and reviews to decide the wide angle lens for my future d800e. I want it for landscapes, architectures and interiors.
Nikon excellent lens 14-24, 17-35 and 24 1.4 are not as good as they used to be on the D800 (LensRentals.com - D800 Lens Selection and And the Nikon D800 autofocus saga continues (with some comments on specific lens performance))
The specialized 24 pce isn´t good enough on the d800. “The PC-E didn’t do as well...”.( LensRentals.com - D800 Lens Selection), and Time here at GetDPI (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/36870-d800e-24mm-pc-e.html). For the opposite position: PC-E 24/3.5:”A truly excellent piece of glass...) And the Nikon D800 autofocus saga continues (with some comments on specific lens performance)).
If you forget the barrel distortion from 16-20, or solve it in pp, the 16-35 seems to be great performance on the d800/e (LensRentals.com - D800 Lens Selection , And the Nikon D800 autofocus saga continues (with some comments on specific lens performance) ).
The Zeiss 21 2.8 seems to be the best option if IQ is the priority, as it is for me (…I’d give a slight edge to the Zeiss though (no pun intended) for sharpness, and micro contrast is much, much better. And the Nikon D800 autofocus saga continues (with some comments on specific lens performance)), but I coludn´t find images of this combination. So, is there anyone who has used the Zeiss 21 2.8 ZF2 Distagon T with d800/e? what do you think?
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
This is frustrating, I know... if I can't get a decent 24 PC-E (this was going to be my landscape and architecture lens) then I'll have to wait for whatever new wide PC lenses Nikon has in the works. In the meantime I'd like a wide and fast lens because when I travel I'll take the 24-120, the Leica Cron 50R, and would like something for inside cathedrals and so on too. The best sounding so far is the 25 F2 Zeiss but I'd like to hear about CA and LoCa on the D800/E first...

BTE much as I respect Ming, I wouldn't be too sure about the 24PC because someone on his blog has told him it's no good and he has replied that he's tested it but not shot with it - in other words I suspect he's not fully bottomed it out: or maybe he just had a really good sample.

So I add to your plaintive cry: if anyone has a good fast wide fr the D800/E, please let us know!
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The problem with the Zeiss 21mm is the distortion which you really need a outside program to correct it. My fast wide is a 24 1.4 G for now.
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
With wides (especially retrofocus wides), pick your poison: You either get improved flat-field performance with visible 3rd order (mustache) distortions (and usually more flare prone), OR you get moderate barrel distortion with curvature of field (but usually less flare prone). Curvature of field does NOT rate well on typical 2-D lens test targets, which is why places like Photozone or Lensrenter or a Norm Koran chart does not rate them as well (and why Roger began the whole thread on relevant testing procedures for high res cameras).

Anyway, I have not shot the 24/1.4, but do own the 35/1.4G -- and it appears Nikon favors the latter of the two philosophies above for it's wide, fast prime designs. I can tell you the 35 is excellent and the curvature of field can be a benefit in many of the type shots I use it for, generating corners closer than central subject looking very sharp; I suspect the 24/1.4G does similarly with heavier effect.

To the topic, it is why my present wide prime is the 20/2.8D. It has significant curvature and still corners that remain soft at 100% view from the D800. However in print they are barely noticed with a lens that wide, and usually a part of the image that is wholly unimportant to the subject. The bigger benefit to the 20/2.8D is it is relatively flare resistant, especially compared to the Zeiss wides, and with a lens that wide I often find myself with a bright light source or even the Sun in the frame -- and the little 20 handles that situation quite well.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Interestingly, it appeared Nikon favored 3rd order mustache type distortion in the designs of many of their manual focus and early AF primes. Their AF 18mm f2.8 lens, with its hand ground aspherical design (which looks almost like the twin sibbling to the Af 20mm f2.8) was a prime example. Flat field objects were remarkably sharp from corner to corner in certain samples, but the distortion was worse than a handlebar mustache of years of yore :)

It also seems the current trend in ultra wide angle lens design is to try to achieve max resolution over as much as the frame as possible, and let barrel distortion fall where it may. The 3rd party manual focus Bower/Vivitar/Samyang 14mm wide angle is an extreme example of this. Its sharpness runs rings around Nikon's older designed 14mm (which actually has relatively low distortion) but as a consequence, it's barrel distortion almost has many of the images captured with this lens looking sort of like a fisheye lens.

A less extreme example of this is Nikon's 16-35mm f4 VR lens, at the wide end.

With today's Raw converters, if it was a choice between both types of distortion, I would personally "always" opt for a lens displaying excess barrel distortion which is far easier to correct as opposed to mustashe distortion.

The issue I sometimes have with lenses that have excessive curvature of field, is a moderate distant landscape, where often the edges and corners of the frame will be sharper in the forground as opposed to the plane of focus in the distance. That in itself isn't so much of an issue except when it leads to the visual impression of soft sides/edges in the plane of a very edge to edge "detailed" distant landscape.

Jack, interesting comments regarding flair (or resitance to it) with regards to these types of distortions.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The Nikon 24 1.4 is delicious . F8 my corners are great. Center is outstanding At F2. The Zeiss 25 F2 is great at midrange no so great at infinity. So far I like the 24 a lot need to get out more with it but I'm pretty damn happy with it. Focuses very close also with great artistic look. I'm after look with this Nikon. Right now I'm loaded with 24, 35, 85 1.4 G than a 50 1.8 g and the 180 which is really actually good but getting a 200mm f2 than maybe a zeiss 18mm or zeiss 15mm. Have not decided that one yet but was hoping for a Nikon 17TS to hit the market
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack, interesting comments regarding flair (or resitance to it) with regards to these types of distortions.

Dave (D&A)
Well I was simplifying the summary to keep it, well simple :).

Going into a little more detail, bottom line is most barrel distortion in photographic lenses is simply 3rd order with a lower constant -- meaning more prominent mustache turn up would occur outside the field of view. The 20 is predominantly barrel with some light mustache toward the edges, the 18 far more pronounced. My point was more than Nikon seemed to favor the predominant barrel in their newer designs of fast wides like the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4. The more highly corrected 3rd order wides like those from Zeiss, tend to flare more due primarily to a higher number of internal elements; more internal elements = more reflective surfaces = increased opportunities to generate flare.

Ex: The Nikkor 20 AF-D is 12 elements in 9 groups with total barrel distortion of around 2.25% (moderately high), the Zeiss 21 is 16 elements in 13 groups with total barrel distortion of around 1.7% (moderate). But the Z21 also shows much stronger mustache at the edges, which becomes really visible in a shot like an ocean horizon; moreover barrel is relatively easy to correct and mustache somewhat more difficult. Still an over simplification, but hopefully helps folks understand the basics of what's going on :eek:
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I have it on good authority that the Zeiss 21/2.8 is the best, sharpest lens ever. Some Guy in the Fred Miranda forums about seven years ago was pretty convincing. :ROTFL:

I'm *still* trying to get Lightroom to correct a jpeg I took with that lens. I hate having to go into PTLens just for that. If you take RAW, LR4 corrects it pretty well.

--Matt
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Oh yea I had that little puppy and wide angle wise it's the best in 35mm. It's the damn distortion that Adobe has not put in one of there programs to correct. It's a pain to use PTlens. Maybe something has changed over the years to fix it though. Been awhile but yes it's the same design it was back than but now in Nikon, Canon mount. Wonder whoever gave them that idea.
 

gustavo

New member
Matt, Guy:
I would take only RAW with this lens. I`m interesting in this lens because it supposed to be one of the "sharpest lens ever" as some Guy thought some years ago.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
It's really one of the best out there. The Leica 19mm R runs with it well also but that lens is not setup for a direct mount like the Zeiss is now. It's really only going to be a issue in the moustache distortion to clean that part of it up and weird thing I shot a cockpit with it and I can't see any distortion. It's one of those lenses that's worth the hassle to fix it though.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
Been looking into a wide prime....

The nikon 24 1.4 is a beauty wide open, lovely look, but not a technically perfect lens at all.

Chromatic aberration is quite evident even stopped down to 2.8.



While absent from the Zeiss 21mm



The Nikon 24mm PC-E has chromatic aberration quite well controlled



Distortion is quite close. 1.47 for the Nikon and 1.7 for the Zeiss





The Zeiss 21mm does have a fair bit of vignetting, but that can look quite nice and is quite correctable with the D800's great shadow performance.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Well I was simplifying the summary to keep it, well simple :).

Going into a little more detail, bottom line is most barrel distortion in photographic lenses is simply 3rd order with a lower constant -- meaning more prominent mustache turn up would occur outside the field of view. The 20 is predominantly barrel with some light mustache toward the edges, the 18 far more pronounced. My point was more than Nikon seemed to favor the predominant barrel in their newer designs of fast wides like the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4. The more highly corrected 3rd order wides like those from Zeiss, tend to flare more due primarily to a higher number of internal elements; more internal elements = more reflective surfaces = increased opportunities to generate flare.

Ex: The Nikkor 20 AF-D is 12 elements in 9 groups with total barrel distortion of around 2.25% (moderately high), the Zeiss 21 is 16 elements in 13 groups with total barrel distortion of around 1.7% (moderate). But the Z21 also shows much stronger mustache at the edges, which becomes really visible in a shot like an ocean horizon; moreover barrel is relatively easy to correct and mustache somewhat more difficult. Still an over simplification, but hopefully helps folks understand the basics of what's going on :eek:
Sometimes it's scary how much you know Jack....
 
Top