CZ 21mm f2.8 / Nikon 14-24 f2.8

Nikon 14-24 f2.8 @ f5.6 Download a hi-res jpeg file and compare the images yourself in Photoshop.

CZ 21mm f2.8 @ f5.6 Download a hi-res jpeg file and compare the images yourself in Photoshop.

Intro

The Dream Team - 1DsIII and CZ 21mm f2.8, as good as it gets?

If you have had a chance to read my last article about the Nikon 14-24 and the 16-9.net adapter, you will be correct in assuming that I am somewhat over the moon about the lens combination on the 1DsIII. Not only has it already pushed the boundaries of what I can imagine creatively with my photography, but the working method (which some doubt they will ever feel comfortable with) has become almost second nature. All this in just a few months. The honeymoon period is certainly not over, but one question has been nagging me since I bought it - would my money have been better spent on the legendary Carl Zeiss 21mm f2.8? Well here's my answer, a resounding no, which I concluded before I bought the Nikon. I would have never felt particularly comfortable spending up to £1500 on one focal length for my line of photography. 21mm just isn't wide enough when I am at the coast, where I shoot mostly wide angle imagery. It would be put back in the bag yet again, like a beautiful classic car kept in the garage. But just like you, oh boy am I curious. Does this lens wipe the floor with the 14-24? Is it a comfortable win or do they struggle for supremisy? Fortunately I didn't have to buy one to find out...

Size and Handling

At the Weigh In - Which one is your money on?

As you can see the 14-24 is a monster, overshadowing everything in the same focal length. The 'All Seeing Eye' is a much larger in comparison with an enormous front element. Teired barrels of metal rings stack wider and wider like a the floors of a period tudor house. The 21mm on the other hand is much smaller, denser and only half the weight. The large front element takes 82mm filters and is fluted, rather ugly in some peoples opinion, but intruiging in mine.

The CZ21mm has such a wondeful and precise feel about it that the Nikon sadly lacks. The focus barrel is weighted and smooth, the aperture ring clicks into the notches with confidence. All Zeiss lenses are just a joy to use and like Mark Welsh said to me once on the phone, you feel you are going to take a good photo before you have even looked throught viewfinder.

The Nikon feels like all modern wide angle zooms, like it could do with some extra dampening in the zoom and focus rings to give a more confident operation. Movement feels a little lacking in comparison. The adapter and its operation is discussed at length in my first article so I wont go into that again.

The Test

What a landscape! Perfect for the job; busy, lots of fine detail in ever area of the frame.

The biggest problem with finding a test shot for a 21mm focal length is getting a picture that contains lots of detail, edge to edge, but without a foreground. As the lenses need to be tested at all apertures, any hint of a foreground can confuse image softness in the lower half of the frame with simply being out of focus. It is this misconception that I see inaccurately reported on forums all too regularly.

Setting up the tripod as high as possible still won't combat this problem at wide apertures (f2.8 has a greatly reduced depth of field even at 21mm) so I found a view from a bridge that was just about perfect. Lots of fine detail edge to edge, no shadows and bright sunlight.

The tripod I use is the heaviest and most robust Gitzo there is. This ensures all the kit I use from wide angle to super telephoto is perfectly stable and produces the sharpest of shots. Don't compromise the tripod ever!

The next consideration is how the lenses are to be reviewed. Over on 16-9.net, Mark Welsh's lens testing hot house, he uses a Zone system. This is not like the Ansel Adams zone system in the slightest, but a method of splitting the results into image areas. You can read more about this over on 16-9.net on the 'Zones and Image Circles' page but for now examine the diagram below and just go with me here -

Zones A, B and C are concentric circles expanding from the centre of the image

The lenses are going to be examined in areas A, B and C. In case you are unaware, most lenses can resolve great detail in the centre of the image with the aperture set wide open, but as the magnifying glass is cast towards the edges of the frame, problems begin to occur.

Wide angles are notorius for losing sharpness in Zone C in particular and it is this area that really sets super-wide angle lenses apart. Landscape photographers are meticulous about edge to edge sharpness. Having a lens that requires f16 before this criteria is achieved can be terribly limiting and it is for this reason alone that many photographers (like myself) will hunt high and low for alternatives not matter what the working method.

Equipment and Use

Here's a list of camera and computer equipment and how I set it up for the test, so you can perform tests on your own equipment -

With modern high pixel SLRs like the 1DsIII, 5DII and the Nikon D3x on the market, there has never been a greater need for super high quality glass. Testing the lenses methodically with a rock solid tripod is utterly vital. The slightest of camera shake at these resolutions can translate into a flawed image and a flawed test.

Mirror lock up is switched on without question, a cable release rather than a 2sec timer will ensure the tripod and camera are free from any vibration. The lowest ISO without in-camera interpolation (like ISO50) is necessary for maximum detail, necessary for 100% examination.

Both lenses were set to infinity and checked using Live View.

I chose a day with unbroken blue skies, simply to avoid fluctuations in light levels, setting the camera to a Daytime white balance to keep each image consistant with the rest.

The Results are In - you are going to be surprised if you champion the Zeiss 21mm, as there is a new contender for the title.

Be prepared to be slightly miffed if you own the Zeiss 21mm and still think it was a lens created by 'God' himself. You're in for a surprise to say the least, because the devil now works for Nikon! Despite holding its own for many years the lens, despite still being utterly impeccable, it now has an immediate rival. Below are 100% crops at corresponding apertures for you to examine.

BUT, before we get started have a look at the distortion and colour characteristcs by comparing the two lenses using the rollover. The Zeiss has me reaching for my jumper, despite the same white balance, almost too blue in my opinion. I think this is not a very accurate example to play with as I did my best to line up images and ensure the Nikon was set at exactly 21mm, but the main thing is to explore the differences in distortion. Just watch the railing as you toggle backwards and forwards, also note the vignetting that the Zeiss exhibits....contraversial.... Onwards!

The characteristic Zeiss distortion is rather apparent here.

Zone A. - The Zeiss is a hands down winner, just look at the centre resolution and detail.

Zone B. - Again the Zeiss is just excellent in this zone, the detail in the mesh railing is flagging on the 14-24.

Zone C - Not as bad as I had thought it would be, both lenses resolve a great amount of detail in the extreme edge, considering the 14-24's performance in A and B, I thought C would be much worst, but there is good detail here.

f4 - This is an incredible result, both lenses are literally identical but the Nikon exhibits less vignetting.

Zone A - Wow, the 14-24 has just made an impeccable increase, both lenses are literally indestinguishable at this aperture..

Zone B - Both lenses are performing beautifully here, I almost want to give it to the 14-24 but there is literally nothing in it.

Zone C - The Zeiss pulls a fraction more detail in the extreme corner, but still vignettes significantly, whereas the Nikon seems much more balanced. Outstanding.

f5.6 - I had heard that the Nikons peak was at the wider end, but just look at these amazing results. It has the lead over the Zeiss at this aperture.

Zone A. - I would almost say the 14-24 has reached a definate gold here, there is more contrast and maybe a touch more edge sharpness, but both lenses are exceptional in this zone. Fabulous.

Zone B - The 14-24 has got the lead in contrast, I would also conclude that the Nikon is just sharper too. This was rather unexpected.

Zone C - The 14-24 is pulling incredible definition for a zoom in Zone C, this is completely unexpected and I have to hand it to the 14-24 which appears marginally sharper and full of contrast.

f8 - Its almost the same story as f5.6, both lenses perform incredibly well at f8 right across the frame but I prefer the Nikon again at this aperture. Amazing sharpness and less vignetting at the edges.

Zone A - Both lenses are super sharp but I still want to give it to the Nikon by a hair, which again has slightly more contrast.

Zone B - Both lenses are performing extremely well at this aperture, if it wasn't for the cool tones that the Zeiss exhibits, I wouldnt know which was which.

Zone C - Supersharp in Zone C, both lenses are excellent in the extreme corner, who would have thought the Contax would have such an immediate rival.

f11 - Its sad to say that it is at this aperture that I would consider using my 17-40. Both lenses are unquestionably better. Again the only way I can tell them both apart is from the cooler Zeiss tones.

Zone AJust amazing, I want to give it to the Nikon yet again, but there is nothing in it except a tad more contrast.

Zone B - I feel like I am repeating myself! The Nikon is so good for a super wide zoom.

Zone C- Spectaular edge sharpness at this aperture from both lenses. Nothing in it whatsoever.

f16 - Now the party is ending for both lenses, f16 marks the arrival of lens diffraction. The centre and the edges are beginning to suffer but this is a punishing test, not an example of real world shooting.

Zone A - Although the sharpness is now dropping both seem as though they are dropping equally, but I still want to give it to the Nikon

Zone B - I still feel the results are indistinguishable and both are still resolving a wonderful amount of detail.

Zone C - Corner sharpness is still looking extremely good on both lenses.

f22 - Diffraction has really kicked in now, but neither lens is showing a remarked advantage over the other.

Zone A - f22 begins to show a distinct loss in sharpness, but both are dimishing equally.

Zone B - Same again, an almost identical result in image sharpness and contrast.

Zone C - and again....

Conclusions -

Stunned.
Well I am surprised to say the least, elated and overjoyed all in one. The Carl Zeiss 21mm 2.8 was a dream lens that I had speculated was the holy grail of all wide angles, but I am very glad I didn't buy one, especially now. The Nikon is an exemplary performer in the 21mm focal length, if not an gnats hair sharper when comparing the two, which is a total surprise to say the least. Mark Welsh's orignial comparison of the CZ21mm and the 14-24 showed a distinctive difference, that the Zeiss was still top of the tree, but all I can say from examining my test carefully is that this is not the case with my own 14-24 f2.8 and the loaned CZ21mm (thanks Matt, I owe you big time!)

Sharpness and Contrast Winners Table

Overall the Nikons weakest aperture is f2.8 where the Zeiss is exceptionally sharp. Working through the apertures, the Nikon just takes the lead but both are stunning performers. The 14-24 also exhibits a marginal lead in contrast, as well as a giving a warmer look to the images, which seems more balanced than the almost colder look of the Zeiss. As expected, the lenses both begin to suffer from diffraction at f16, but the loss of sharpness does not make either unusable in the slightest.

Some Further Thoughts and Test Considerations

After buying the 1DsIII, all manner of imperfections became noticeable with the L series wide angle lenses which I had been happy with on my 5D. The worst perfomers were the Canon 24-105 f4L and then the 17-40f4L. The results are very poor shooting then lenses wide open in anything other than Zone A, but it was the lacklustre sharpness in Zone C up to f16 that is the biggest let down. The Canon's suffer from diffraction all over the frame at this aperture, so it leaves you feeling a little cheated; that there is no single aperture that can unveils the true capabilities of the 1DsIII sensor. That's why the search began when I bought the 1DsIII and why lenses of this quality should be something you also consider, especially if a purchase of a 21mp camera is on the cards. The 24-105 and 17-40 stay at home since I replaced their focal lengths with the Nikon G14-24, CZ 28mm f2 and the CZ35-70, a dream team if ever there was one.

I wonder how many photographers who say "my Canon lenses are fine" have ever unleashed the sensors potential? It's a fair question.

Summing Up
Buying the Nikon for use on a full frame 21mp digital body is an exceptionally good idea. There is no other wide angle in the 21mm range that can deliver the impecable standards except the Carl Zeiss 21mm and the Nikon 14-24. Both are superb lenses that I would be happy to own, but it is the additional focal lengths and the cheaper cost that keep me waving the Nikon flag more vigorously than ever. It's a truly stunning lens with such an incredible array of performance capabilities, I cannot hesitate in recommending it to everyone I meet.

Anyway email me with any comments, I am always pleased to receive them.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email this

Hits: 4867

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

ZÖRK ADAPTÉR G-NIKKOR for CANON EOS

Hi David,

I have seen your tests about Nikon 12-24 vs Zeiss 21.
Interesting, thank you!
I don't like the crom. aberrations at all and also this Nikon have a lot of it near the corners. Zeiss instead here is perfect!
The question is: do the overall sharpness of this Nikon remain so high after correction in Lightroom or in other converters?

Last, please tell me were have you bought the ZÖRK ADAPTÉR G-NIKKOR, because I don't find it in the English or German sites.

Claudio Costerni , 25, Nov, 2009 | url

• 
• +1
• 
• 

Canon 17 TS-E

Hi!
Thanks for his interesting article. It would be really interesting to compare the Nikon lens with the new Canon 17 TS-E lens. What I have seen this lens is absolutely stunning, especially when it comes to CA (there are no!)

Too bad this lens also has a spherical front lens. This means I can´t use ND filters for longer shutter speeds or ND grads.
Yes for the ND grads I could shoot two exposures, but many photo contests will not accept multiple exposures.

So a 17 TS-E test would be great!

Merry Christmas!

/Stefan

Stefan Isaksson , 23, Dec, 2009 | url

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Write comment

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment Preview