Also helps not being stuck at one end or the other with a pair of zooms.
Also helps not being stuck at one end or the other with a pair of zooms.
My kit may wind up something like this . It's actually 2 kits
Zeiss, 18,25,50 1.4, 100 macro
Second kit 24-70,85 1.4 g, 200 f2 and tele for it. All Nikon this kit more commercial work and Zeiss more landscape.
Option lenses Nikon 17t/s I'm counting on this being released, 45 PCE and 85 PCE
It seems like you all are tilting towards a 18 Zeiss instead of the 21.
Well I must admit I do have a week spot for going wide, allthough my wife are getting sea-sick looking at the tilted wide-picture. Its also more handy and cheaper. A used R19 is rather expensive, and then shaving and so.
Hhhhmmmm, perhaps I should borrough a 18 and give it a try, allthough it was not in that direction my going-simpel-project was ment to go. But walking round and doing fast streetshots with a 800E, even with a 18 sounds like an impossibole project because of the shallow DOF, that don't exist, but very much look like it do. Yes could be fun to se if presetting at 8 or 11 and 2m's (7ft.) distance could make it a street camera, and perhaps a 25mm later on. hhmm.
Now in regards to the 21 which I had years ago on my canons. It's a very sharp lens but the distortion is hard to correct and even the 18 is not standard distortion but has some wave in it but PT lens plugin works really nice and easy with it to correct. The 21mm is not wide enough nor tight enough for me. I like the 18 and 24 focal lengths better since I like a 35 focal length. Again like any system you need to base it on some standard lens. A lot of folks this maybe a 50mm lens than the would go 21,28,50 and say 100 as this is nice gapping between lenses. Now if your a base 35mm lens shooter than no doubt you go 24 and 85 on either side but a 21 is too close so the next best in gapping is a 17/18 lens.
I'm a base 35mm shooter so for me my gapping is perfect 18,25,35,85. Now I do have that overlap 501.8 lens too in the mix. The 50 is nice to have but I prefer 35mm as that standard focal length.
Now this gapping method has been around forever and as a prime shooter makes great sense. Now we have zooms and obviously that will create some overlap which lets say having two 35mm focal lengths is okay but having 24 and 35 maybe redundant. So again you have to watch yourself unless you are making kits for very specific shooting. This is something I am working on so I may run into some redundancy as well. I'm just not the biggest zoom fan and try to avoid them. Unless I will use it for specific type shooting for example PR , grip and grin stuff a 24-70 is a sweetie. I jumped slightly off topic but part of my point here as well is you need to decide are you a zoom guy or a prime guy. They don't mix very well at a bar. LOL
I know the 14-24 seems like your getting 4 focal lengths and you are but your also gaining weight , size and harder handling too. There are trade offs
Second, I frequently use Lightroom to filter my catalog by camera, lens and focal length to see how I'm using my kit. For example, I found that I used the 70-200mm zoom primarily at 200mm (by 6:1 over the second most used focal length) and the 17-35mm at 17mm (by 2:1 over the second most used focal length). By the way, the second most used focal length for the 17-35mm zoom was 35mm.
While I own and love the Zeiss 21mm, you guys have me lusting for the Zeiss 18mm. Damn you!
Here's an example of a shot I could not have gotten with the 21, simply no room behind me to back up without getting run over in a busy street. ZF 18.2 hand-held at f8. (The building is called the "Turning Torso" building in Malmo, Sweden.) :
Unfortunately, I doubt the 17-35 would have fared better because the extreme edges are pretty unusable and this image extends into that lens' bad areas at both ends, but this lens holds it together pretty darn well. I like Joe's reminder about crop-ability with 36MP; even if we have to shoot a little loose, cropping to a 21 FOV is still leaving us like 28MP:
And a center crop for comparison, but not really enough fine detail to see how sharp it actually is, but at least you get an idea:
Note: After reviewing several ZF18 shots from my recent trip, I will be keeping it and probably not bother on the 17-35 zoom as I do have the 24-120 as well, and find it quite acceptable from 24 up
"Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."2 Member(s) liked this post
Last edited by Joe Colson; 21st August 2012 at 06:11.
Seriously, the 15 is STELLAR, very sharp and simpler "mostly barrel" distortion to deal with. However it is easily 2x the volumetric size and most of that is in the front lens group, and then has to be close to 2x the weight of the 18. As good as it is, I know I'd never be carrying it when I needed it. By contrast the 18 tucks into a corner compartment really easily.
Guy: On my M6 the 21 Elmarit was allways on, the 50 and the 90 summicron's didn't touch the camera.
On the D3 most pictures with the 14-24mm were at 14mm. But I also grew a little tired of this ultra-wide. My hasselblads, I used the SWC allmost all the time(around 20-21mm I guess) and some few times the 201F with the 50mm(what a stellar view through the PM51 viewer!), allmost never the 110mm.
So I guess I ought to be a 21mm shooter, but these days a 18mm might be the headline instead, a then later on a 25mm or a 28mm. But being an architect 18mm would be the most used at work. and 25mm perhaps for street etc. (if I'm not going simple and sell all the DSLR's and buy me a M9 or just the PD1M and GRD and...............).
Jack, just a little correction , its called "turning torso"(and we look at it walking at the coastline here in Copenhagen). If you just had made a hint I could have provided you with adresses on old and interesting café's in the old town of Copenhagen also some wierd ones, where the 18mm would have been doing very well. Next time you'll have to ask . A lot of wonderfull places in innner Copenhagen, but I only seldom go there, and thats a shame.
That picture is just splendid!, and I couldn't ask for more sharpnes-wise! And clean and well-defined at the edges too!
Does the lens-correction in C1, after analysing, do the distortion-correction?
Jack Wrote >>>"Note: After reviewing several ZF18 shots from my recent trip, I will be keeping it and probably not bother on the 17-35 zoom as I do have the 24-120 as well, and find it quite acceptable from 24 up>>>
No doubt the Zeiss 18mm is head and shoulders above the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 when set at 18mm, especially towards the corners...even if the zoom is well stopped down. With that said, where the zoom does well is in a compact travel kit when it's paried with a relatively small telezoom such as the Tamron 70-300 VC lens which is amazingly good on the D800 and far superior to Nikon's own version. A small 50mm G lens can be thrown into the mix if desired. This gives an relatively light weight 17-300mm kit that perfoms well save for that relatively small amount of corner deterioration between 17-22mm with the 17-35mm zoom.
Jack, really nice image of the turning torso building and one of a number of favorites of mine that you've posted from your recent/current trip.
Last edited by D&A; 21st August 2012 at 05:09.
Thorkil, thank you! And next time I will for sure tag you ahead of time and get some tips. This trip came up quickly and I was not even sure I'd have a lot of free time to shoot.
Dave, thank you too!
Oh, and name has been corrected -- thanks
Could one ask all for more 18mm Zeiss pictures ?
No, I have not seen any excessive flare -- in fact, shooting into bright light, I have not really even seen any notable ghosting. I have not shot it directly into the Sun, but the Sun behind a cloud is in fact being reflected by windows in the building shot above and it's handling that perfectly...
Geez Dave every time I see your images it brings me back to my youth and the New Jersey coast. I was a Seaside Heights and Beach Haven teenager during the whole summer breaks We had a house in Ortley beach but we sold it when I was about 14 so I was more about girls than photography back than. LOL
Yes " under the board walk " was my theme song. ROTFLMAO
When I want to only carry small primes, I have 18mm Zeiss ZF.2, 35mm f2 Zeiss ZF, 50mm Nikkor f1.8 G, and finally the manual focuse gem: the 90mm f3.5 Apo Lanthar (the newer chipped version for Nikon cameras). DigLloyd raves about this lens, and I agree, sharp center and edges, even at full aperature. A real gem that I have not really tapped it's potential, because I am basically a wide angle guy
Regards all....this thread is enlightening.
1 Member(s) liked this post
Last edited by Thorkil; 21st August 2012 at 22:51.
I love the size, performance, and general feel of the 18. And the focal length is right in the sweet spot for me. Plus, it takes filters; 4" NDs in particular work quite well. I find it complementary to the 14-24, not really a substitute.
@Dave, if you keep UV's on your glass you may like to pick up the Fotodiox filter adapter and UV. I contemplated drop kicking it at first but after some use, meaning attaching/removing cycles, it gets both easier and faster with some wear in. Hold your judgment until you've had it on and off a dozen times or so. As with many lenses, after the shotgun honeymoon and tedious get to know you phase is over, with real knowledge of it's focusing behaviors, it's a strong performer through it's wide range. If you find the left or right edge softer, place it in the sky and bob's your uncle. As much as I'd like to have a full WA set of Zeiss primes, I find myself truly satisfied with the 14-24, more so now that I can filter it for sand/water, etc.
Thanks danielmoore. I looked into the Fotodiox you mentioned....I may have to go that route!
I've been using the Fotodiox filters (Pol & 5 stop grad) for about a month. Took some getting used to the size but works quite well. It convinced me to stick with the 14-24.
Nikon 14-24 at 14mm, F/8, ISO 100, 2 sec. Was getting ready for a night shot.
100% Near centre.
100% Bottom Left Corner.
100% Bottom edge.
100% Bottom Right Corner.
100% Right Edge.
www.achdigital.com2 Member(s) liked this post
Antonio, where did you put the focus in this image?
Daniel the focus is in the middle distance. With Live View.
This is part of the sky with moon of a night shot. Flare.. changing the angle sometimes work to avoid or minimise this flare. Otherwise clone..
With the 14-24 the flare I tended to witness in shots with the sun in the frame typically had a mini rainbow segment in them. Almost like a couple of difracted stripe sets. Tough remove unless you can clone the entire flare out.
Rosebud ...1 Member(s) liked this post
I've only just dipped into this thread today. I've been a little underwhelmed by the photographs in the 'fun with D800 thread' but the Zeiss glass in this thread really showcases the D800 beautifully.
Thank you very much Fredrick! I'll take a carefull look at your page.
I've been following this thread because of my need for a wide prime. The obvious choices are the 24mm 1.4 G, Zf.2 21mm, and Zf.2 18mm. I took the Zf.2 18mm for a walk, and must say that it's an impressive little lens. The size is perfect for remote treks if weight is a concern, and getting "everything in", the viewfinder is easy! The micro-contrast is really nice and distortion is well controlled - you can even use this to your advantage. This 18mm is my new favorite and really love the build quality.
These are obviously low res, so don't quite capture the amazing detail! There's great DOF, from the rocks to the waves and beyond.
Last edited by johnnygoesdigital; 26th November 2012 at 05:55.
1 Member(s) liked this post
for the right one, lovely!
The shot of that building in sweden nearly sells me on the 18mm. Its weird that the tests online dont show this lens being special but the photos indicate something else. I would jump to the conclusion that it doesn't perform as well up close as it does far away but lensrentals.com says it performs better up close. I'm totally confused now.
I would just buy a 21mm distagon for Nikon and call it a day but I can't find one.
Jack, which IRND did you buy? I reckon if you are happy with it I can be happy with it.
Apologies for resurrecting this thread but I've been reading it with interest as I'm considering buying a D800E in the near future. I'm having difficulty choosing between the Zeiss 18mm and 21mm.
I have a few questions concerning these lenses and would be grateful for any feedback. I'd be shooting mainly architecture, but characterful old subjects rather than modernist subjects demanding critical distortion correction.
Most here indicate that the 18 is easier to correct for distortion than the 21. Are there lens profiles in ACR that do a good job on the wave distortion for both?
I've heard that the 18 can suffer from colour casts particularly in the corners, is this really a problem for most uses?
Is the difference in sharpness between the two lenses enough to cause concern?
Many thanks in advance.
This is a very interesting subject as I have had all three lenses and honestly don t have a well supported POV . A friend that does commercial real estate work helped me shoot the interior of our home in Florida and we found the 18 to be very effective . He did do a pano with the 50/2 zf which provided an exception file .
A few questions ..generally for architecture don t you use f8-f16 to insure a as much DOF as possible ...an at this aperture the ability to resolve fine details (using a D800) is affected more by diffraction than differences in the lenses?
Generally every test I have seen has shown that the Zeiss lenses have issues with wave distortion . For my use (think travel shots ) I have found this insignificant even with the ocean as a horizon . Enough can be corrected in post processing . The Zeiss 18 has less than the 21 ..however the 21 is a very special lens producing exceptional IQ on a D800. The Nikon is better here .
The big disadvantage of the Nikon has always been its size and the huge exposed front element (filters require an add on making it much worse ) . But if I assume you are shooting on a tripod(and doing interiors) ...its not much of an issue .
It would seem that the 14-24 would be a better pick because of the ability to more precisely frame with a variable focal length and ability to achieve a wider perspective if required .
I have had all three at one time or another, the zoom obviously is very convenient to shoot but a pain to transport as well. It's a tough call the 18 distorts less than the 21 and I have the Samyang 14mm which I love the perspective so I sold the 18 and have the Zeiss 25 which I really like. I thought about the 21 now but not willing to give up my 25 for it and the 21mm in critical situations maybe tough on interiors to work with given the distortion. I'm really hoping for a Nikon 17mm T//S to hit the streets but right now its a tough call. The zoom does suffer some focus shift issues and can be a issue but doing arch. Work one mostly would work with live view at working aperture and firmly planted on a tripod which eliminates any of that issue anyway. BTW you really want to use PT lens align plug in with the Zeiss glass. Not sure of LR since I don't use that software ever but PT lens align works really nice on the 18mm. The 21 I owned years ago on my Canons
Guy, many thanks for your reply.
Yes, despite the weight I'd take the 17 T/S every time if it existed.
The 14-24mm is front filter challenged, and for me, that has to be a consideration. The Zeiss 21mm and 18mm are both exceptional lenses, both in build quality and performance. Profiles are good to a point, but i think it blends and thus, softens and crops slightly. Less vignetting with the 21mm, but both have outstanding micro contrast. IQ for both, IMO, was about the same. My choice was based on preferred focal length.
Last edited by johnnygoesdigital; 11th February 2013 at 06:16.
Keith, did you also see this thread about wide angle lenses for landscapes ?
A decent wide for landscapes
Just in case it might contain information of some interest for you.
Many thanks, Johnny and Steen.
I'll plow through the 'decent wide for landscapes' thread later today.