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!
Wide dilemma
- Thread starter Jorgen Udvang
- Start date
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Hmmm... I'm leaning towards 15(or 18 if I can't afford 15)/24/50ish/105/(180)
Jorgen,
If you want 15, get the Samyang 14 instead. Cheap and optically excellent -- not the ZF, but really not very far off for like 1/8th the cost. Know too that the 14/15 focal is quite a bit wider than 18 in use, and actually a bit more difficult to use well.
If you want 15, get the Samyang 14 instead. Cheap and optically excellent -- not the ZF, but really not very far off for like 1/8th the cost. Know too that the 14/15 focal is quite a bit wider than 18 in use, and actually a bit more difficult to use well.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Jack,
I've considered the Samyang, and there's an excellent comparison of this, the Zeiss and the Nikkor 14-24 online:
Ultrawide Comparison: Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 15 mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 vs. Samyang 14mm f/2.8
What bothers me after reading the review is that the Samyang seems to be pretty much useless wide open plus the Zeiss can take filters, expensive filters, but still. The build quality seems to be an unknown. However, it might work fine until I can afford the Zeiss, or ultimately find that I don't need it.
I don't need this focal length very often, but interestingly, one of my most published photos the last couple of years was taken with the Panasonic 7-14mm @ 8mm, which is 16mm eqv. The cost of taking that photo, 3 days of travelling, airline tickets and other transportation, hotels etc., far exceeded the cost of any of these lenses. Later, the photo has been printed at 3 x 2 meters for use as background wall at 7 different trade shows plus being a part of all catalogues and brochures published in 10 different languages all over Asia.
If only they had paid me what the photo is really worth
I can dream, can't I :ROTFL:
Edit: Looking at the samples of that review again, the samples taken at f/5.6 actually show the corner of the Samyang to be sharper than those of the Zeiss. I'll order the Samyang when I return home (or see if I can find one where I am now) and see how it goes. Thank you for reminding me about this lens
I've considered the Samyang, and there's an excellent comparison of this, the Zeiss and the Nikkor 14-24 online:
Ultrawide Comparison: Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 15 mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 vs. Samyang 14mm f/2.8
What bothers me after reading the review is that the Samyang seems to be pretty much useless wide open plus the Zeiss can take filters, expensive filters, but still. The build quality seems to be an unknown. However, it might work fine until I can afford the Zeiss, or ultimately find that I don't need it.
I don't need this focal length very often, but interestingly, one of my most published photos the last couple of years was taken with the Panasonic 7-14mm @ 8mm, which is 16mm eqv. The cost of taking that photo, 3 days of travelling, airline tickets and other transportation, hotels etc., far exceeded the cost of any of these lenses. Later, the photo has been printed at 3 x 2 meters for use as background wall at 7 different trade shows plus being a part of all catalogues and brochures published in 10 different languages all over Asia.
If only they had paid me what the photo is really worth
I can dream, can't I :ROTFL:
Edit: Looking at the samples of that review again, the samples taken at f/5.6 actually show the corner of the Samyang to be sharper than those of the Zeiss. I'll order the Samyang when I return home (or see if I can find one where I am now) and see how it goes. Thank you for reminding me about this lens
Well, my "testing" has been at the practical apertures of mostly f5.6 and sometimes 8 for the Samyang -- you aren't going to limit much DoF in a 14 :ROTFL: My copy at least is surprisingly excellent even in the extreme corners, which frankly surprised me. But then so were Guy's and Bob's copy's when we compared them together, so my assumption is it's a very good lens overall. Build is not horrible, especially for a sub-$400 lens, and actually focus and aperture action is pretty smooth and without slop/backlash.
One reason I carry it along most trips is because with 36MP we have some judicious crop room if we want to tighten it up to a 16 or even 18 FOV.
One reason I carry it along most trips is because with 36MP we have some judicious crop room if we want to tighten it up to a 16 or even 18 FOV.
My solution when using the S that I usually do not carry more than 2-3 lenses. This forces you to think more in advance what you plan to shoot, and sometimes you miss a lens which is at home, but overall it works for me. Even though I admit sometimes the 24mm S (21mm equivalent) stays at home when I should have brought it.
I now often carry 21 equivalent, 35 equivalent and one longer lens (either 100 or 180mm).
With the M I often carry 21,35,50 and eventually 75.
JohnBrew
Active member
The Zeiss 21 continues to astound me. I've had it for 3+ years now and wouldn't think of not taking it for landscape shooting. I do a lot of stitching with other lenses, but when the opportunity is there to capture what I want in a single shot there is no question that the Zeiss gets slapped on. And, yes, there is that odd distortion which appears when straight lines are in the image, but the lens correction in ACR is excellent.
However, I am curious to see what Zeiss does for WA in the Otus lineup.
However, I am curious to see what Zeiss does for WA in the Otus lineup.
Jorgen, I was wondering if you've considered shooting your 20mm AI-s as a 24mm equivalent in 1.2x crop mode on your D810? Something I'm thinking about at the moment is adding the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 to use primarily as a 'street' lens on my D750. Most of the issues on full frame seem to be around softness and light fall-off at wider apertures at closer distances but this could be mitigated by shooting at 1.2x crop for a 24mm equivalent focal length, producing a 16mp file. On the D810 of course the file would have even greater size and flexibility. I already have and love the 28 and 40mm Voigtlander pancakes but zone focusing with the 20mm could turn up a few more keepers. I'd be interested to know if any of your issues with the 20mm AI-s might be addressed by cropping to 1.2x in camera, or is 24mm EFL not wide enough for you?
D
Deleted member 7792
Guest
Everyone has a take on this, mine is the 14-24. I have tried many other solutions, and come back to it.
Zeiss 21mm, hyperfocal distance is terrible to me until F11, or ever F14. It also not a good lens for night work as it has coma at the edges until around F6.3 and for stacking that's not wide enough. This lens also vignettes pretty harshly until around F5.6 or so. Wide open it's vignetting was problematic for me.
Nikon 24mm 1.4, loved in daytime, hated it at night, has about the worst coma aberration I have ever seen, and stays that way until F3.5 or so.
Nikon 20mm 1.8, still have it, and will continue to use it but it still can't compare to the 14-24 at 20mm. Period. The edges are rough on mine until F8 and the bokeh is mixed up looking to my eyes. Still it's filter friendly and light weight. It's also very very hard to manually focus as the tactual feel is strange.
Rokinon 14mm, Don't count this out. It's a great lens for 300.00. Amazing that they can make such a lens at this price and have virtually no coma at F2.8. It's not of course filter friendly and so it's mainly a night lens for me.
But it's also lightweight, a great carry lens, and a bitch to manually focus IMO. But it can be done. Way too much turning needed to get where you need to be.
Zeiss 18mm, not as heavy as the 21mm, and very sharp. I carry it with all my night trips and most creek work since it's filter friendly. Vignettes very bad wide open, but will correct almost 100% in post. Manual focus is a dream, however it's hyperfocal distance at F8 is about 2x or 2.5x further than the 14-24.
Nikon 14-24. Love it, amazing wide open to F11/F14 on the D800 family. Well past that on a 24MP sensor. Mine has an excellent hyper-focal distance at F3.5 of around 10 feet to infinity, which is much better than the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 Slight vignetting at F2.8 but nothing like other lenses.
It's not filter friendly but the Lee 250 system work fine, but add a lot of cost. But I need filters in my work. I have a modified Lee 250 so I can use a CA Vision CL-PL glass filter in the front slot. If you use the Lee 250 system you really have to remember to use the black out plastic they give you as it's very easy to pick up backwards reflections which will ruin your corners.
Flare is a killer on this lens and you really have to watch for it at all times. The flare from the lens is harsh, and next to impossible to correct. It will be a hard magenta curve opposite from the light source And the lens seems to reach behind at least at 14mm and grab the sun. At night the moon does the same thing, but creates a different but just as hard to clear up flare. It's well worth the cost of a flare buster if you use this lens.
It's heavy, yes, but wonderful across the entire zoom range. I often stitch with this lens, but at 24mm mainly in the vertical. 14mm is going to create way too much distortion in a stitch even nodal and with the camera level.
It's a dream to manually focus, I guess in part due to the huge focus ring.
I will say it took 3 of them to find one that was this good. But I have owned this one since late 2011, and it's been a great lens. Not a lens I would want to travel with on a long trip however just due to the weight, unless I knew I was going to be shooting at night. This lens is a night photographer's dream, if you remember to watch for flare.
Paul
Zeiss 21mm, hyperfocal distance is terrible to me until F11, or ever F14. It also not a good lens for night work as it has coma at the edges until around F6.3 and for stacking that's not wide enough. This lens also vignettes pretty harshly until around F5.6 or so. Wide open it's vignetting was problematic for me.
Nikon 24mm 1.4, loved in daytime, hated it at night, has about the worst coma aberration I have ever seen, and stays that way until F3.5 or so.
Nikon 20mm 1.8, still have it, and will continue to use it but it still can't compare to the 14-24 at 20mm. Period. The edges are rough on mine until F8 and the bokeh is mixed up looking to my eyes. Still it's filter friendly and light weight. It's also very very hard to manually focus as the tactual feel is strange.
Rokinon 14mm, Don't count this out. It's a great lens for 300.00. Amazing that they can make such a lens at this price and have virtually no coma at F2.8. It's not of course filter friendly and so it's mainly a night lens for me.
But it's also lightweight, a great carry lens, and a bitch to manually focus IMO. But it can be done. Way too much turning needed to get where you need to be.
Zeiss 18mm, not as heavy as the 21mm, and very sharp. I carry it with all my night trips and most creek work since it's filter friendly. Vignettes very bad wide open, but will correct almost 100% in post. Manual focus is a dream, however it's hyperfocal distance at F8 is about 2x or 2.5x further than the 14-24.
Nikon 14-24. Love it, amazing wide open to F11/F14 on the D800 family. Well past that on a 24MP sensor. Mine has an excellent hyper-focal distance at F3.5 of around 10 feet to infinity, which is much better than the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 Slight vignetting at F2.8 but nothing like other lenses.
It's not filter friendly but the Lee 250 system work fine, but add a lot of cost. But I need filters in my work. I have a modified Lee 250 so I can use a CA Vision CL-PL glass filter in the front slot. If you use the Lee 250 system you really have to remember to use the black out plastic they give you as it's very easy to pick up backwards reflections which will ruin your corners.
Flare is a killer on this lens and you really have to watch for it at all times. The flare from the lens is harsh, and next to impossible to correct. It will be a hard magenta curve opposite from the light source And the lens seems to reach behind at least at 14mm and grab the sun. At night the moon does the same thing, but creates a different but just as hard to clear up flare. It's well worth the cost of a flare buster if you use this lens.
It's heavy, yes, but wonderful across the entire zoom range. I often stitch with this lens, but at 24mm mainly in the vertical. 14mm is going to create way too much distortion in a stitch even nodal and with the camera level.
It's a dream to manually focus, I guess in part due to the huge focus ring.
I will say it took 3 of them to find one that was this good. But I have owned this one since late 2011, and it's been a great lens. Not a lens I would want to travel with on a long trip however just due to the weight, unless I knew I was going to be shooting at night. This lens is a night photographer's dream, if you remember to watch for flare.
Paul
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Great post, Paul. Thank you. You haven't tried the new Tamron yet, I gather.
I'm currently on an assignment where I see the need for a WA zoom, so I'll probably end up with two WA lenses; a zoom for work and a prime for travel. The obvious zoom candidates are the Nikkors (14-24 and 17-35). Prime is more difficult. I'll wait for the Sigma 24 to arrive first.
I'm currently on an assignment where I see the need for a WA zoom, so I'll probably end up with two WA lenses; a zoom for work and a prime for travel. The obvious zoom candidates are the Nikkors (14-24 and 17-35). Prime is more difficult. I'll wait for the Sigma 24 to arrive first.
the Tamron has nice colors and contrast.
its better than the nikon 20mm f1.8
here is the big thing with the lens
its heavy !
I am 160 lb - but strong as hell for my size - and it was a rock.
I think its 2.7 lb
its a lens for a big or young guy for sure
its plastic but feels very solid and the focusing was quick.
it exudes quality
its better than the nikon 20mm f1.8
here is the big thing with the lens
its heavy !
I am 160 lb - but strong as hell for my size - and it was a rock.
I think its 2.7 lb
its a lens for a big or young guy for sure
its plastic but feels very solid and the focusing was quick.
it exudes quality
robmac
Well-known member
Somewhat like the OP I'm starting to be asked to plan more interior work in tight quarters after doing some a couple of years ago and need to acquire some suitable glass. My personal relevant lens buy/sell/hold experience so far:
14-24.
Like a minority, I just didn't the quality/hype. Used for some interior work. Focus shift was a bitch, corners smeary and it picked up veiling flare from strobes like no tomorrow. The latter wasn't a total shock given the front element. While I may have had a bad copy re: corners, the focus shift and poor corner performance had me sell it.
Samy 14
Big bang for buck. Build quality is what you'd expect. Manual focus is a nasty PITA. Focus ring almost seems to have mind of it's own sometimes. Nasty distortion that while correctable will do some damage to corners of course. Kept it for giggles and as backup as I adjusted infinity (something you'd need to do) for it and selling it with that disclosure would likely make most buyers nervous. Once have, almost not worth shipping to sell it.
Zeiss 21.
Had it loved it, sold it as not quite wide enough for tight inside work I was doing, but would buy again in a heartbeat. Would try the Nikon 20/1.8, as same or 9.5/10ths the Zeiss's performance with AF would be great, but the Z21 deserves it's rep.
Zeiss 15 - $%^& costly and specialized, but I keep coming back to it as a lens I may have to acquire. Has no apparent faults other than $$$ (and inability to zoom to 21mm ;> )
Will keep an eye on this thread to see where OP ends up.
14-24.
Like a minority, I just didn't the quality/hype. Used for some interior work. Focus shift was a bitch, corners smeary and it picked up veiling flare from strobes like no tomorrow. The latter wasn't a total shock given the front element. While I may have had a bad copy re: corners, the focus shift and poor corner performance had me sell it.
Samy 14
Big bang for buck. Build quality is what you'd expect. Manual focus is a nasty PITA. Focus ring almost seems to have mind of it's own sometimes. Nasty distortion that while correctable will do some damage to corners of course. Kept it for giggles and as backup as I adjusted infinity (something you'd need to do) for it and selling it with that disclosure would likely make most buyers nervous. Once have, almost not worth shipping to sell it.
Zeiss 21.
Had it loved it, sold it as not quite wide enough for tight inside work I was doing, but would buy again in a heartbeat. Would try the Nikon 20/1.8, as same or 9.5/10ths the Zeiss's performance with AF would be great, but the Z21 deserves it's rep.
Zeiss 15 - $%^& costly and specialized, but I keep coming back to it as a lens I may have to acquire. Has no apparent faults other than $$$ (and inability to zoom to 21mm ;> )
Will keep an eye on this thread to see where OP ends up.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Here's a good comparison between the Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 and the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8:
Nikon 20 f/1.8 and Zeiss 21 f/2.8 at infinity: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
While all reviews that I've seen on the Nikkor have been very positive and point out that it's great value for money, this user shows that the edges are much sharper with the Zeiss at f/2.8 and 4. For my use, which will mainly be industrial photography, sometimes in dim lighting, often hand held, this is a major point. Add to that the superior build quality and manual focusing of the 21mm, and I see that as the winner among those two lenses.
For my use that is. If the main purpose were street photography at night, that would probably have looked different.
Now... how about that Tamron??
Nikon 20 f/1.8 and Zeiss 21 f/2.8 at infinity: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
While all reviews that I've seen on the Nikkor have been very positive and point out that it's great value for money, this user shows that the edges are much sharper with the Zeiss at f/2.8 and 4. For my use, which will mainly be industrial photography, sometimes in dim lighting, often hand held, this is a major point. Add to that the superior build quality and manual focusing of the 21mm, and I see that as the winner among those two lenses.
For my use that is. If the main purpose were street photography at night, that would probably have looked different.
Now... how about that Tamron??
That's a good comparison and pretty much what I have seen with my 20 1.8. And the manual focus is a bit tricky, even with Live View as your tactical feel of the focus ring is not that great. But this seems to be true with many lenses, designed for AF first.
The Zeiss 21mm is still on my short list, but off the radar for now.
I agree with robmac, on the 14-24, as it took 3 for me to find a good one, and if there is a flare possibility, it will find it.
What surprised me with the 21mm Zeiss, (and this may have been my lens sample but my 18mm also has this issue), is the much shallower hyper focal range from F2.8 to F 5.6. Here I found the 14-24 to perform much better, and that worked better for my shooting style.
My main issue is the FOV of 14mm, I love it on 35mm and the 14-24 really does this well, where as the Rokinon gets there, but it's harder to work with (at least for me) and has the same issue with filters as the 14-24.
Where I had hoped the 20 1.8 would excel was in night work, wide open or close with no coma and that's just not the case, as it appears Nikon can't make a fast wide non zoom without severe coma, at least a modern one.
Still hoping that Sigma has this figured out, and the Sigma 24mm 1.4 is the other reason I am holding off of the Zeiss, 21mm, as they are so close in focal range, and size and weight. Already have the 18mm Zeiss, and I like it's smaller size and weight for field work.
Paul
The Zeiss 21mm is still on my short list, but off the radar for now.
I agree with robmac, on the 14-24, as it took 3 for me to find a good one, and if there is a flare possibility, it will find it.
What surprised me with the 21mm Zeiss, (and this may have been my lens sample but my 18mm also has this issue), is the much shallower hyper focal range from F2.8 to F 5.6. Here I found the 14-24 to perform much better, and that worked better for my shooting style.
My main issue is the FOV of 14mm, I love it on 35mm and the 14-24 really does this well, where as the Rokinon gets there, but it's harder to work with (at least for me) and has the same issue with filters as the 14-24.
Where I had hoped the 20 1.8 would excel was in night work, wide open or close with no coma and that's just not the case, as it appears Nikon can't make a fast wide non zoom without severe coma, at least a modern one.
Still hoping that Sigma has this figured out, and the Sigma 24mm 1.4 is the other reason I am holding off of the Zeiss, 21mm, as they are so close in focal range, and size and weight. Already have the 18mm Zeiss, and I like it's smaller size and weight for field work.
Paul
D
Deleted member 7792
Guest
Alert: :OT:
Paul, I've seen you mention several times that "it took 3" to find one that you judged to be good. It's a bit off topic, but how does one go about testing several lenses to choose one that meets your criteria? Local cooperative camera store? Liberal return policy from B&H? Manufacturer's rep? What happens to the ones that you reject? I'm not being judgmental, just curious.
Joe
I've recently switched over to the D810 system, having been a Sony shooter for a number of years. I have the 14-28/2.8 and while I haven't spent a ton of time with it yet, it's pretty impressive. Maybe I just got a good one. That said, I'm on the lookout for a Zeiss 21/2.8, and it has nothing do do with technical performance: good, bad or otherwise. There's just something about the look of the pictures made with the Zeiss that's so appealing to me: a certain depth, richness, and 3D quality that's hard to put into words.
Joe;
Local store; one of the reasons I use them. They had 2 in stock. Both were a bit off on one side of the frame R or Left. They had one of them in another location and shipped it in. Great lens, still have it. 3rd example.
Bedford Camera/Video in Little Rock. Great group.
Each person has their own criteria, I guess. I had read a lot about the 14-24 for year, but never was able to use it being a Canon shooter. Once I moved over to Nikon the 14-24 was the first lens I purchased.
What I was looking for was an even focused frame, corner to corner at 14mm. Then I wanted to see how wide I could open the lens and how it effected the corners. Then I was interested in the hyper focal distance at a particular F stop.
The 14-24 still impresses me each time I shoot it. For the weight/flare issues, I still prefer it.
I have also used B&H on a few Mamiya lenses, for MF where I had to send it back. But the nice thing about a local store is being able to walk in, with my camera and see how a particular lens will work. I have never had B&H have any issues either, and they also have a very liberal return policy, just have to worry about shipping/insurance.
Bedford was also helpful on the 20mm 1.8.
It might me, but I have always found variances, in all glass I have purchased, Canon, Nikon, Mamiya, which always surprises me since it's all Computer assisted manufactured so no1 should be the same as no 1000 as I see it. The Schneider/Rodenstock glass so far has been the exception.
Paul