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 Tale of 6 24's (well, 4x24 and 2x25)

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.
 

robmac

Well-known member
Excellent work. Thanks. Who ever thought there would be a day when an AF DSLR zoom would even be spoken of in the same breath as an M prime? Time for Canon to get some oars in the water.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Excellent work. Thanks. Who ever thought there would be a day when an AF DSLR zoom would even be spoken of in the same breath as an M prime? Time for Canon to get some oars in the water.
Thank you Rob, and thank you even more for not asking for the pictures . . . I do have them of course, but they're very boring!
 

Terry

New member
So Jono,
While the 24-70 may be a boring range on the D300 when you are used to shooting M glass would you take boring range over so so glass.

That was the essentially the decision I had to make in my Nikon lens selections.
 

jonoslack

Active member
With all this kit, Jono, you should really consider enlarging your horizons...MF beckons :ROTFL::ROTFL:
Hi Bertie
I was having a little snooze this evening, and realised that in fact I HAVE TWO MORE 24mm lenses:

Zuiko 12-60 f2.8 f4
Zuiko 7-14 f4 (double the focal length for each).

I can't wait to see how they slot in to the general scheme of things.

MF? Nah (see abandon hope thread); really, I had a moment back in April when the disease began, but since then I'm relieved that I didn't jump.

How about you . . . maybe the car is a dream, but that Mamiya with the ZD back is eminently affordable (just to get you going )
 

jonoslack

Active member
So Jono,
While the 24-70 may be a boring range on the D300 when you are used to shooting M glass would you take boring range over so so glass.

That was the essentially the decision I had to make in my Nikon lens selections.
Hi Terry
So So glass?
I think you need to explain yourself more carefully to an old duffer like me:)

As to the question - I wouldn't take either knowingly.
 

Terry

New member
Well,
I was trying to figure out what to be my main lens on the D300.
So,
16-85 seemed reasonable but it really slow for anything indoors f5.6 at 50mm. Bought it. Enjoyed it outdoors and wanted to pull my hair out inside.

The 18-200 is fine but again not exactly fast but nothing to say hey this is an awesome lens.

so what are my faster choices?
17-55
or
24-70
Which would you have gotten? If the answer is 17-55 what would your next longer lens be?
 

Ocean

Senior Subscriber Member
Jono,

Thank you for posting the comparison. Very informative and helpful. Do images from the Zeiss Biogon and Distagon have very similar looks? Given the fact that M8 has a cropping factor of 1.3, would you still say that Biogon is better than Distagon due to its optical design?

I am getting Woody's 24-70 AFS and I would like to compare it to my 24 Elmarit ASPH.

Kind regards,

PS: Look forward to seeing your comparisons with the Olympus zooms.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Good to see that my wides (WATE and 14-24) are doing so well :)

Also the 24-70 seems to be pretty good :clap:
 
V

Vivek

Guest
so what are my faster choices?
Try a Sigma 30/1.4. Nothing short of "awesome" in my experience. Simply a superlative lens.

Jono, I was a bit puzzled with your post with no pics.:)

I have to wait until Woody's 14-24 comes to me. :)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well,
I was trying to figure out what to be my main lens on the D300.
So,
16-85 seemed reasonable but it really slow for anything indoors f5.6 at 50mm. Bought it. Enjoyed it outdoors and wanted to pull my hair out inside.

The 18-200 is fine but again not exactly fast but nothing to say hey this is an awesome lens.

so what are my faster choices?
17-55
or
24-70
Which would you have gotten? If the answer is 17-55 what would your next longer lens be?
HI Terry
I think you made the right decision - I'm certain that the 24-70 is a much better lens than the 17-55, and will hold it's value better as well. I also think that the dodgy corners I saw wide open will be 'cropped' on the D200, so I'd expect a stellar performance all the way.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Try a Sigma 30/1.4. Nothing short of "awesome" in my experience. Simply a superlative lens.

Jono, I was a bit puzzled with your post with no pics.:)

I have to wait until Woody's 14-24 comes to me. :)
HI Vivek
I'm sure about the Sigma . . . . but it ain't 24mm :)

So - you've bought Woody's 14-24, I'm sure you'll be pleased with it. As for no pictures . . . too lazy - I will do though, but I'd like to do it again with some writing on the barn door, and today it's tonking it down with rain.

OLYMPUS LENSES
I tested the 12-60 and 7-14 at 12mm (24mm equivalent). They were both better than anything except the M mount lenses . . . in fact, they were rather close to the WATE - stomped all over the nikkors for corner detail, not very surprising though.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono,

Thank you for posting the comparison. Very informative and helpful. Do images from the Zeiss Biogon and Distagon have very similar looks? Given the fact that M8 has a cropping factor of 1.3, would you still say that Biogon is better than Distagon due to its optical design?

I am getting Woody's 24-70 AFS and I would like to compare it to my 24 Elmarit ASPH.

Kind regards,

PS: Look forward to seeing your comparisons with the Olympus zooms.
HI Ocean
See remarks above with respect to the Olympus zooms - they're fab!
I don't really feel that the biogon and distagon are similar - Certainly the Biogon is a great deal more precise (but of course, it doesn't focus down to an inch!).

I'm sure you'll like the 24-70 . . . . but I wouldn't look too hard at the corners wide open when comparing it with your 24mm elmarit!;)
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
This meshes well with my general experience. I have yet to see a better 25mm lens than the biogon for the M camera. Admittedly, I have not used the 24mm elmarit, which is supposed to be very similar. I do have the 24-70 for the Nikon, but where the Zeiss shows practically no distortion at all and extreme sharpness across the frame, the Nikon has a good bit of distortion and only decent sharpness in the extreme edges. Don't get me wrong, it is still very very good, but still far from the 25mm Biogon. The only wide angle lenses that I have used that come close are other other Leica, Mamiya and Zeiss primes -- the Mamiya 43mm being the best wide angle of any maker that I have used, followed by the 25mm biogon, 50mm FE distagon, then in the almost as good category, the 19mm Leica R, 18mm ZM, 21mm biogon, 40mm Schneider, trailed by a number of others.
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
MF? Nah (see abandon hope thread); really, I had a moment back in April when the disease began, but since then I'm relieved that I didn't jump.

How about you . . . maybe the car is a dream, but that Mamiya with the ZD back is eminently affordable (just to get you going )
I did try to respond last night...but I couldn't find the smiley for winding you up...and the whole post disappeared...:mad:
 

charlesphoto

New member
The M 24 Elmarit blows away all the other 24's though it's not really fair to compare an slr zoom (no matter how good) with a Leica rangefinder prime.

The Zeiss ZF 25 I agree is so-so though the build quality is superb and close focusing unlike any other wide. Better overall than the Nikon 24 prime. The 35 Zeiss ZF is in a whole 'nother league though and I bet will blow away any of the Nikon zooms.

I actually prefer less distortion over more sharpness and usually find a bit of vignetting adds some drama. All depends on the type of shooting one is doing.

I think Nikon would do well with a reformulated AFS 24mm f/2 or 1.4. We'll see.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I agree...I would love to see a low-distortion, high speed, moderately compact 24mm from them. The Canon FD system used to have a 24/2 that was very compact and quite a decent performer. I would love it if Nikon released something similar, only with less distortion and AFS focusing.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I did try to respond last night...but I couldn't find the smiley for winding you up...and the whole post disappeared...:mad:
As they do, it's like thinking of the perfect rejoinder after the bastard has just walked out of the room!

As for the perfect car . . . . we just collected Emma's car from Bob's Bodywork today. It's one of the last two Saab 900 turbo S convertibles delivered here in 1994, midnight blue metallic with a navy hood: It's been completely disassembled, rebuilt, resprayed and reassembled - looks like new and still sounds delightful.

The whole thing cost a little less than a Mamiya AF645II with a ZD back . . . . . . . . . .
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Charles and Stuart
I reckon there will be some new Nikon primes announced with the D3x - everyone else is doing it, surely they will too? The 24mm elmarit is my most 'almost bought' lens, but, truth to tell, I like the WATE, and the image quality is really good.

What has REALLY impressed me with these tests is how well the Olympus Zuiko zooms did, for corner sharpness wide open the humble 12-60 f2.8/f4 completely stomped on the Nikons (and the zeiss distagon come to that). For a landscape shooter that really is something to think about.
 
Top