The more I use the ZF18, the happier I am with it. I just bought an 82mm 9-stop IRND filter for it, and can't wait to get down on moving water with it on our Zion workshop in a few weeks.
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!
Zeiss 21mm or Nikon 14-24mm
- Thread starter Fredrick
- Start date
E
espressogeek
Guest
Jack, which IRND did you buy? I reckon if you are happy with it I can be happy with it.:thumbup:
KeithL
Well-known member
Apologies for resurrecting this thread but I've been reading it with interest as I'm considering buying a D800E in the near future. I'm having difficulty choosing between the Zeiss 18mm and 21mm.
I have a few questions concerning these lenses and would be grateful for any feedback. I'd be shooting mainly architecture, but characterful old subjects rather than modernist subjects demanding critical distortion correction.
Most here indicate that the 18 is easier to correct for distortion than the 21. Are there lens profiles in ACR that do a good job on the wave distortion for both?
I've heard that the 18 can suffer from colour casts particularly in the corners, is this really a problem for most uses?
Is the difference in sharpness between the two lenses enough to cause concern?
Many thanks in advance.
Keith
I have a few questions concerning these lenses and would be grateful for any feedback. I'd be shooting mainly architecture, but characterful old subjects rather than modernist subjects demanding critical distortion correction.
Most here indicate that the 18 is easier to correct for distortion than the 21. Are there lens profiles in ACR that do a good job on the wave distortion for both?
I've heard that the 18 can suffer from colour casts particularly in the corners, is this really a problem for most uses?
Is the difference in sharpness between the two lenses enough to cause concern?
Many thanks in advance.
Keith
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
This is a very interesting subject as I have had all three lenses and honestly don t have a well supported POV . A friend that does commercial real estate work helped me shoot the interior of our home in Florida and we found the 18 to be very effective . He did do a pano with the 50/2 zf which provided an exception file .
A few questions ..generally for architecture don t you use f8-f16 to insure a as much DOF as possible ...an at this aperture the ability to resolve fine details (using a D800) is affected more by diffraction than differences in the lenses?
Generally every test I have seen has shown that the Zeiss lenses have issues with wave distortion . For my use (think travel shots ) I have found this insignificant even with the ocean as a horizon . Enough can be corrected in post processing . The Zeiss 18 has less than the 21 ..however the 21 is a very special lens producing exceptional IQ on a D800. The Nikon is better here .
The big disadvantage of the Nikon has always been its size and the huge exposed front element (filters require an add on making it much worse ) . But if I assume you are shooting on a tripod(and doing interiors) ...its not much of an issue .
It would seem that the 14-24 would be a better pick because of the ability to more precisely frame with a variable focal length and ability to achieve a wider perspective if required .
A few questions ..generally for architecture don t you use f8-f16 to insure a as much DOF as possible ...an at this aperture the ability to resolve fine details (using a D800) is affected more by diffraction than differences in the lenses?
Generally every test I have seen has shown that the Zeiss lenses have issues with wave distortion . For my use (think travel shots ) I have found this insignificant even with the ocean as a horizon . Enough can be corrected in post processing . The Zeiss 18 has less than the 21 ..however the 21 is a very special lens producing exceptional IQ on a D800. The Nikon is better here .
The big disadvantage of the Nikon has always been its size and the huge exposed front element (filters require an add on making it much worse ) . But if I assume you are shooting on a tripod(and doing interiors) ...its not much of an issue .
It would seem that the 14-24 would be a better pick because of the ability to more precisely frame with a variable focal length and ability to achieve a wider perspective if required .
KeithL
Well-known member
Hi, many thanks for your reply. What you say is true, but the sharper the lens the more there is to play with. Much of the exterior work I do is essentially flat-plane shot at f8-f11 on MFD, although the interiors are generally f16, again on MFD.
I would certainly need to correct much of the wave distortion. My gut instinct was to go with the 21mm for that exceptional IQ in the hope that the distortion correction would be relatively straight forward - is this merely a matter of applying a profile as I do with my Hasselblad files in Phocus? - but having read this thread I now have doubts.
Size matters here, the Nikon would be a lighter and more compact alternative system to my Hasselblad.
Agreed, and if weight wasn't an issue it would be an option. Having said that I have always had a preference for primes. The 18 to 21 focal length is ideal for my applications. Much wider and the rendition of perspective becomes too extreme, at least for my taste and applications.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I have had all three at one time or another, the zoom obviously is very convenient to shoot but a pain to transport as well. It's a tough call the 18 distorts less than the 21 and I have the Samyang 14mm which I love the perspective so I sold the 18 and have the Zeiss 25 which I really like. I thought about the 21 now but not willing to give up my 25 for it and the 21mm in critical situations maybe tough on interiors to work with given the distortion. I'm really hoping for a Nikon 17mm T//S to hit the streets but right now its a tough call. The zoom does suffer some focus shift issues and can be a issue but doing arch. Work one mostly would work with live view at working aperture and firmly planted on a tripod which eliminates any of that issue anyway. BTW you really want to use PT lens align plug in with the Zeiss glass. Not sure of LR since I don't use that software ever but PT lens align works really nice on the 18mm. The 21 I owned years ago on my Canons
johnnygoesdigital
New member
The 14-24mm is front filter challenged, and for me, that has to be a consideration. The Zeiss 21mm and 18mm are both exceptional lenses, both in build quality and performance. Profiles are good to a point, but i think it blends and thus, softens and crops slightly. Less vignetting with the 21mm, but both have outstanding micro contrast. IQ for both, IMO, was about the same. My choice was based on preferred focal length.
Last edited:
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
Keith, did you also see this thread about wide angle lenses for landscapes ?
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/41453-decent-wide-landscapes.html
Just in case it might contain information of some interest for you.