Nikon 24mm f1.4 - Vs - Zeiss Distagon ZF T* 21mm f/2.8

[KevPeden]

Hi everyone, I'm very new to this forum business so please be excuse me if I get things wrong. I'm about to upgrade from my old Nikon D2x to a D3x. I do an awful lot of landscapes and have decided that full frame/24Mp is the way to go, however, I'm in a bit of a quandary as I read loads of reviews about the Nikon 24mm f1.4 prime and how good it is (I currently use a 17-35mm f2.8 with excellent results), and then came across a couple of reviews about the Zeiss Distagon ZF T* 21mm f/2.8 (Nikon Fit) and how it blows every thing else out of the water. Is there anyone out there that have any experience with either or both of these lenses as I have a difficult decision to make as the Nikon is far more expensive @ £1900+ compared to the Zeiss @ £1200+, so it could be a costly mistake, however, quality results are of more importance to me, so I need to get this right first time. I know there is a rental option, but the closest rental is in London, QUITE SOME DISTANCE. Your opinion is important to me so can you help.
Kind Regard
Kev.

[OsmosisStudios]

London is close to everything in England. You Europeans don't know long distances

The big reason to get the 24 f/1.4 is the standout statistic: f/1.4. If you don't need the fast aperture, there really is no point as there are several lenses that perform better at that focal length.

If you're super serious about landscapes and want 24mm, then a 24mm f/3.5 PC-E lens would be my recommendation. It's cheaper ($2k, instead of $2.2K, B&H), gives you tilt and shift capabilities and is one of the sharpest lenses ever. It'd be my only consideration for serious landscape work.

If you're not into the whole perspective control thing, though, the 16-35 f/4 VR is sharper than even the 14-24 over the majority of the frame AND allows filters to be used. It's essentially the newer, sharper, wider version of your current lens.

[KevPeden]

Hi. [QUOTE=OsmosisStudios;1074706]London is close to everything in England. You Europeans don't know long distances :

I did not really ask your opinion on my travel arrangements, However, yes, in a way you are correct about London being close to everything COMPARED TO THE USA AND CANADA, however, we have smaller cars, smaller roads, very very expensive fuel, congestion charge to get into London, huge traffic jams at any time of day that can have you stuck in a car for hours and the public transport is very expensive and not always reliable. All this CAN make travelling either by car, bus, coach or train a huge pain in the ASS, where as, when I have travelled in the USA and Canada, I found that you may have to travel further, but you have cheaper fuel, bigger cars, bigger roads and a very cheap and relatively reliable public transport system and I saw little evidence of traffic jams. Don't try to compare time distance and cost getting in to London with your travel time cost etc. Besides that, I work 12-18 hrs a day 5-6 days a week, so free time is precious to me, so practicing my photography comes before travelling

That aside, many thanks for your input, but yes, I have considered the Nikon 24mm f3.5 PC-E lens and still considering it and will probably invest in this very fine optics at a later date, however, perhaps I should have mentioned that also do cityscapes, street photography, weddings/wedding receptions etc., a lot of which is hand held in very low light or in the darkness of night, so I specifically wanted a very high quality wide prime that will cover most eventualities and that why I am asking about the Nikon 24mm and the Zeiss 21mm and yes, I know that the Nikon has the edge over the Zeiss for low light photography.
Thanks anyway.

[bearly]

wow dude i think it was a joke. no need to freak out.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by KevPeden

(RANT)

You said Distance, not TIME. Hence my, as Bearly picked up, JOKING comment. Lighten up dude. Besides, you can always ORDER things, as Im sure most rental companies will ship the lens to you if necessary.

That being said: your original post referred only to landscapes, hence the 24 PC-E recommendation. If you've got all sorts of other stuff you wanna do with it, you have to mention that. With all this in mind, I'd then recommend the 24/1.4 instead.

Keep in mind that for city scapes the 24 PC-E is also very good as it will straighten out vertical line keystoning with buildings. It can also be of great use for portraits with the very selective and targeted focus can be a great effect to use.

[ravncat]

The 24 1.4 is a supurb beast. I`ve not used the Zeiss. I think though, the decision should be made based on the following needs

21 vs 24 - at the wide end, these are quite different.

2.8 vs 1.4 - also at the wide end, that`s large. I like to make shallow DOF landscapes - and lots of low light shooting - for which the 1.4 becomes great.

MF vs AF - if this matters to you - it matters. If you can make those three valuations - it should be an easier choice.


some 24mm samples, both under my copyright, and resized for web






Btw I agree about the PC-E the 24mm pc-e is an ideal choice for landscapes - tilt shift is something I lust for - having used large format. Though - much that can be done with tilt shift can be done - with consequences - in post.

Instead - I`ve decided to go for a horseman VCC pro - to get my tilt shift =D - since the 24mm pc-e lacks film plane movements....

[KevPeden]

[QUOTE=OsmosisStudios;1075051]You said Distance, not TIME. Hence my, as Bearly picked up, JOKING comment. Lighten up dude. Besides, you can always ORDER things, as Im sure most rental companies will ship the lens to you if necessary.

Hi All. YES, YOU ARE ALL ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR MY LITTLE OUT BURST, had pulled another double shift because someone couldn't be bothered to clock in for the third day on the trot and 4 members of staff went MIA, so things weren't going so well and as we all know, we can only speak to employees like their mummy would, otherwise the union gets involved and I was hungry (could eat a scabby horse), tired and wanted my bed. Sh@t Happens, that life. OsmosisStudios and all, PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES! Thanks

[KevPeden]

Originally Posted by ravncat

The 24 1.4 is a supurb beast. I`ve not used the Zeiss. I think though, the decision should be made based on the following needs

21 vs 24 - at the wide end, these are quite different.

2.8 vs 1.4 - also at the wide end, that`s large. I like to make shallow DOF landscapes - and lots of low light shooting - for which the 1.4 becomes great.

MF vs AF - if this matters to you - it matters. If you can make those three valuations - it should be an easier choice.


some 24mm samples, both under my copyright, and resized for web






Btw I agree about the PC-E the 24mm pc-e is an ideal choice for landscapes - tilt shift is something I lust for - having used large format. Though - much that can be done with tilt shift can be done - with consequences - in post.

Instead - I`ve decided to go for a horseman VCC pro - to get my tilt shift =D - since the 24mm pc-e lacks film plane movements....

Hi ravncat. Yes, I know what your saying, however, the image quality is my main concern over the speed and focal length differences between them, albeit speed comes a very close second and I never use auto focus when making Landscapes, BUT, I really do like your suggestion about the Horseman VCC pro. I spotted it at FOCUS ON IMAGING TRADE SHOW (europe's largest photo trade show), unfortunately, the the stand was so bussy all day and when I finally got some attention at the stand, they wouldn't demo it for me, I forgot all about it since. That will now be on my list for research as well as or even instead of the Nikon 24mm pc-e. I've never used large format gear before so should make some very interesting learning, something I'm always willing to do, as I would have to anyway with the 24mm PC-E. As it a different format to what I'm used to (medium, 35mm and DX & FX formats), WHAT MAKE AND FOCAL LENGTH LENS WOULD YOU SUGGEST for making landscapes that I would normally use a 24mm lens in FX format????

Regards
Kev P.

[ravncat]

Depends - basically, you're just comparing the diagonals of the different systems - so you can check the ratio of the diagonals...

Equivalent Lens Focal Lengths For Different Film Sizes - photo.net has several conversions for you.

If I recall it's roughly 1/3rd for 4x5 to 35mm , so a 72mm lens on 4x5 format would be about 24mm. However, with the vcc pro - you're still using a 35mm sensor - so im not sure that you'd have to worry about the crop factor - since that is dependent upon the format size - not the lens focal length. - Your question has made me realize I may have to do some research.

I don't have a horseman vcc pro yet - I've decided I will get one instead of going with a nikon PCE lens --- I realized on second reading, that might not have been clear. I'm not sure if the other format lenses are going to have the resolution for the d3x though. I use a d700 - and was considering the stitching as well as tilt shift, that could be done with the vcc pro - as well as an entry into getting some lenses for a larger system, so that I could eventually have lenses when I move up to a medium or large format body. (since there are various lensmounts for the vcc pro.



As an aside about the 24 1.4 - it has enough resolution for the d3x - though im not sure how the corners will be wide open - at 2.8 I certainly don't know if they beat the zeiss. I believe both lenses can outresolve the d3x - certainly at the optimal apertures. My IQ with my d700 and 24 1.4 is totally limited by being handheld - and not optimally focused. Getting focus right at 1.4 is quite tough. I get very close - but I am more a limit on ultimate IQ with that lens than the lens itself.

I suspect if ultimate IQ is what you are after, that it would be more important to compare bokeh - color rendition - coma - ghosting - etc... I can understand AF not being a factor.

[KevPeden]

Originally Posted by ravncat

Depends - basically, you're just comparing the diagonals of the different systems - so you can check the ratio of the diagonals...

Equivalent Lens Focal Lengths For Different Film Sizes - photo.net has several conversions for you.

If I recall it's roughly 1/3rd for 4x5 to 35mm , so a 72mm lens on 4x5 format would be about 24mm. However, with the vcc pro - you're still using a 35mm sensor - so im not sure that you'd have to worry about the crop factor - since that is dependent upon the format size - not the lens focal length. - Your question has made me realize I may have to do some research.

I don't have a horseman vcc pro yet - I've decided I will get one instead of going with a nikon PCE lens --- I realized on second reading, that might not have been clear. I'm not sure if the other format lenses are going to have the resolution for the d3x though. I use a d700 - and was considering the stitching as well as tilt shift, that could be done with the vcc pro - as well as an entry into getting some lenses for a larger system, so that I could eventually have lenses when I move up to a medium or large format body. (since there are various lensmounts for the vcc pro.



As an aside about the 24 1.4 - it has enough resolution for the d3x - though im not sure how the corners will be wide open - at 2.8 I certainly don't know if they beat the zeiss. I believe both lenses can outresolve the d3x - certainly at the optimal apertures. My IQ with my d700 and 24 1.4 is totally limited by being handheld - and not optimally focused. Getting focus right at 1.4 is quite tough. I get very close - but I am more a limit on ultimate IQ with that lens than the lens itself.

I suspect if ultimate IQ is what you are after, that it would be more important to compare bokeh - color rendition - coma - ghosting - etc... I can understand AF not being a factor.

================================================== ===================================

Hi ravnca. Many thanks for that. Just went off to have a look at a work related problem, and a coffee of course, and I re-read my last question to you and thought what a prat of a question, remembering that I would NOT be WORKING IN LARGE FORMAT, it would still be FX and FX focal lengths would be required. I was hoping you hadn't seen that question before I had a chance to edit it some how, but to late, now feeling a little dumma, thanks for being so tactful with your answer.