AF-S 24mm f/1.8G vs. Zeiss Distagon 2.8/25mm

<p>I am looking for a lens to replace my AF 24mm f/2.8D with. This hockey puck has been in my kit for quite some time, and it has taken some beating and use in harsh environments, so now it has a couple of scratches and seems somewhat out of whack, as I can't seem to get sharp images with it any more. I currently use a D700, but if I buy a new lens now, I want it to be future proof, and the 24/2.8D was showing its weeknesses even before I started abusing it (I know, I won't do that in the future) and got out of shape.</p>

<p>The obvious choice would be the new AF-S 24mm f/1.8G lens, and I like the sample images I found online, but the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/25 seems just a little more expensive, and seems like a worthy contestant to consider. I will be using this lens mostly on travels, and for city and landscapes. I'll likely bring it along with a 40 and 85 or 105. I know I did ask a question recently about wide PC lenses, and I am still undecided about whether I should get one of those or a "regular" wide angle lens, but I'll decide that on my own. Now my question would be whether anyone has experience with both the Nikkor AF-S lens and the Zeiss Distagon, and what those experiences are.</p>

<p>I know the specifications, one is faster, the other has better build quality, one is wider, the other has no AF, one is lighter, the other focuses closer, bla bla bla. I'm more interested in the pictures. Perhaps not even absolute resolution, I'm sure either one does just fine in that, but contrast, distortion, vignetting etc. Mostly contrast, and whether either one has some attribute worth mentioning over the other. For example my Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 SLII is not an extremely sharp lens, but somehow has a pop, and I like the life-like prints I get from it very much.</p>

<p>Any input on these two lenses is greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>The Nikon 24mm f1.8G looks like a pretty good lens for "general purpose. If the Nikon 24mm PCE didn't exist I would probably buy one. However, I use the lens movements a lot since I shoot quite a few architectural type subjects and landscapes. That really gets rid of the distortion for me and now I find I can't live without it. It's not a "snap shot" or "street" type lens, but matches my deliberate style very well. I use a tripod for most all of my shots, with any lens.</p>

<p>As for Zeiss 24mm f2 vs. Nikon 24mm f1.G, I'll take the Nikon without hesitation:<br>

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-24mm-F18G-ED-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Sigma-24mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-25mm-F2-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800E__1584_814_1511_814_781_814</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>RCPE west bound at Capa, SD</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>As a general rule, if you want a great f/2.8 lens, then buy a good f/2 or faster lens and use it at f/2.8. My experience has been that this is a good guideline.<br>

DXOmark's comparison tests of the Nikkor and Distagon confirm this adage. The Nikkor trounces the Distagon in all parameters barring distortion where the Distagon is very marginally better. But then it's a millimetre longer in focal length. DXOmark scores: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-2.8-25mm-ZF2-Nikon-on-Nikon-D800E-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-24mm-F18G-ED-on-Nikon-D800E__335_814_1584_814</p>

<p>Of course, bench tests aren't pictures, but then the reverse is true also. In real life the curvature of field that the Distagon shows may well go unnoticed, or even be an advantage for some subjects, but give me a flat field to work with any day.</p>

<p>Kent, do you ever shoot the PC-E handheld, or is that just too awkward? It's not heavier or bigger than a 24-120 f/4, but it seems like it wasn't really meant to be used without a tripod, or at least a monopod.</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, in my limited experience, benchmark tests don't necessarily reflect the quality of the lens. Like I mentioned above, the Voigtlander 40mm does just so-so on benchmarks, but it makes the nicest prints of all my lenses. It seems to have some of the fairy dust that makes it have those creamy tonal transitions. Another one that seems to be quite popular despite its sub-par test results is the AF-S 58mm f/1.4. Although from what I have been able to find online, it really does appear like the Nikkor 24/1.8 is not worse than the Distagon.</p><div></div>

<p>I don't think the 25/2.8 Distagon was/is one of Zeiss's best in the ZF line. My reading of the reports is that the 25/2 Distagon (@$1600+) is, however, very nice (see Photozone for example). I have no idea about the Nikon lens, but I would not pay over the odds for the 25/2.8 Distagon unless you have a Zeiss fetish.</p>

<p>The Distagon 25/2.8 doesn't do well in lens tests because it suffers from pronounced field curvature. Unless you like the effect and use it creatively, or aren't bothered by it, the Zeiss does not appear to be a viable choice for an "all-purpose" lens.</p>

<p>Vignetting is also high on the Zeiss (for an f/2.8 lens.</p>

<p>Comparing the photozone results and the dxomark results, I wonder how it can be that photozone finds rather low CA whereas dxomark's CA results are "off the chart"?</p>

<p>Oliver, I don't have experience with the 24PCE but I think most people call it a tripod lens assuming you are using the PC feature. I have used the 35mm PC and it is quite a process to compose and then meter and then shift and then expose. However, if you are just using it as a regular manual lens, I don't think there is any big impediment to handheld use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I want it to be future proof...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Futile efforts ;))))</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it suffers from pronounced field curvature</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As does the Zeiss 28/2.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Kent, do you ever shoot the PC-E handheld, or is that just too awkward?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I sometimes use it as a "regular" lens, and it does fine. It is a bulky lens, but certainly not my heaviest. It's maybe slightly lighter than a 24-70mm f2.8. I generally shoot ALL my photos with a tripod. The gain in sharpness is quite significant. This is not my first lens pick for walking around down town Chicago, but most of the time my shooting is of the more deliberate variety. And for that, the movements are very useful.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have used the 35mm PC and it is quite a process to compose and then meter and then shift and then expose. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Older style lens that uses stop down metering. (I had the 28mm PC.) The new PC-E lenses have meter couplings--hence the "E".</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Older style lens that uses stop down metering. (I had the 28mm PC.) The new PC-E lenses have meter couplings--hence the "E".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, I'm not talking about stop down metering. I'm talking about metering before shifting. My understanding was that a lens shift will screw up the camera's meter, so you have to do it before shifting. Does the 24PCE somehow avoid this?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as I can't seem to get sharp images with it any more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Any more? A sharp lens that suddenly stops being sharp..., what happened?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want it to be future proof</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you want future proof, get another 24mm afd. It's fully mechanical and thus built to last. At least mine is sharp and takes excellent pictures on a d700.</p>

<p>Why pay almost tripple for a plastic 24mm afs that no one knows how short-lived it'll be.<br /> <br /> And why even consider a manual focus lens when your body isn't equipped with a split focusing screen. Good luck getting pictures in focus.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>My understanding was that a lens shift will screw up the camera's meter, so you have to do it before shifting. Does the 24PCE somehow avoid this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Kent, perhaps I did not phrase my question well. You are saying you can accurately meter with the 24PC-E <em>while</em> the lens has tilt or shift adjustments?</p>

<p>Well, no offense Kent but I had to do some checking on my own. </p>

<p>This is from the 24PC-E manual: "Exposure will be incorrect when the lens is shifted and/or tilted."</p>

<p>Wedding, what happened was that I used it in harsh environments in a harsh way at times. It was good, then it stopped being good.</p>

<p>The AF-D is OK on a D700, definitely not sharp in the corners, although I would call it acceptable. On a higher resolution camera, which I might have in the future (hence the use of the expression "future-proof") I'm sure it will show more shortcomings.</p>

<p>The AF-D is just as plastic as the AF-S, maybe a different plastic.</p>

<p>I've been using a manual focus Voigtlander lens with good results, and I'd mostly use the 24mm stopped down and for static subjects. I'm not concerned about AF for this focal length. That being said, it does appear like the Nikkor is the better choice in this case.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>The AF-D is OK on a D700, definitely not sharp in the corners...<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's very sharp corner to corner starting around f5.6.<br>

<br>

If you shoort "static subjects", I imagine you mean landscapes, cityscapes and interiors. No one shoots those at f2.8 for reasons of limited depth. So corners don't matter at f2.8. And when they do, you stop down to f8, as you would anyway when shooting scenes. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I quote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It [nikkor 24mm f2.8] gives very sharp images corner-to-corner even at the near limit thanks to CRC, but beware of field curvature if you are shooting perfectly flat subjects at close range. Some light fall-off towards the corners is evident at f/2.8 and gone by f/4-f/5.6. Set the lens to f/5.6-f/11 to get the best picture quality, but do not stop down to f/22 unless absolutely necessary. </p>

<p>I was quite surprised to observe the excellent image quality my 24/2.8 delivered on the FX models, in particular on the D3X.<br>

<br>

Score: 4.5/5<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Source: <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html</a></p>

<p> <br>

Like said, the 24mm afd is your best bet. If you killed your copy, get another one. <br>

<br>

</p>