Guy, just did a controlled Interior shoot test of my entertainment center using the Nikon 17-35/2,8, 14-24/2.8, and Zeiss 18/3.5. After all this work, I didn't want to have this get lost in the other thread
Method: HD tripod with D700 mounted. Mounted 17-35/2.8 @18mm and squared up as best I could ... locked down the tripod ... manual focused using LV @ 10X ... manual metered @ f/6.3 ... then without moving anything ... swapped out for the 14-24 set at 18mm at same f stop ... focused at 10X ... then swapped out for the Zeiss 18mm at f/6.3 ... focused @ 10X ... opened all 3 in ACR and adjusted nothing ... toggled between each to see the differences.
(Any slightly off kilter squaring up is irrevelant as all 3 lenses were then shot without changing anything.)
Conclusion: generally, for this type application, the Nikon 14-24 is the superior optic of the 3. Slightly less distortion over the Zeiss, and much better than the 17-35 ... less vignetting than either lens.
Zeiss is slightly cooler (as we all already know) ... however, the Zeiss was more "color accurate" to the real thing. The white brick walls were dead on the money where both Nikon lenses had a very slight reddish cast when closely inspected.
Note 18mm setting on 14-24 is not exactly accurate compared to the 17-35 and Zeiss 18mm ... it reads 19mm when set dead center on the 18mm marking ... but from looking at the images I think that is even ambitious and the field of view is even narrower than 19mm.
Out toward the edges sharpness/resolution of detail is very close between the Zeiss and 14-24 ... but here is an observation that everyone will love to hate ... the 17-35 beat both the Zeiss and 14-24
So, were I doing interior architecture work my weapon of choice would be the my Rollei view camera and Schneider Digitar 28/2.8 with the H3D/39 back ... BUT if I had to use a DSLR it would be the 14-24/2.8.
For travel and street photography it'd be the Zeiss 18, and for landscapes where verticals and distortion were less of an issue I'd use the 17-35 ...at least my copy of that lens since it seems to be excellent.
Solution: buy them all :ROTFL:
Method: HD tripod with D700 mounted. Mounted 17-35/2.8 @18mm and squared up as best I could ... locked down the tripod ... manual focused using LV @ 10X ... manual metered @ f/6.3 ... then without moving anything ... swapped out for the 14-24 set at 18mm at same f stop ... focused at 10X ... then swapped out for the Zeiss 18mm at f/6.3 ... focused @ 10X ... opened all 3 in ACR and adjusted nothing ... toggled between each to see the differences.
(Any slightly off kilter squaring up is irrevelant as all 3 lenses were then shot without changing anything.)
Conclusion: generally, for this type application, the Nikon 14-24 is the superior optic of the 3. Slightly less distortion over the Zeiss, and much better than the 17-35 ... less vignetting than either lens.
Zeiss is slightly cooler (as we all already know) ... however, the Zeiss was more "color accurate" to the real thing. The white brick walls were dead on the money where both Nikon lenses had a very slight reddish cast when closely inspected.
Note 18mm setting on 14-24 is not exactly accurate compared to the 17-35 and Zeiss 18mm ... it reads 19mm when set dead center on the 18mm marking ... but from looking at the images I think that is even ambitious and the field of view is even narrower than 19mm.
Out toward the edges sharpness/resolution of detail is very close between the Zeiss and 14-24 ... but here is an observation that everyone will love to hate ... the 17-35 beat both the Zeiss and 14-24
So, were I doing interior architecture work my weapon of choice would be the my Rollei view camera and Schneider Digitar 28/2.8 with the H3D/39 back ... BUT if I had to use a DSLR it would be the 14-24/2.8.
For travel and street photography it'd be the Zeiss 18, and for landscapes where verticals and distortion were less of an issue I'd use the 17-35 ...at least my copy of that lens since it seems to be excellent.
Solution: buy them all :ROTFL:
Last edited: