Nikon 24mm f/1.4G vs. Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon 16-35mm f/4G

Started Sep 4, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP Kyle Pozan Junior Member • Posts: 30
Re: Nikon 24mm f/1.4G vs. Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 vs. Nikon 16-35mm f/4G

Paul Richman wrote:

2. I considered the 14-24mm when I purchased the 16-35mm, but I chose the 16-35mm for a number of reasons: a more useful range (and VR for nighttime street photography), the ability to use standard filters and it's a sharper lens (hard to believe, but see for yourself: ). The 14-24mm is very soft in the corners.

Interesting. Photozone gives good graphs of the 14-24 performance, and tends to confirm some corner softness. I shoot mainly at f5.6 - f8, so it's not much of a problem for me.

What concerns me about the Zeiss 21mm is the mustache distortion, which can spell trouble for architecture photography, and its lack of AF for street photography. Although I started this process leaning toward the Zeiss 21mm, I am now leaning toward the Nikon 24mm.

The mustache distortion is definitely there and hard to fix. I think you'd be better off with the Nikon 24.
Paul Richman
Pixels By Paul

I wasn't trying to detract from the greatness of the 14-24mm, but at $1,200.00, the 16-35mm was a steal based on it's sharpness and focal length for what I wanted to use it for. The one advantage the 14-24mm has over the 16-35mm is distortion.

 Kyle Pozan's gear list:Kyle Pozan's gear list
Nikon D800 Sony Alpha 7R Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/21 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow