How does the Nikon 14-24 compare to the Zeiss 21 f2.8 in terms of absolute image quality at 21mm?

Started Dec 22, 2012 | Discussions thread
HSway
Senior MemberPosts: 2,606
Like?
Re: OK, I'll talk about heaven instead
In reply to oneANT, Dec 24, 2012

First off, glad to see you Ant. shame you don’t come more often to either forum.

I am giving OP and anyone what I think are the best recommendations to spot and weigh out the differences, what’s to like more and what’s working better.

oneANT wrote:

They are different lenses, different designs, different boxes. Why would this be difficult to understand. I'd suggest you add some more lenses around 20mm and examine them for their differences, the voigtlander Ultron SLII as good example ..that in their range they have a different design consideration to Nikon just as they do to anything zeiss.
Thats all.

The canon users with their access to off-brand legacy lenses is why they never talk this way. Nikon legacy is nikon lenses so they all look like nikons. In fact lets talk about a Leica-R Cron at 20mm ...is it again no different to a 14-24 at 20mm. Its just crazy. The crazy talk about "beats this" beats that" ...I haven't heard conversations like this since I was 6 ...when they'd tell me their Dad could ..."beat my Dad" but I'm not 6 anymore.

Its much simpler then even that, there are no micro-contrast lenses in the zooms and its only ever been seen in the 35/1.4ais. Even RB with his lovely 200/2 can tell you the recipes are very different.

Even when anotherMike states the differences he is using his 14-24 to its limits, I cannot imagine him leaving much juice behind after squeezing a lens. So the difference that remains after he does that ...he can tell you. Then its up to you if these qualities that are left behind are something you desire, because some of us do.

Blind tests have been run elsewhere on the internet but what always surprises me is that owners would know their own lenses so poorly that they cannot see the differences in another. For some it doesnt matter ...but for some it does and you have to remember that.

Its not snobbery or some kind of weird elitism ...think hard about why some would give up AF in the 1st place just consider how crazy that is ...and why on earth and heaven (grin) would they do it. This forum has always been about helping others in their decisions and supporting them in their experiences and some of us will never be afraid to tell ours even when others make such an effort to make us look the fool.

I agree yet the black and white view won’t suffice that well. It has nothing to do with snobbery neither has it anything to do with saving money on either side or even AF. Necessarily.

At the same time the 14-24’ quality drives the zeiss primes sales. not a typo. Things like hunger for better and more is imprinted firmly and evolutionarily in man's mind, some kind of people at some point feel an urge to go and get a zeiss and literally make it better for them. But that you probably also understand. Some others will be collecting them, ziess or nikkors..  Then the children with big valets and simple thinking. Or the gadgets folk that will mount all sorts of real or unreal kit head over head for whole week to fire off a garbage shot. Their thrill is elsewhere. There simply is no lens by itself but there are people that from your photography your point of view and mine perhaps too (I like to keep wider understanding for all these differences actually), blend it in hell or in heaven or in between. I understand their voices. don’t even need to hear the words to tell them apart.

Everyone here knows I'm not a technical shooter, they know I'm not a gear head and yet these are the very ones we complain about because they infect our judgement and they do it without a single photograph. I'm only at 66days as a photographer now and I count these days from the day my 1st Zeiss was delivered to the front door.(grin)

It’s close for someone to think gear head. Bless you and your tools mate. It’s your genuineness what made me note the first line of the post.

I love Nikon, I love Street, I love DPR I love Zeiss, but holy heck I love my pictures ...dont make fools of us because of that.

You realize I could say the same word by word. I will just say don’t make us look we all maybe want to save some back or that it's a first priority for some others and that it's all what drives  decisions while we just see and appreciate different. I would buy 14-24 and 24-70 manual focus. It would make zero change for me.

24-70, 14-24 and 70-200 Nikkors are lenses with special look. Very good prime lenses don’t have what these have. Some excellent primes have their own special look. You are choosing. I can be that weird kind of person that will use the 50/1.8g while having 24-70 right at hand on another camera. The 50/1.8g is not an excellent prime. It would have to have something that goes more towards wide apertures. But it can be very nice whether you see it or not. It’s very good Nikkor beyond wide open. These are brushes for me and no one can manipulate me, or influence that way, into how I perceive nuances in their look and at work with their file canvas even if 8 of 10 people shot zeiss lenses. I take great care not to be doing just that to others.

But I think you are one of these who can keep things in perspective.

Different boxes but same corners. So we can disagree in the first and agree in the second. That is important and makes all the difference.

Ant.
ɹǝpun uʍop puɐl ǝɥʇ ɯoɹɟ
http://oneant.com.au/

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow