Nikon 16-35 f/4 or Zeiss 18/3.5?

Digifrog

Digifrog

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,069
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
No
Hi

Can't seem to make my mind up. Even going over the DPreview Lockheed thing I'm still undecided. I know it's going to be a close run thing and it could even possibly be a tie. Anyone here any wiser?

Lens to be fitted to the D800.

Ta ;)
 
Last edited:
I would agree with Gary. I do know someone on here that wont though. ;)

Kev.
 
If you want a Zeiss UWA then 21mm should be first choice, 18mm has few issues such as slightly worse resolution figures, extreme amount of vignetting at f3.5 and complex barrel distortion compared to 21mm.

Unless you are getting 18mm for very good price, I would look at 21mm..;)
 
raj_kemp said:
If you want a Zeiss UWA then 21mm should be first choice, 18mm has few issues such as slightly worse resolution figures, extreme amount of vignetting at f3.5 and complex barrel distortion compared to 21mm.

Unless you are getting 18mm for very good price, I would look at 21mm..;)
Click to expand...

I just bought the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 so getting the 21 wouldn't make sense much. I wouldn't mind the 21 but I dont want to pay £1500 for the sake of nice quality (if there is any noticeable difference) and extra 3 or so mm. To be honest the 21 is nice, but isn't wide enough.

I'm looking at either the 16-35 or 18/3.5. I have been reading that the Nikon wide zoom is excellent but I'm unsure about what the differences are (if any) between this and the Zeiss. I'm thinking it's quite possibly a tie but I would like to know what areas each is strong/weak in.

If I had the money I would have bought the Zeiss 21, 35 & 50 instead of the Nikon 24-70 but I think the 24-70 pays off quite well for a third of the price.

I never shoot wide open, being a landscape photographer I always shoot f/8-f/10.

It's a bit of a headache tbh :bang: :thinking:
 
Last edited:
Can't really see the point of a 16-35 if you've got a 24-70 ... too much overlap, much better to get the 14-24, although its price tag may discourage you. If you do end up going for the 16-35 then make sure you check it for sharpness before you buy it.
 
ecniv said:
Didn't tokina make a 16mm zoom for full frame...

No idea on the other lenses (sorry) you've mentioned.
Click to expand...

16-28mm is optically brilliant, but again no filters. For nikon you may aswell go for 14-24 in that case.

16-35 vs 18 - check photozone.de and pixelpeeper. D800 will magnify the drawbacks even further.

But I am sure that 24-70 will keep you happy.
 
gramps said:
Can't really see the point of a 16-35 if you've got a 24-70 ... too much overlap, much better to get the 14-24, although its price tag may discourage you. If you do end up going for the 16-35 then make sure you check it for sharpness before you buy it.
Click to expand...

Is the 16-35 f4 noted for having sharpness issues Gramps?
 
SteveF said:
Is the 16-35 f4 noted for having sharpness issues Gramps?
Click to expand...

It is with me Steve, I had to take 2 back and settled on the 14-24 in the end - there have been a number of reports about bad copies (is that why there are so few about?) but similarly many are delighted with it.
 
gramps said:
Can't really see the point of a 16-35 if you've got a 24-70 ... too much overlap, much better to get the 14-24, although its price tag may discourage you. If you do end up going for the 16-35 then make sure you check it for sharpness before you buy it.
Click to expand...

Thanks :)

I don't think it's too much overlap tbh. The 16-35 is excellent at 16-30 and weaker therafter and the 24-70 is excellent at 28-70 (weaker at the wider end), so imo it overlaps quite nicely.

The 14-24 doesn't appeal to me regardless of its price for several reasons really.
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
16-28mm is optically brilliant, but again no filters. For nikon you may aswell go for 14-24 in that case.

16-35 vs 18 - check photozone.de and pixelpeeper. D800 will magnify the drawbacks even further.

But I am sure that 24-70 will keep you happy.
Click to expand...

Hi Tomas

Yes, I'm only considering these 2 lenses, no others. I'm going to do some more checking around. The 24-70 will keep me happy for a lot of things I reckon but I do love the 16mm end, I was addicted to the 10-20 on cropped.
 
Digifrog said:
Hi Tomas

Yes, I'm only considering these 2 lenses, no others. I'm going to do some more checking around. The 24-70 will keep me happy for a lot of things I reckon but I do love the 16mm end, I was addicted to the 10-20 on cropped.
Click to expand...

I would suggest trying out the actual lenses now. As was mentioned there are loads of bad copies around (centering defects, etc), and it isn't helped by the fact sensor alignment might be slightly off too. At least both have good resale value, so you won't lose much by trying either of them.
 
A good idea. I think I'm swaying towards the Zeiss again but only just. I was given this info via someone who had to make the same choice a while ago. He subsequently went for the Zeiss. It reads...

"During the lifetime the reproducibility of focusing becomes worse. The effect is, sometimes one side (near the frame) of the picture becomes unsharp. I consider the cause are mechanical tolerances. This is very small for wide angle lenses on the sensor chip. I know this from my large format camera years. The problem is the lens goups should place the reproducable parallel on each focusing movement. This Nikon zoom is one of the most complex lenses with the largest number of lens groups, this add up the tolerances. A further point is the autofocus it is an accelerator of wear. I did a comparson test between the Zeiss and Nikon lens in the field. Two pictures from the nikon shows not so sharp on one side as the rest for the frame, this confirms my apprehension. Maybe the nikon lens have a better image quality performance when it is new, but I fear this changes with the lifetime."

...Now I don't know anything about gradual decline of sharpness due to wear or mechanical intolerances. If someone would clarify it would be appreciated.
 
I had nikon 24-70 and was never happy with landscapes taken at 24-28mm.
Added to problems at 24mm, this above explanation makes perfect sense to me as why I sold the zoom. I'm not addicted to wide angles and 25mm Zeiss suits me very well.

Actually there is huge difference in field of view at wide end between 21mm and 24mm and of course between 18mm and 21mm.

7119009081_bd610f4160_b.jpg
[/url]
mm-2.php4 - 2012-04-04 at 13-09-47 by raj_kemp, on Flickr[/IMG]

If I were to look for the perfect ultra wide prime, sharp corner to corner for D800, it will be Zeiss 21mm.
If you do not want to spend £1500, only then Zeiss 18mm becomes a viable option and is not cheaper than £1000.

Again, all the reviews of both 18mm and 21mm are on lesser resolution sensors and will be difficult to find any on D800. May be you can request on FM forums or test lenses yourself:bonk:
 
I always wanted to read his Zeiss Guide but couldn't afford to pay 50$:bang:

So "diglloyd" does not favour 18mm for D800, for that sake even 35mm f2 for high CA, but does CA improve when stopped down:shrug:
 
raj_kemp said:
So "diglloyd" does not favour 18mm for D800, for that sake even 35mm f2 for high CA, but does CA improve when stopped down:shrug:
Click to expand...

To be fair he is being hypercritical, even the excellent 21 shows some apparent weaknesses on this sensor. The 18 seems to fair better than the 35 and I can correct CA and corner colour cast without a problem. Saying that, I don't know what "field curvature" is.
 
Digifrog said:
...Now I don't know anything about gradual decline of sharpness due to wear or mechanical intolerances. If someone would clarify it would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Heavy and complex lenses can slowly wear out the plastic collars, etc and become misaligned. More likely, many come bad right out of factory due to some very generous tolerance levels. I had seen more than enough of unacceptable L glass. I'd say you just have to be v. careful and selective choosing your copy.

Digifrog said:
Yes, I'll be avoiding the first 4mm
Click to expand...

Test it out first before making judgement. MTF curves are rather good at 24mm and it should outperform 16-35. The problem may be with 'bad' or worn out copies. At 24mm it is fully extended and any barrel wobble would kill the shot. My Canon just got sort for the same exact fault. It works a treat at 24mm (not at 2.8 of course :lol: f/8-11 is what you'd use for landscape)
 
Digifrog said:
Hi

Can't seem to make my mind up. Even going over the DPreview Lockheed thing I'm still undecided. I know it's going to be a close run thing and it could even possibly be a tie. Anyone here any wiser?

Lens to be fitted to the D800.

Ta ;)
Click to expand...

What about the 17-35?- an awesome lens. Ok, it doesn't have VR but it makes up for it by being great- and it goes to f2.8:D

I would not overlook it in favour of the 16-35. Having used both (owning the 17-35) I prefer the 17-35 but I accept much depends on what and how you shoot.
 
raj_kemp said:
I always wanted to read his Zeiss Guide but couldn't afford to pay 50$:bang:

So "diglloyd" does not favour 18mm for D800, for that sake even 35mm f2 for high CA, but does CA improve when stopped down:shrug:
Click to expand...

I'm subscribed to his Leica and Zeiss Guides, worth the money for me anyway when these lenses can cost a few thousand. If it was me I'd go with a 14-24mm or a Zeiss 21mm. If I was very flush I'd get the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8. The micro contrast of the Zeiss lenses are just lovely.
 
daugirdas said:
Heavy and complex lenses can slowly wear out the plastic collars, etc and become misaligned. More likely, many come bad right out of factory due to some very generous tolerance levels. I had seen more than enough of unacceptable L glass. I'd say you just have to be v. careful and selective choosing your copy.



Test it out first before making judgement. MTF curves are rather good at 24mm and it should outperform 16-35. The problem may be with 'bad' or worn out copies. At 24mm it is fully extended and any barrel wobble would kill the shot. My Canon just got sort for the same exact fault. It works a treat at 24mm (not at 2.8 of course :lol: f/8-11 is what you'd use for landscape)
Click to expand...

I've already bought the 24-70. I haven't tested it yet for any intolerances. I'm hoping it's a good copy but I'll have a test today (I still have 9 days to take it back for a refund/exchange).

So I'm assuming, any mechanical intolerance will be more easily noticeable on a ultra wide lens like the 16-35 than it would on thee 24-70? I mean on average how long does it actually take for a lens like the 24-70 to develop enough wear before the image begins to suffer?

If I could afford I'd take the 24-70 back and exchange it for the Zeiss 21, Zeiss 50 & Zeiss 100 & pay the extra £2.5K, but I can't afford it or justify it.
 
Last edited:
Digifrog said:
I've already bought the 24-70. I haven't tested it yet for any intolerances. I'm hoping it's a good copy but I'll have a test today (I still have 9 days to take it back for a refund/exchange).

So I'm assuming, any mechanical intolerance will be more easily noticeable on a ultra wide lens like the 16-35 than it would on thee 24-70? I mean on average how long does it actually take for a lens like the 24-70 to develop enough wear before the image begins to suffer?

That's very difficult to say. I have seen a very bad 135mm f/2L, etc. Canon 24-70 is probably the most extreme example, and it may take 2+ years to get there, and costs £130 to to fix. Having no experience with 16-35, I'd say that if you get a good one, and treat it well you should be OK. However don't expect perfect corners at any aperture (same with 17-40)

If I could afford I'd take the 24-70 back and exchange it for the Zeiss 21, Zeiss 50 & Zeiss 100 & pay the extra £2.5K, but I can't afford it or justify it.
Click to expand...

Zeiss (Cosina) 50 is not very good, unless you mean an old contax version or similar (and they are a lot cheaper). The new Nikon 50/1.8G is a marvel of a lens at a fraction of cost if you fancy. 100 is a macro lens (only 1:2 at that), and from my experience macro lenses are definitely best at macro or close range portraits. No AF at those apertures is no fun though.
 
Here is my two cents:

I see that you are a landscape shooter from your sig. I do landscapes quite often too. My choice will be the 16-35mm for the following reasons:
a) While shooting landscapes VR doesnt matter due to a tripod. While stopped to f8 both lens has negligible differences (to me anyway)
b) Essentially to me f3.5 and f4 is the same aperture. 16-35mm has the benefit of VRII to use when there is low light (in churches etc, when tripod is not a possibility). The Zeiss may be marginally sharper at f3.5 on a tripod, but the 16-35mm shines when you don't have access to one. Additionally, if you have a tripod what are the chances you shoot at f3.5 and need that marginal increase in sharpness?
c) Auto-focus for obvious benefits.
d) My filters are all 77mm. It is the lens thread size that fits most professional lenses, and is a reasonable size to get filters in.
 
specialman said:
Sigma 15-30mm..... brilliant piece of kit for little money. Built for FX
Click to expand...

no offense but I don't think the OP has any money concerns considering the kit he's looking at

the sigma 15-30 is good for it's price, but it's no Zeiss prime, I had one and it was pretty bad in the corners, even the canon 17-40 beats it and that lens is known for having awful corners.
Eventually had to get rid of it as it was just ruining my shots
I may have had a poor copy though

just bought a samyang 14mm, fantastic lens, wicked sharp edge to edge
 
True the Sigma 15-30 is no Zeiss but it is a good contender for a short-range zoom, copy I had was quite fun to use.
 
daugirdas said:
Zeiss (Cosina) 50 is not very good, unless you mean an old contax version or similar (and they are a lot cheaper). The new Nikon 50/1.8G is a marvel of a lens at a fraction of cost if you fancy. 100 is a macro lens (only 1:2 at that), and from my experience macro lenses are definitely best at macro or close range portraits. No AF at those apertures is no fun though.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that?
 
mrjames said:
no offense but I don't think the OP has any money concerns considering the kit he's looking at
Click to expand...

Umm... I would like to point out that I'm not a wealthy person, it's taken several years to save for the D800 & 2 lenses :sulk:

This why I need to get it right first time and is why I'm not considering any other lens, and definitely not Sigma.
 
Last edited:
demonicangelz said:
Here is my two cents:

I see that you are a landscape shooter from your sig. I do landscapes quite often too. My choice will be the 16-35mm for the following reasons:
a) While shooting landscapes VR doesnt matter due to a tripod. While stopped to f8 both lens has negligible differences (to me anyway)
b) Essentially to me f3.5 and f4 is the same aperture. 16-35mm has the benefit of VRII to use when there is low light (in churches etc, when tripod is not a possibility). The Zeiss may be marginally sharper at f3.5 on a tripod, but the 16-35mm shines when you don't have access to one. Additionally, if you have a tripod what are the chances you shoot at f3.5 and need that marginal increase in sharpness?
c) Auto-focus for obvious benefits.
d) My filters are all 77mm. It is the lens thread size that fits most professional lenses, and is a reasonable size to get filters in.
Click to expand...

Ah, but what is putting me off the 16-35 is mechanical wear & heavy distortion. To address your points...

a) VR doesn't matter to me, I always shoot on legs.
b) Same as a) really.
c) Auto focus is helpful, but manual focus is not difficult on the 18. Some say put it in f/8 set to hyperfocal and 95% of the image will be sharp. One can still use the focus indicator in the viewfinder.
d) I've mostly moved away from screw in filters. The only screw in filters I use steadily is the B+W ND110. With an addition of the Lee Big Stopper in the future the only thing that will be screwed on to the lens will be a Lee adaptor ring (82mm in this case). If I decide on a polarizer then the Kaesmann 105 will fit onto the front of the Lee filter holder.
 
mrjames said:
no offense...../CUT/...
Click to expand...

No offence taken but as the OP points out, he's not Rockafella. Mind you, he also points out that a sigma isn't on his list so I'll shut up and just get on with work....

(BTW, I think you had a bad copy :thumbs:)
 
Last edited:
" Well that tiny screw stops the lens from turning past where it should. It's missing on mine, hence why it got stuck onto the body and destroyed my camera. The lens contacts touched the wrong corresponding ones on the camera and fried both the lens and camera
The Nikon guy rang me and asked what lens it was that got stuck on my body. As soon as I said 16-35' he went, "oh"

That's the only lens with this design and the only one according to them that can get stuck on. As such, I'm posting the lens to them and they are repairing both the camera and lens for free if it turns out this is the issue, which seems likely that it is. Before he had this info he was blaming me for misuse and I was liable for any costs.

Which is handy, as I'd just before boxed the lens up to go to fixation to repair the bent aperture lever I discovered yesterday."

From this thread

This is the first I have heard apart from color cast/shift issues...
 
daugirdas said:
16-28mm is optically brilliant, but again no filters. For nikon you may aswell go for 14-24 in that case.
Click to expand...

Was looking into the Tokina and I'm sure I read that it's optically better than the Nikon lenses? Will need to dig out the article.

Was chatting with a mate who said the Nikon 14-24mm is amazingly sharp but suffers quite bad distortion along the upper and lower sections, would anyone be able to confirm this?
 
gman said:
Was looking into the Tokina and I'm sure I read that it's optically better than the Nikon lenses? Will need to dig out the article.

Was chatting with a mate who said the Nikon 14-24mm is amazingly sharp but suffers quite bad distortion along the upper and lower sections, would anyone be able to confirm this?
Click to expand...

Maybe, but the main point is Nikon is 14mm, tokina 'only' 16mm, and Nikon may possibly hold the value better for longer. I get the impression that Tokina was aimed for Canon shooters (wedding, PJ, astro)
 
The value part is a good point, I've been looking at the two Nikon fast wide angle zooms and also the Tokina and can't decide. I've been put off the 14-24mm but the Nikon 17-35mm 2.8 is calling strong, however, I can't ignore the fact that although Nikon may hold their prices, the Tokina is over £800 cheaper and also has it's own internal fast focusing motor (unusual for Tokina I believe)
 
I was shooting the 16-35mm today on a D800, 16mm is bad. Distortion at both 16/17 and 30-35mm is very poor with softish corners.

I'm going for the Zeiss 21mm ZF.2 or may stretch to the Nikon 24mm f/1.4
 
sophos9 said:
I was shooting the 16-35mm today on a D800, 16mm is bad. Distortion at both 16/17 and 30-35mm is very poor with softish corners.

I'm going for the Zeiss 21mm ZF.2 or may stretch to the Nikon 24mm f/1.4
Click to expand...

I think you can get away with using the 16-35 for landscape/seascapes but if you are shooting a lot of lines (interior/exterior architecture) then it may not do.

The Zeiss 21 is immaculate but for me not quite wide enough. I'm looking at the Zeiss 15 but just waiting now to see if the price drops over the next 12 months or so and to see if Lee will develop some kind of filter system for it. In the meantime the Zeiss 18/2,8 will have to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top