Hi guys. I have recently bought the D800E. I am now wondering which lens to put on it. I only do landscape and I want a sharp as can be wideangle. I have to choose between the Zeiss 21mm and a new tripod or the 14-24mm and a new filter holder. If anyone has any high-res samples from both I would be very grateful. Any advice would also be appreciated. Thanks.
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
HI Fredrick. I bought the 14-24 and then I purchased the Zeiss 18mm instead of the 21mm.i have used the 21mm and 18mm previously on my canon gear. Hence i was familiar with these two lenses when i switched to the Nikon D800. Here are my comments. The 14-24 is very sharp corner to corner. Probably the best wide angle zoom I have ever used. The real issue is that it is subject to flare-- more than I would like. Really has messed up some otherwise great shots. In addition it is kind of big and bulky and the the filter options are expensive and not optimal. The Lee system is expensive and good for ND and graduated ND filters but there are no polarizer options. Fotodiox has a polarizer option but also expensive and the two are not compatible. The 14-24 distortion is nicely fixed in PS or LR. The zeiss 18mm is smaller and less glare. Also sharp corner to corner. Some pincushion distortion harder to fix than the 14-24. THe 21mm is a great lens but suffers from more distortion than the 18mm. I think the 18mm is underrated because the 21mm is so highly rated but in my opinion it is outstanding for a super wide. My 2c
Last edited:
Hi Fredrick, I too like the 21mm angle of view. I suggest renting the much maligned 17-35mm lens and see for your self. It is very much a flare resistant lens, it takes a standard 77mm filter. It focuses within 4" of the nodal point of the lens. It has very low distortion that is easily corrected in PP. It is a little lower in contrast than the Zeiss but that is easily adjusted for in PP. (people make a big deal about it because very little is wrong with this lens but it is an older design so something must be wrong with it.) At the optimal f/stops for resolution it is as sharp as any other lens at that focal length or f/stop. See Photozone for the MTF and compare with the 14-24 and the Zeiss 21mm at 21mm and f/5.6-f/8. In the extreme, extreme corners it is not as sharp as the other two lenses. But the two questions are, what do you do with the extreme, extreme corners, and if that matters will it matter if you then crop a bit? You have 36Mp that is a lot of Mp. As Mark mentions the Zeiss has an unusual distortion that for staight horizon lines is disconcerting, and difficult to fix. My 2c, for what it is worth, I went through the same process as you as I await my d800e, I have the d700 and bought the 17-35mm and I have been using the 17-35mm for landscape and urban shooting and for just an every day lens to get used to it. As I process the images I see why people who like this lens are mystified by the negative comments on it. It is a remarkably sharp lens, and its flare resistance is amazing. I have to go to 100% and pixel peep in the corners to find any softness, since I darken the edges a bit anyway it is irrelevant. Rent these lenses and see what you like, cheaper in the long run then buying a lens you might not like. Joe
ptomsu
Workshop Member
While I agree with most of the posts here in this thread, I do completely disagree with what is said about the 17-35. I owned this lens for years and while some 10 years ago it really was stunning compared to anything else available, it finally is not up to modern sensors. And it produced a lot of flare! SO bad that I did not use it under lighting conditions which caused flare. It also was never very contrasty. I first used it on APSC bodies (D1, D100, D200, D2X) where it was somehow ok, but overall I did not like it on my D3 / D700 FX bodies, so I finally sold it.
Then I had the 14-24 and 24-70 combo, which was ok, but also I do not agree that the 14-24 is so much shining, as mine always had pretty soft corners. And the 24-70 is not the strongest lens anyway, I found the older 28-70 much more appealing, so I do hope Nikon soon replaces the current 24-70 with a newer VRII version.
Then I had the 14-24 and 24-70 combo, which was ok, but also I do not agree that the 14-24 is so much shining, as mine always had pretty soft corners. And the 24-70 is not the strongest lens anyway, I found the older 28-70 much more appealing, so I do hope Nikon soon replaces the current 24-70 with a newer VRII version.
The 14-24 was the first lens I purchased with my D800. I was mainly interested in it for night photography, thus the F2.8 to F5.6 range. My initial results I posted on this site in an earlier post, net I was not too pleased. Corners were soft and smeared, center was very good. By F7.1 to F8 excellent lens corner to corner, and this hold up to F14.
I worked with 3 different 14-24's and finally keeping the 3rd one. I found that by using Live view, with the Lloyd Chambers setting, that this particular lens did very well, still not stellar, but I figured I would have to upgrade to the Zeiss 21mm to get sharp corners wide open.
I recently was able to borrow a brand new Zeiss 21mm and a D800e. That was a great day! The results were surprising. I had to shoot this setup a couple of times to make sure of my results.
The 21mm Zeiss was considerably softer than 14-24 @21mm from F2.8 up to around F8. Once you got to F11, the Zeiss was laser sharp, but it was the performance in the F2.8 to F5.6 range I was hoping for.
Once I looked at both test shots side by side I realized that the Nikon 14-24 had a better hyperfocal distance than the 21mm Zeiss until you got to F11, then the Zeiss was a bit better. This was a surprise for me. My testing was pretty straight forward, I keep the lens level and then lay out a measuring tape and target for the near lower corner, then shoot up the range of apertures. Net, I was impressed enough with the results of the Nikon 14-24 to keep it. Here are a few observations.
The 14-24 is a beast, as already mentioned. It's heavy, and the lens cap design "sucks". For as expensive as the lens and the overall importance of the front element I am surprised by this.
The 21mm Zeiss, is tiny compared to the 14-24, takes standard filters and has an excellent hood. Flare is possible but not as bad as the 14.24.
The 14-24 will flare and you just have to be prepared for it. Most times I have found that you can spot out the flare with your hand, or a flare buster type of blocking device. Shooting towards or at the sun will be a disappointment unless you are prepared for this.
The 14-24 is relatively easy to polarize. You can hand hold a Schneider or Tiffen 5.65 x 5.65 square CL-PL in front of the lens. You don't get a issue with the lens hood tulips as I did with the Mamiya 28. This was a pleasant surprise. The 5.65 x 5.65 is large enough to hand hold and keep you fingers out of the shot. You do have to watch for the top of the filter and reflections back towards the camera, but this is easy enough to fix with a cover. It's not a pretty solution but it works. There are times where I like being able to use a CL-PL especially around water.
Lee doesn't make a big stopper for the 14-24, but High Tech/format does. It will fit the Lee 150 kit for the 14-24. It seems that High Tech may have some color cast issues, (see thread on LuLa). But you still have the option to get to 10x ND
Lloyd Chambers reports a focus shift issue on the 14-24. What you have at F2.8 may be off a bit by F5.6. I have not really seen much of this and I tend to dig into images pretty deep. I have used both Live View and AF for focus on the 14-24 and results have been pretty even. I am not sure if this mean that Nikon may have fixed the issue that Lloyd reported or if it's a issue that is not consistent across the 14-24 lineup.
I found color/contrast between the 21mm Zeiss and Nikon 14-24 to be very close using raw capture, and LR 4 or Capture One for conversion.
Sharpness to me was a wash, at 21mm the Nikon was equal to or better than the 21mm zeiss, due to the hyperfocal distance.
As of yet, I have not found any lens Nikon or non-Nikon that is really sharp in the corners of a D800 at F2.8 in the 14mm to 21mm range. I have not tried any Lecia glass however.
Paul Caldwell
I worked with 3 different 14-24's and finally keeping the 3rd one. I found that by using Live view, with the Lloyd Chambers setting, that this particular lens did very well, still not stellar, but I figured I would have to upgrade to the Zeiss 21mm to get sharp corners wide open.
I recently was able to borrow a brand new Zeiss 21mm and a D800e. That was a great day! The results were surprising. I had to shoot this setup a couple of times to make sure of my results.
The 21mm Zeiss was considerably softer than 14-24 @21mm from F2.8 up to around F8. Once you got to F11, the Zeiss was laser sharp, but it was the performance in the F2.8 to F5.6 range I was hoping for.
Once I looked at both test shots side by side I realized that the Nikon 14-24 had a better hyperfocal distance than the 21mm Zeiss until you got to F11, then the Zeiss was a bit better. This was a surprise for me. My testing was pretty straight forward, I keep the lens level and then lay out a measuring tape and target for the near lower corner, then shoot up the range of apertures. Net, I was impressed enough with the results of the Nikon 14-24 to keep it. Here are a few observations.
The 14-24 is a beast, as already mentioned. It's heavy, and the lens cap design "sucks". For as expensive as the lens and the overall importance of the front element I am surprised by this.
The 21mm Zeiss, is tiny compared to the 14-24, takes standard filters and has an excellent hood. Flare is possible but not as bad as the 14.24.
The 14-24 will flare and you just have to be prepared for it. Most times I have found that you can spot out the flare with your hand, or a flare buster type of blocking device. Shooting towards or at the sun will be a disappointment unless you are prepared for this.
The 14-24 is relatively easy to polarize. You can hand hold a Schneider or Tiffen 5.65 x 5.65 square CL-PL in front of the lens. You don't get a issue with the lens hood tulips as I did with the Mamiya 28. This was a pleasant surprise. The 5.65 x 5.65 is large enough to hand hold and keep you fingers out of the shot. You do have to watch for the top of the filter and reflections back towards the camera, but this is easy enough to fix with a cover. It's not a pretty solution but it works. There are times where I like being able to use a CL-PL especially around water.
Lee doesn't make a big stopper for the 14-24, but High Tech/format does. It will fit the Lee 150 kit for the 14-24. It seems that High Tech may have some color cast issues, (see thread on LuLa). But you still have the option to get to 10x ND
Lloyd Chambers reports a focus shift issue on the 14-24. What you have at F2.8 may be off a bit by F5.6. I have not really seen much of this and I tend to dig into images pretty deep. I have used both Live View and AF for focus on the 14-24 and results have been pretty even. I am not sure if this mean that Nikon may have fixed the issue that Lloyd reported or if it's a issue that is not consistent across the 14-24 lineup.
I found color/contrast between the 21mm Zeiss and Nikon 14-24 to be very close using raw capture, and LR 4 or Capture One for conversion.
Sharpness to me was a wash, at 21mm the Nikon was equal to or better than the 21mm zeiss, due to the hyperfocal distance.
As of yet, I have not found any lens Nikon or non-Nikon that is really sharp in the corners of a D800 at F2.8 in the 14mm to 21mm range. I have not tried any Lecia glass however.
Paul Caldwell
My 14-24 is a dissapointment, unsharp and smearing at the edges and corners.
It was ok at the D3, but at the 800E its a disaster I think.
But I havn't test it properly at tripod at all the apertures, just at fast shutterspeed.
I can't understand how Guy manage to get those sharp pictures with the 14-24 but he does.
I would have asked how the 21 Zeis behaved, but now I've got the answer. So it seems like no alternative.
So one have to wait until Nikon will produce a proper 20mm I guess.
Thorkil
It was ok at the D3, but at the 800E its a disaster I think.
But I havn't test it properly at tripod at all the apertures, just at fast shutterspeed.
I can't understand how Guy manage to get those sharp pictures with the 14-24 but he does.
I would have asked how the 21 Zeis behaved, but now I've got the answer. So it seems like no alternative.
So one have to wait until Nikon will produce a proper 20mm I guess.
Thorkil
Antonio Chagin
Member
Hi Paul. I have a paid subscription to Digilloids, but cannot find those settings. Can you guide me to the link for those settings?? Thanks.
Antonio:
Here is the link: http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/NikonD800/LiveView-PictureControl.html
I ended up not importing them, but just creating a new Landscape setting. it's not as straight forward as it seems. But does seem to make a diff. when using Live View.
Paul
Here is the link: http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/NikonD800/LiveView-PictureControl.html
I ended up not importing them, but just creating a new Landscape setting. it's not as straight forward as it seems. But does seem to make a diff. when using Live View.
Paul
While often there were vast differences between the Nikon 14-24 f2.8, 17-35 f2.8 and some other wide angle zooms and single focal length lenses on a D700/D3s, their use on a D800 has certainly changed things, especially regarding corner and edge performance. The D800 places much demand on these lenses and each to varying degrees often struggles with edge/corner performance. Distortion is quite seperate. Where I would normally place the 14-24 well ahead of the 17-35 on a D700/D3s, after testing hand selected samples of each on a D800, I felt optical performance regarding sharpnes fairly close at the middle apertures. Higher contrast certainly went to the 14-24 and maybe to a degree central sharpness if one as measuring, but even in that area of the frame it was close. Both lenses had weakness in the corners, but at somewhat different ends of their zoom range. The 17-35 in my opinion was far more flair resistant than the 14-24 and in addition, the 17-35mm took filters easily with its 77mm filter thread size.
I found the distortion on the Zeiss 21mm could be problematic depending on type of subject photographed but sharpness/resolution was generally outstanding.
In another thread, I posted my observations regarding use and testing of the 17-35mm f2.8 on the D800.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/38179-d800e-nikon-17-35mm-f2-8-observations.html
Dave (D&A)
I found the distortion on the Zeiss 21mm could be problematic depending on type of subject photographed but sharpness/resolution was generally outstanding.
In another thread, I posted my observations regarding use and testing of the 17-35mm f2.8 on the D800.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/38179-d800e-nikon-17-35mm-f2-8-observations.html
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
Thanks for all your advice and help guys! I was really torn between the 14-24 and the zeiss. But seeing that many have experienced problems with the 14-24, I decided to go with the zeiss. It will be arriving in a few days and I will try and post some full-size samples and raw files from this lens. Again, I thank you all and will gladly give back to the community!
Antonio Chagin
Member
Thanks Paul.!
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
or Voigtländer Color-Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SLII Aspherical ?
There's also the more affordable Voigtländer option, but I don't know if it meets your requirements.
Here's an illustration at f/8 with the Voigtländer Color-Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SLII Aspherical, a manual focus AI-S type lens.
I opened up the shadows a bit to enable you to see some more details at the edges and corners.
If you'd like to do the RAW conversion to your own taste you can download the RAW file,
only please keep any posted conversion result here on the GetDPI forum
801_1614_Voigtlander_20mm.NEF
There's also the more affordable Voigtländer option, but I don't know if it meets your requirements.
Here's an illustration at f/8 with the Voigtländer Color-Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SLII Aspherical, a manual focus AI-S type lens.
I opened up the shadows a bit to enable you to see some more details at the edges and corners.
If you'd like to do the RAW conversion to your own taste you can download the RAW file,
only please keep any posted conversion result here on the GetDPI forum
801_1614_Voigtlander_20mm.NEF
© • click for native size (8.5 Mb) • in some browsers the F11 key maximizes and again minimizes <-> the web browser window
© • Nikon D800E • Voigtländer Color-Skopar 3.5/20mm SLII Aspherical • 1/15 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Capture NX2
© • Nikon D800E • Voigtländer Color-Skopar 3.5/20mm SLII Aspherical • 1/15 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Capture NX2
johnnygoesdigital
New member
Fredrick-
Personally, I would stick with prime lenses only for landscape, less glass elements = cleaner image. I also think the Zeiss lenses in the wide range are pretty good. For me, the Zeiss 35mm or 25mm are best because less CA and distortion, and manual focus is a must with landscape photography.
Personally, I would stick with prime lenses only for landscape, less glass elements = cleaner image. I also think the Zeiss lenses in the wide range are pretty good. For me, the Zeiss 35mm or 25mm are best because less CA and distortion, and manual focus is a must with landscape photography.
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
or Voigtländer Color-Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SLII Aspherical ?
I do not know of any Voigtländer vendor in Denmark, but in UK and in Germany there are big photo stores with Voigtländer equipment, e.g. Robert White in UK and Foto Mundus in Germany.
Lenses - Voigtlander - Shop by Brand | Robert White Photographic Ltd
fotomundus24.de
I do not know of any Voigtländer vendor in Denmark, but in UK and in Germany there are big photo stores with Voigtländer equipment, e.g. Robert White in UK and Foto Mundus in Germany.
Lenses - Voigtlander - Shop by Brand | Robert White Photographic Ltd
fotomundus24.de
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
Another +1 to this.
Zeiss 21/2.8, 25/2, 35/1.4, 50/2 and 100/2 are all killer lenses. I went with the 35/1.4 over the 35/2 because it's my go-to focal length so I wanted maximum flexibility. The 35/2 is also an excellent lens and arguably easier to focus.
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
Great idea, Fredrick :thumbup:
Only picture samples (and preferably linked to full size versions) can really illustrate a lens' performance.
The rest is just words.
Of course that does not in itself solve the second problem we face in these discussions: sample variation, but at least it solves the first problem with all the claims and endless statements never backed by any sort of evidence or illustration.