Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Btw I did not correct these shots in PT plugin. Bottom image that back mountain range is maybe a mile or 2 away and it's sharp
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!
A decent wide for landscapes
- Thread starter tashley
- Start date
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
You should try to rent these . Also there is the Zeiss 25 2.8 but I never shot it. To be honest my theory is this read the reviews than buy it to be sure. I put 20 percent into the reviews. I just have to shoot it to see. That's me though and I trust my eyes more.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
No problem just trying to help. Hope you like it if not you can return it I'm sure
I would not rule out the Nikon 24mm 1.4 either. Not sure on Lloyd's reports on that lens, I read his reviews however. I have the 1.4 and have found it to be an excellent lens.
Very sharp at F 1.8, in fact amazingly so. DOF is limited from F1.4 to F 4.5 as would be expected. I love to use this lens in low light (early morning, late evening) as the extra stops really help in focusing especially with Live view. Nikon's implementation does not buffer out the noise as well as Canon's solution so working in low light the 1.4 does come in handy.
Not sure on the reports of focus shift. I sure have not noticed it.
Manual focus is exact. Very good control. Very good tactical feedback when using MF. And I like still having a AF option.
It's a nice size and weight and the filter size being 77mm is also a plus.
I have compared this lens to the Zeiss 21mm and have preferred the results from the 24mm Nikon. Especially in the F4 to F8 range.
It's a good one to add to your rental/try list.
Paul
Very sharp at F 1.8, in fact amazingly so. DOF is limited from F1.4 to F 4.5 as would be expected. I love to use this lens in low light (early morning, late evening) as the extra stops really help in focusing especially with Live view. Nikon's implementation does not buffer out the noise as well as Canon's solution so working in low light the 1.4 does come in handy.
Not sure on the reports of focus shift. I sure have not noticed it.
Manual focus is exact. Very good control. Very good tactical feedback when using MF. And I like still having a AF option.
It's a nice size and weight and the filter size being 77mm is also a plus.
I have compared this lens to the Zeiss 21mm and have preferred the results from the 24mm Nikon. Especially in the F4 to F8 range.
It's a good one to add to your rental/try list.
Paul
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
The Nikon 24 1.4 I agree a really nice lens . Bigger , heavier and more expensive but it is very nice. I had it for awhile but for me I want my three wides to render about the same so I went the Zeiss route which are smaller. It's rated pretty good too.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
It hits its mark at F4 but does have corner softness if you look at the charts here.
Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4 G ED (FX) - Review / Test Report
Ill post the Zeiss 25 also. It hits its mark at around 2.8 but the corners and borders seems much better at 5.6
Zeiss ZE Distagon T* 25mm f/2 (Canon EF) - Review / Lab Test
Lets see what the Zeiss 25 2.8 has going for it
Of the three it's the poorer performer. Corners don't ever get close to center.
Zeiss Distagon T* 25mm f/2.8 ZF (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis
Now this is all MTF charts and how they perform in field is another matter. But the Nikon 1.4 and Zeiss f2 seem to be the best of the lot. The one thing here and I did some homework awhile ago none of the zooms at 24mm came in as good as the primes.
Like I said a tough focal length but these two primes are nice in the field
Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4 G ED (FX) - Review / Test Report
Ill post the Zeiss 25 also. It hits its mark at around 2.8 but the corners and borders seems much better at 5.6
Zeiss ZE Distagon T* 25mm f/2 (Canon EF) - Review / Lab Test
Lets see what the Zeiss 25 2.8 has going for it
Of the three it's the poorer performer. Corners don't ever get close to center.
Zeiss Distagon T* 25mm f/2.8 ZF (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis
Now this is all MTF charts and how they perform in field is another matter. But the Nikon 1.4 and Zeiss f2 seem to be the best of the lot. The one thing here and I did some homework awhile ago none of the zooms at 24mm came in as good as the primes.
Like I said a tough focal length but these two primes are nice in the field
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
On my iPad I can't copy the actual number rating chart to paste here but I think the Zeiss is higher. Question is what does that mean in the field though which obviously is more important.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I think someone twisted you arm on that lens. No names please. LOL
heck, for that price I would try almost any lens
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Exactly Bob , I felt no guilt at all twisting your arm on 429 dollars. ROTFLMAO
BTW it looks nice. Shoot more
BTW it looks nice. Shoot more
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Go hit some churches.
yeah sometime Fri-Sunday when I have some time off.
Tripod time if they allow it for interiors. That will be a good test of correction all around.
-bob
Guy
I found that the Nikon 24mm 1.4 did have some corner softness but once you take it to F6.3 or higher this is pretty much gone. What surprised me was when I compared it to the Zeiss 21mm F2.8. I had very severe corner softness on the example I rented until I got to around F11. I should mention this using the lenses at infinity and relying on hyper focal for near in sharpness. I know everyone else loves the 21mm Zeiss, but for me the 24mm Nikon was a better overall solution especially since I knew I was going to use it with live view in low light. As far as focus shift, I regularly focus this lens in low light at F 1.8 to F2.8 and then set the final aperture at F 6.3 to F8 and I have yet to see any shifting in focus. For me the real key to good focus on the D800 family is the use of LiveView. I find myself always going there first if the shooting situation allows it.
What surprised me on the 24mm 1.4 was how well it manually focused, as NIkon gives it a very good focus ring along with great control. Nothing like trying to manually focus a Nikon 24-120, which is very difficult to me due to the amount of play in the focus ring.
Paul
I found that the Nikon 24mm 1.4 did have some corner softness but once you take it to F6.3 or higher this is pretty much gone. What surprised me was when I compared it to the Zeiss 21mm F2.8. I had very severe corner softness on the example I rented until I got to around F11. I should mention this using the lenses at infinity and relying on hyper focal for near in sharpness. I know everyone else loves the 21mm Zeiss, but for me the 24mm Nikon was a better overall solution especially since I knew I was going to use it with live view in low light. As far as focus shift, I regularly focus this lens in low light at F 1.8 to F2.8 and then set the final aperture at F 6.3 to F8 and I have yet to see any shifting in focus. For me the real key to good focus on the D800 family is the use of LiveView. I find myself always going there first if the shooting situation allows it.
What surprised me on the 24mm 1.4 was how well it manually focused, as NIkon gives it a very good focus ring along with great control. Nothing like trying to manually focus a Nikon 24-120, which is very difficult to me due to the amount of play in the focus ring.
Paul
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Yes on the Nikon 24mm when I had it never focused shifted so not sure what that was all about and yes live view is really nice at least for me, I know many complaints about it compared to Canons but does work for me. I agree on the Nikon I got nice results stopped down. Main reason field testing yourself is the only way as its up to us what is acceptable or not. The Nikon certainly offers the speed and AF. What i did was went 2 kits one for landscape work and one for AF style work. There is no right or wrong here it's whatever works the best for the user. They are both on top of the higher level lenses.
In all seriousness I buy a lot of glass so I can figure out what works best buying a lens 2 or 3 times seems crazy but I sometimes go back as that maybe the better lens.
In all seriousness I buy a lot of glass so I can figure out what works best buying a lens 2 or 3 times seems crazy but I sometimes go back as that maybe the better lens.
tashley
Subscriber Member
Oh now it's all gotten too difficult again! I was busty writing this morning so didn't place the order for the Zeiss and now I see the newer posts I am all up in the air!
Summary:
They are both very similar size and weight according to the specs.
The 24 1.4G has reportedly soft edges and focus shift but people here who have used them in the field seem to disagree on that and I now learn that it has really nice MF weighting, which to me makes a huge difference.
The Zeiss reviews as having soft edges at infinity but people here seem not to find that in the field.
I get Guy's logic about MF lenses for landscape but if the MF action of he 1.4 is very nice, if focus shift isn't an issue, and if it has sharp edges by F6.3 then that's fine by me.
So: my heart says Zeiss, because I like the drawing and the feel and because Nikon is in my bad books for QC but my head says Nikon because AF is a bonus and because I can then sell my 28 1.8G and use the 24 for travel as a supplement to the 24-120 and 70-200 I generally carry.
Then Bob throws in the Samyang and I want that too.
Well, I did ask....
Summary:
They are both very similar size and weight according to the specs.
The 24 1.4G has reportedly soft edges and focus shift but people here who have used them in the field seem to disagree on that and I now learn that it has really nice MF weighting, which to me makes a huge difference.
The Zeiss reviews as having soft edges at infinity but people here seem not to find that in the field.
I get Guy's logic about MF lenses for landscape but if the MF action of he 1.4 is very nice, if focus shift isn't an issue, and if it has sharp edges by F6.3 then that's fine by me.
So: my heart says Zeiss, because I like the drawing and the feel and because Nikon is in my bad books for QC but my head says Nikon because AF is a bonus and because I can then sell my 28 1.8G and use the 24 for travel as a supplement to the 24-120 and 70-200 I generally carry.
Then Bob throws in the Samyang and I want that too.
Well, I did ask....
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
LOL now you know what I have to go through on this crap and a lot of others. Its a PITA
Tim do order that damn Samyang 14mm it distorts like a mother but its a easy fix and very sharp. For the money its too cheap not to get it
Tim do order that damn Samyang 14mm it distorts like a mother but its a easy fix and very sharp. For the money its too cheap not to get it
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Tim remember there is no focus shift issues on any lens when using live view. You are at working aperture and it will not change when you shoot. That is the beauty of live view and focusing off the sensor. In Zion I used live view on maybe 95 percent of the shots i took as well as Jack did too.
You have to be careful here, as I understand it, Live View on Nikon is What you see, is what you get. So in low light you may have to open up the lens a good bit to focus, and get around the nonbuffered noise that tends to show up. So example in low light I will open up the 24mm all the way or to at least 1.8 as it makes a huge difference in ability to focus, but I know that for the shot, I need to be at F6.3, so here you may get some focus shifting if the lens has the problem. If you try the other angle, staying at F6.3 and then dialing down the shutter speed to where you get enough light to foucs, it's again hard as the live view is reacting to the slower shutter speeds. At least this is what I have found in practice. In normal light the Nikon solution seems better to me now as I like the what you see is what you get.
Here is where Canon figured out a way to buffer out the noise in the lower light focusing, i.e. late at night, early morning etc. You can have exposure problems here too if you don't look at the metering display as the live view shows most times even exposure even if your current settings are not. But again it's a bit easier to me for the night work, and lower light work.
I really never realized all the benefits to liveview for focus until I started working with Nikon where it seems to be very critical at times.
Paul
Here is where Canon figured out a way to buffer out the noise in the lower light focusing, i.e. late at night, early morning etc. You can have exposure problems here too if you don't look at the metering display as the live view shows most times even exposure even if your current settings are not. But again it's a bit easier to me for the night work, and lower light work.
I really never realized all the benefits to liveview for focus until I started working with Nikon where it seems to be very critical at times.
Paul