Zeiss 21/2.8 or 14-24/2.8

<p>Good day.<br>

I am planning to buy the above wide angle lense for landscape photography. Currently i am using D300 and thinking of upgrading to FX body next year, mainly waiting for the new replacement of D700. I have been reading some of reviews and found out that both of the lenses are equally excellent. AF or MF focusing is fine with me. I like 24mm but have not tried 21mm or wider, therefore i am not sure if 14-18 is too wide for me. Hope to hear from you all regarding the above lenses.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think you can not use filters with the 14-24mm which may or may not bother you. I would just get the tokina 11-16mm and sell it once I go FF.</p>

<p>I'd go with the 16-35 f4 instead. </p>

<p>Or used 17-35mm f2.8</p>

<p>Ted,<br>

I had a look at my database (<a href="http://www.lreviews.info">http://www.lreviews.info</a>) and I would prefer the zoom Nikkor, since it is tack-sharp even used on FF, even wide open and across all of its zoom range. At least this is what slrgear.com says:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1122/cat/13">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1122/cat/13</a></p>

<p>The Zeiss also is a really great performer:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/470-zeiss_zf_21_28_5d">http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/470-zeiss_zf_21_28_5d</a></p>

<p>But if you can have a zoom - why not ?<br>

Regards, Martin</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've not tried the Zeiss, but from reading <a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon1424_21mm/nikon1424_21mm1.html">here</a>, the 14-24 is probably not as good at 21mm; it's an outstanding 14mm lens with the ability to zoom a bit. It's an awfully big and expensive thing if you're not sure you want the 14mm end, especially on a DX body (for now). The lack of a protective filter is an issue; there are expensive filter options, but I don't find it that limiting - you probably don't want a polarizer on an ultrawide anyway.<br>

<br>

I've got, and love, the 14-24, but I'm wary of recommending it to people. I'd at least try one out in a camera store, preferably on an FX (or film) body, if not try hiring one. On the plus side, it probably won't depreciate much if you change your mind and sell it (unless the market is swamped with 16-35 owners). For what it's worth, I intend to pick up a cheap, light-weight 20-ish mm (e.g. the 20mm f/4) to use on my D700 when I don't want to carry the 14-24.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 21/2.8 is a nice lens for 1/3rd the cost of a Zeiss and less than 1/2 the size and weight. It acts like a medium-wide lens (36mm) on a D300, but super-wide on an FX or film camera. It is much wider than a 24mm lens, which acts like a short-normal lens on a D300 (46mm), and very-wide on an FX camera. The 14-24 zoom is super wide on a D300, absurdly wide on an FX camera. You cannot use filters with this lens.</p>

<p>How wide do you want to go for landscapes? What lens(es) do you have now? A wide angle lens is best used in landscapes to emphasize the foreground and diminish the background. If you use it to "get it all" in one shot, you will be disappointed because mountains are flattened and you get way too much sky and grass.</p>

<p>If you would like a superb lens which is super-wide on an FX camera yet with good overlap for use as a walk-about lens, I suggest a Nikkor 17-35/2.8 AFS. The 16-35/4 has a bit more distortion than I care to use for buildings, although it is cheaper and lighter than the 17-35.</p>

<p>Ted - silly question, but I belated realised I was confused about what you're asking. When you say you like 24mm, do you mean 24mm <i>on a DX body</i> or 24mm full-frame?<br>

<br>

If you've never tried wider than a true 24mm lens on your D300, I'd try to find someone who'll let you try out the kit lens, for perspective. The 14mm is less than a third wider than the 18-55 - it's only because of the coverage on FX that it's really wide. If that's where your "not sure if 14-18 is too wide" comment came from, bear in mind that on an FX sensor, both these lenses are wider (even with the zoom at the 24mm end) than the kit lens at 18mm on a DX body; if you don't like shooting the kit lens at 18mm it sounds like you'll be buying a lens you have to sell when you go to FX. And for the 14-24, at least, you're paying a lot (in weight as well as money) for performance in the corners that a DX sensor will never see - I'd never recommend it to someone solely for use on a DX body.<br>

<br>

If you mean you've tried a 24mm <i>full-frame equivalent</i> on your D300 (i.e. a true 16mm lens) then obviously there's a big gap between that and what the Zeiss will do for you until your body upgrade.<br>

<br>

The choice between 14mm and 21mm is exactly the choice between DX and FX sensors (in field of view terms). The 14mm may decide you against a body upgrade. On the plus side, at least you can zoom it when you switch bodies - with the Zeiss, when you upgrade bodies, you'd lose your 31.5mm equivalent lens (short of cropping the image).<br>

<br>

Re. the 16-35, just a warning that reviews are a bit mixed. Mr Rockwell is effusive about it, but Photozone are unconvinced (and their sample images back up their figures). There may be a lot of sample variation.<br>

<br>

Just to confirm the filter situation: the 14-24 has no filter threads, but Lee make a (cumbersome and expensive) system that lets you slot (cumbersome and expensive) filters over the front. I've not used it, but it exists. As I said, I'd not polarize a 14mm because of the field of view; I've not bothered with colour filters on digital and use HDR for grads, and I've lived with the default rendition on film. I miss that there's nothing protecting the front glass, but that's only caught me out once (Niagara), and not catastrophically. So I wouldn't lose sleep over the lack of filters for the 14-24 - but you may think otherwise.<br>

<br>

All this may be irrelevant, or it may scare you off buying either. I hope it's helped, instead!</p>

<p>Wow...all these people making recommendations on stuff they have never used. Plus Ted is asking about the 14-24 vs ZF 21, not severely inferior products such as the Tokina 11-16 and Nikon 17-35</p>

<p>First off, I have used the 11-16/14-24/16-35/ZF 21/and several other Nikon primes so I can give you a users POV. I will go over a few as the others don't even deserve mentioning as they are nowhere near the same league.</p>

<p>16-35 VR: I have an excellent VERY sharp copy. Distortion from 16-18 is horrendous. From 18-28 this lens is extremely sharp even wide open and has very little distortion. Surprisingly good micro contrast for a Nikon lens. The main attraction to this lens is being able to hand-hold at night and nail 1/20 shots on a consistent basis. Certain corners may be sharper in this lens vs the 14-24 but overall the two lenses mentioned below are sharper than the 16-35. The reason I have this lens and not the 14-24 is the availability of filters...yet a new system is coming out by Lee for the 14-24</p>

<p>14-24: I had at one point and got rid of it b/c of the bulbous front and the inability to use filters. Sharpness is excellent. Slightly prone to flare and CAs at wider apertures. Peaks at about f/5.6 in sharpness (my copy of course). Sharpness never does quite reach the ZF 21. Distortion is minimal for a wide angle zoom.</p>

<p>ZF 21: Unbelievable lens. The only negative I know of is the mustache distortion that shows up in architecture if you hit it at just the right spot. Actually, vignetting is quite prominent from f/2.8 - f/4 as well. Sharpness is unreal from corner to corner, even wide open. Wide open on the ZF 21 is as sharp as the 14-24 at its peak. It takes filters and provides the typical Zeiss 3D look without even trying. It focuses extremely close which is a huge plus and takes filters. At wide focal lengths, I don't mind a prime as I don't even go as wide as 14-18....ever.</p>

<p>I think the race comes down to the 14-24 and the ZF 21 and it really depends on if you want a zoom. If you want a zoom, you know which to get. If you don't mind a prime and 21 is a good length for you, no question in my mind which I would take...the Zeiss 21.</p>

<p>For me personally , if choosing just between the two lenses you mention, i'd go for the Zeiss.<br>

I find it very importand to be able to use graduated filters to balance the light, so that in bright wether i do not have to chose between burnt-out highlights or muddy shadows.<br>

For the rest of it, I do totally agree with Ryan.</p>

<p>I would go 14-24mm. The Zeiss can't do 14-20mm or AF. There may be times you can't back up. You may photograph a scene from the same vantage point as another photographer, but being able to have the option to shoot a little wider may give you the edge or uniqueness in your photo. I own the 14-24mm and find its amazingly sharp wide open. I've owned the tokina 11-16mm 2.8 (4 copies lol, only one was great), 20mm 2.8 nikon (soft copy). Never owned the Zeiss, but I must say the 14-24mm is sharp. Lenses I have compared this against are other sharp Nikon lenses (24-70mm, 24mm 1.4, 70-200mm, and the 85mm 1.4). I've shot quite a bit with it in different conditions, lighting, situations and am quite pleased with it (I own the other lenses).</p>

<p>Thanks a lot fo sharing your opinions.<br>

@ Leslie, i do not plan to buy DX lense as i know i will go for FX body next year.<br>

@ Andrew, i mean 24mm on FX. I have FM2, used 24/2.8 but unfortunately 24mm was dropped and broken during my trip to Phuket Island recently. I have 24-70/2.8 and use it with D300, it is not wide enough but i like it for portrait.<br>

@ Edward, besides 24-70, i also use Zeiss 35/2, nikkor 50/1.8 and MF 105/2.5.<br>

@ Ryan, I note your points. These are very helpful to my decision.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have owned the 21mm ZF, the 14-24mm and the 17-35mm and the only one I have now is the ZF - it is truly outstanding (and takes filters which is important to me). That said if you like 24mm as a focal length the extra width of the 21mm might be troublesome and in fact I end up using my 25mm ZF much more than the 21mm even though the 21mm is a 'better' lens. 21mm is often too wide for what, and how, I like to photograph.</p>

 

<p>I need to try it out both of the lenses and see which one is more suitable to me. I like 24mm and it is very challenging to use UWA lense for photography. On one hand, i like 14-24 as it is still wide on my D300 before i get FX camera. On the other, i also enjoy using MF lense as it is good to use DOF scale for landscape, so 21mm ZF shall meet my need. For almost the same price, 14-24 looks more attractive and value for money.</p>

 

<p>Since difference in Optical quality is there but almost not visible even to trained eyes, choose basing yourself on the only real tangible differences:<br>

Zeiss takes fiters and is smaller, but it is manual focus.<br>

Nikon can go more and less wide, but it takes no filters.<br>

The rest is more or less equal.<br>

I opted for the Nikon in the end because I also took the 24/1.4, but that does not need to apply to you.</p>

<p>Had the Nikon 14-24 and was very happy with it until I saw my friends pics with his Zeiss 21 F.2 Distagon. Bought the same lens and sold the Nikon - no contest. The Zeiss is an amazing lens and the manual focus is silky smooth. I now own three Zeiss lenses (21, 35 & 100MP) so the moral of this story is, don't look at other people's pics taken with Zeiss lenses as your bank account will suffer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The story (with lesson) from matt smith might be important. Maybe you should just play it safe and get the Nikkor.</p>

Apples/oranges and not totally relevant as I'm in the canon world. But what has brought a large step-up in

my urban and street portrait photography was switching from a 24-70 f/2.8 L zoom to a Zeiss 35 f/2 ZE on

my 5DII. It is clearly that much better. Can't see myself ever going back for the type of photography I do. And am thinking about a 21mm ZE.

<p>I have 24-70 and ZF35, now i use more ZF35 than 24-70. It is not the weight issue but i seldom do post processing using ZF35. Learned the story but for me, it is too late.</p>

<p>Brad's photo blog site show some great work with the 35mm Zeiss. It also shows some great work with other cameras and lenses, too, so it's not just the Zeiss, but it's certainly worth a look.</p>

<p>These few days, I have been searching for the best price at my local stores but unfortunately the zeiss 21/2.8 ZF2 is overprice in Malaysia, after conversion, it is slightly above USD2000. Is it worth to get the less?</p>

<p>What is it with that 'photozone.de' site? Not one 35mm lens is recommended for FX. Only very wide and ultra wide get the thumbs up i.e. the 14-24 and the 2.8/21 ZF.2.</p>

<p>In any case, thanks for all the replies. Alas, I'm still no closer to deciding. I'm going to have to hit a few more camera shops and test more lenses then come home and order the one I decide on from overseas. :D<br>

Cheers</p>