Here it is, a contraversial report to say the least. I finally got to test a 14-24 back to back with the king of wide angles on my 1DsIII and the results are somewhat unsettling if you are still championing the CZ I am afraid....
Let me know what you think, I am always keen to discuss it.
Posted by Mike Smith on December 19, 2008 at 2:22 AM
Excellent article, I hadn't actually realised just how big a lump of glass that nikon is, it needs a camera bag of its own to carry it about...... it makes my Oly 21mm F3.5 look like a humbrol paint tin by comparison
The only thing I would add is sample variation effects, presumably the Zeiss lens is about 10 years old and the Nikon new? The Zeiss lens really ought to have been serviced by Zeiss. Quite a few review sites use a best of bunch philosophy, testing many lenses and pitting the best of the bunch against each other. A service by Zeiss would ensure the lens is performing to the best of its ability.
I thought the main issue with the Zeiss lens was the moustache wave distortion across the frame which is very difficult to dial out when you have strong horizontal elements.
Finally the new "ZF" series Zeiss lens is reputedly better than than the older Distagon, although so far I haven't seen any back to back comparisons... so perhaps the lens test debate will run for a few more years yet
Posted by Elliott Neep on December 19, 2008 at 4:20 AM
Certainly makes me question my old EF16-35! Looks particularly crap in comparison! So glad I spent £1000+ on it!!!!
Posted by David Clapp on December 19, 2008 at 9:41 AM
haha, yes it starts to get very questionable doesnt it. Its not all about sharpness though, working method comes into it alot and many people would find the Nikon a pig, I love it, but it took a few weeks for it to become intuitive.
Mike wrote "Excellent article, I hadn't actually realised just how big a lump of glass that nikon is, it needs a camera bag of its own to carry it about...... it makes my Oly 21mm F3.5 look like a humbrol paint tin by comparison
Finally the new "ZF" series Zeiss lens is reputedly better than than the older Distagon, although so far I haven't seen any back to back comparisons... so perhaps the lens test debate will run for a few more years yet"
Many thanks. That made me laugh as well, the Oly 21mm f3.5 is sharper than the 17-40, but it has its own CA issues, or the single coated one that I owned did. But its was a huge increase in edge quality over the 17-40 at f8 all the way to f16. Not bad for model plane paint!
Well even if the new CZ is better and a superb performer I still cant see me using one, but for many it will be the answer they are looking for. In all this lens testing garb its important to keep a handle on the working method, which is vital to the shot more than any super sharp corner. I will still use my 17-40 when I want to use ND filters (not grads mind you, dont get me started)
Posted by Kenny Turnbull on December 19, 2008 at 2:45 PM
At what point do these debates become academic, as opposed to mattering in the real world?
I wonder if Adams ever let the fact that he was using basic coatings on his lenses get him down, or if he just made the very best use of the tools in his box on the day.
I think that sometimes we can get carried away with technical mumbo jumbo and forget the reason we are taking pics in the first place, it's fun and the only people who get hung up on gear are always going to be looking for some holy grail or other that doesn't exist.
Nature forums?
I thought I'd arrived at DP review or somewhere
Posted by David Clapp on December 19, 2008 at 8:12 PM
"I think that sometimes we can get carried away with technical mumbo jumbo and forget the reason we are taking pics in the first place, it's fun and the only people who get hung up on gear are always going to be looking for some holy grail or other that doesn't exist.
Nature forums?
I thought I'd arrived at DP review or somewhere "
Thats off the mark Kenny, many people on this forum care greatly about the gear that gets the maximum quality images and are interested. There are plenty of academic shooters who are more into the quality than the subject. Sharing findings is what forums are for. How do you know whether Adams wasnt cursing his kit and longing for something better, I am sure he would have been wanting improvements.
technical mumbo jumbo? Come on and as for saying its like DPReview thats a little crass. I shoot landscapes, I dont shoot birds, but I dont tell everyone else who owns a 500mm lens its technical mumbo jumbo, use an old lens, its all about the duck. Some people earn a living from it, for some its a lot more important than fun.
Posted by Rob Fisher on December 20, 2008 at 3:03 PM
David,
Excellent artical. Very infomative. Great work.
Rob
Posted by Elliott Neep on December 21, 2008 at 6:21 AM
Totally agree with David. If I am going to invest in equipment for the best possible result for a commercial interest, then I would want to read all possible views and follow the experimenters on their quest for perfection. My wide angles are not used for landscapes, but nature, close-up and contextual, so I need sharp corners at F/4, etc. I, for one, appreciate the effort that has gone in here.
Kenny, there's room for everyone here - from fun users to technophiles. We do try not to be another DPReview, but there is a valid place for David's comments here.
BTW, when are you going to do a creative review of a Holga or Lomo David ... anything but sharp edge to edge . They're certainly fun to use like the lensbabies, but boy are that class of kit frustrating to conquer .
Posted by David Clapp on December 22, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Never even heard of it until you mentioned it, what a crazy idea, the results look like vaseline smearing, very interesting.
Tom, you obviously havent been a good boy this year, looks like Santa has put a post-it note on your order...
Discussion
12 repliesHere it is, a contraversial report to say the least. I finally got to test a 14-24 back to back with the king of wide angles on my 1DsIII and the results are somewhat unsettling if you are still championing the CZ I am afraid....
Let me know what you think, I am always keen to discuss it.
The only thing I would add is sample variation effects, presumably the Zeiss lens is about 10 years old and the Nikon new? The Zeiss lens really ought to have been serviced by Zeiss. Quite a few review sites use a best of bunch philosophy, testing many lenses and pitting the best of the bunch against each other. A service by Zeiss would ensure the lens is performing to the best of its ability.
I thought the main issue with the Zeiss lens was the moustache wave distortion across the frame which is very difficult to dial out when you have strong horizontal elements.
Finally the new "ZF" series Zeiss lens is reputedly better than than the older Distagon, although so far I haven't seen any back to back comparisons... so perhaps the lens test debate will run for a few more years yet
Mike wrote "Excellent article, I hadn't actually realised just how big a lump of glass that nikon is, it needs a camera bag of its own to carry it about...... it makes my Oly 21mm F3.5 look like a humbrol paint tin by comparison
Finally the new "ZF" series Zeiss lens is reputedly better than than the older Distagon, although so far I haven't seen any back to back comparisons... so perhaps the lens test debate will run for a few more years yet"
Many thanks. That made me laugh as well, the Oly 21mm f3.5 is sharper than the 17-40, but it has its own CA issues, or the single coated one that I owned did. But its was a huge increase in edge quality over the 17-40 at f8 all the way to f16. Not bad for model plane paint!
Well even if the new CZ is better and a superb performer I still cant see me using one, but for many it will be the answer they are looking for. In all this lens testing garb its important to keep a handle on the working method, which is vital to the shot more than any super sharp corner. I will still use my 17-40 when I want to use ND filters (not grads mind you, dont get me started)
I wonder if Adams ever let the fact that he was using basic coatings on his lenses get him down, or if he just made the very best use of the tools in his box on the day.
I think that sometimes we can get carried away with technical mumbo jumbo and forget the reason we are taking pics in the first place, it's fun and the only people who get hung up on gear are always going to be looking for some holy grail or other that doesn't exist.
Nature forums?
I thought I'd arrived at DP review or somewhere
Nature forums?
I thought I'd arrived at DP review or somewhere "
Thats off the mark Kenny, many people on this forum care greatly about the gear that gets the maximum quality images and are interested. There are plenty of academic shooters who are more into the quality than the subject. Sharing findings is what forums are for. How do you know whether Adams wasnt cursing his kit and longing for something better, I am sure he would have been wanting improvements.
technical mumbo jumbo? Come on and as for saying its like DPReview thats a little crass. I shoot landscapes, I dont shoot birds, but I dont tell everyone else who owns a 500mm lens its technical mumbo jumbo, use an old lens, its all about the duck. Some people earn a living from it, for some its a lot more important than fun.
Excellent artical. Very infomative. Great work.
Rob
T
BTW, when are you going to do a creative review of a Holga or Lomo David
Tom, you obviously havent been a good boy this year, looks like Santa has put a post-it note on your order...
But without the vaseline