jonoslack
Active member
HI There
I've just taken command of a Zeiss 25 f2.8, and what a nice lens it is. It's a favorite focal length of mine, and I seem to have rather a lot of contenders:
Nikon:
24-120 AFS VR
14-24 AFS
24-70 AFS
Zeiss:
25 Distagon (F mount)
25 Biogon (M mount)
Leica:
Wide Angle Tri-Elmar
16-18-21: 18mm equivalent to 24 on 35mm
I thought that I'd pit them against each other in a super 24/25 shoot out, so I got out the tripod and shot the barn door. I'm not sure what I was expecting, I guess probably I would have expected quite similar results, maybe with the zeiss lenses taking the prize followed by the leica and then the nikon zooms, so, maybe:
25 Biogon (leica)
25 Distagon (nikon)
WATE
24-70
14-24
24-120 (a long way behind)
Well, the 24-120 WAS a long way behind - forget it. (I keep trying, and I've left it out of the following, as it would make the post about 30 metres long!). Actually, the results were really rather astonishingly different:
centre sharpness and definition:
25 Biogon (on M8)
WATe (on M8)
14-24 Nikon
24-70 Nikon
25 distagon
I've left a gap,because there was one!
Corner sharpness (and here the gaps are supposed to speak!)
25 biogon (on M8)
WATE (on M8)
14-24 Nikon
24-70 Nikon
25 zeiss distagon (with vignetting wide open as well)
As far as distortion was concerned, the Zeiss lenses showed very little (as you'd expect). So (again, in decreasing order with gaps):
25 biogon (on M8)
25 distagon
14-24 Nikon
Wate (on M8)
24-70 Nikon
Interesting that the Nikon 14-24 has acquitted itself so well, of course, it is the 'good' end of it's zoom range, whereas it is probably the 'bad' end for the 24-70.
The Zeiss 25 distagon ZF is a lovely lens, and it's incredible close focusing together with its small size is a real asset - poor corner sharpness and vignetting does tend to decrease, and by f8 it's pretty good from corner to corner.
I suppose that what I've learned here is that M lenses are just very good, I've also realised that for landscape work, the M8 is still the chosen tool for me (and before anyone suggests it I have no intention of abandoning hope and going MF )
I've also learned that the new 'state of the art' Nikon zoom lenses are pretty much the match for anything, and that to use primes as a substitute may make sense from the point of view of weight and convenience, but until Nikon see fit to produce a new range of modern prime lenses it would seem that their modern zooms will give the existing primes a bit of a hiding.
I've just taken command of a Zeiss 25 f2.8, and what a nice lens it is. It's a favorite focal length of mine, and I seem to have rather a lot of contenders:
Nikon:
24-120 AFS VR
14-24 AFS
24-70 AFS
Zeiss:
25 Distagon (F mount)
25 Biogon (M mount)
Leica:
Wide Angle Tri-Elmar
16-18-21: 18mm equivalent to 24 on 35mm
I thought that I'd pit them against each other in a super 24/25 shoot out, so I got out the tripod and shot the barn door. I'm not sure what I was expecting, I guess probably I would have expected quite similar results, maybe with the zeiss lenses taking the prize followed by the leica and then the nikon zooms, so, maybe:
25 Biogon (leica)
25 Distagon (nikon)
WATE
24-70
14-24
24-120 (a long way behind)
Well, the 24-120 WAS a long way behind - forget it. (I keep trying, and I've left it out of the following, as it would make the post about 30 metres long!). Actually, the results were really rather astonishingly different:
centre sharpness and definition:
25 Biogon (on M8)
WATe (on M8)
14-24 Nikon
24-70 Nikon
25 distagon
I've left a gap,because there was one!
Corner sharpness (and here the gaps are supposed to speak!)
25 biogon (on M8)
WATE (on M8)
14-24 Nikon
24-70 Nikon
25 zeiss distagon (with vignetting wide open as well)
As far as distortion was concerned, the Zeiss lenses showed very little (as you'd expect). So (again, in decreasing order with gaps):
25 biogon (on M8)
25 distagon
14-24 Nikon
Wate (on M8)
24-70 Nikon
Interesting that the Nikon 14-24 has acquitted itself so well, of course, it is the 'good' end of it's zoom range, whereas it is probably the 'bad' end for the 24-70.
The Zeiss 25 distagon ZF is a lovely lens, and it's incredible close focusing together with its small size is a real asset - poor corner sharpness and vignetting does tend to decrease, and by f8 it's pretty good from corner to corner.
I suppose that what I've learned here is that M lenses are just very good, I've also realised that for landscape work, the M8 is still the chosen tool for me (and before anyone suggests it I have no intention of abandoning hope and going MF )
I've also learned that the new 'state of the art' Nikon zoom lenses are pretty much the match for anything, and that to use primes as a substitute may make sense from the point of view of weight and convenience, but until Nikon see fit to produce a new range of modern prime lenses it would seem that their modern zooms will give the existing primes a bit of a hiding.