Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next PZ lens test report: Nikon AF-S 24mm f/1.4 G ED (DX)
#11
Hm <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> Got time for a re-test when the K-5 is out? I could ship my lens.
#12
[quote name='Alexander ' timestamp='1289239402' post='4053']

Hm <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> Got time for a re-test when the K-5 is out? I could ship my lens.

[/quote]



Show me where to buy the K5/18-135mm Kit (in Germany) and I will go for it.
#13
I have no idea :/ <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />



Waiting for my K-5 still.
#14
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1289206475' post='4040']

Thanks for review Markus...



Ok, it's a real killer lens with it's speed and sharpness (and very sharp at f/4.0). But, there are still suberp 14-24mm and 17-35mm options on the market with almost 1000$ less price... So I think the rate regarding the "price/performance" is the key here.



Kind regards,



Serkan

[/quote]





Yes - my personal choice would be the 14-24 f/2.8. You have to really need (or want) that big aperture. The zoom gives more bangs per buck. But it's clearly a personal thing.
#15
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1289229519' post='4049']

Well, I guess they are rather close in the field.



While we're talking about "in the field": had some fun with this lens at the 40th anniversary of a local aero club. All shots on FX, though. And on some I even managed to stop down <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />

[/quote]



Argh! Thanks for ruining my bank account once more! I think the wide-angle-shallow-DoF look of that 24/1.4 is quite stunning.
#16
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1289319377' post='4065']

Argh! Thanks for ruining my bank account once more! I think the wide-angle-shallow-DoF look of that 24/1.4 is quite stunning.

[/quote]



Sorry, Basil <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />



I must admit, I'm feeling very similar. Even though I'm a fast glass junkie, I wasn't really sure what to use an ultra-fast wide-angle lens for. Now that I have used it, I'm absolutely in love with this combination.



I will review this lens on the D7000, too, and right after that it will have to find a new home. I'm not really looking forward to letting it go ...



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#17
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1289319377' post='4065']

I think the wide-angle-shallow-DoF look of that 24/1.4 is quite stunning.

[/quote]

Where have you been all this time! The same has been around for 35 years ;D



http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camer...c_asf.html
#18
[quote name='allanmb' timestamp='1289227885' post='4048']

Actually its not as bad as I thought it would be.

[/quote]

People are quite quick to misunderstand the purpose of ultra fast lenses. We never shoot IQ critical shots (e.g. landscapes) at f/1.4 or even at f/2.8. With fast apertures, it makes sense only to shoot near by subjects for shallow DOF. The differences in the resolution/blur between the in-focus and out of focus areas is so high that we perceive even very soft lenses as being very sharp. Also the spatial area of the image that is actually in focus is very tiny, making edge-to-edge resolution figures almost insignificant. It's only if you keep the two shots side by side you'll notice differences. Even then, it's not fair because shots with more DOF always look sharper because of that increased area that's in focus.





[quote name='allanmb' timestamp='1289227885' post='4048']

In fact it seems to hold better than the canon 24LII on FF?

[/quote]

This should answer your question better:



[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4698284415"]Canon 24mm f/1.4L II vs. Nikon 24mm f/1.4G - Both on a 5D Mark II at f/1.4[/url]

[Image: 4698284415_53ecb51f01_d.jpg]



More recently, I even compared the two lenses stopped down. It's extremely difficult to do this but I managed to roughly estimate the f-number at which [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_%28optics%29"]coma[/url] becomes negligible for both lenses. Again it's fairly close for both and it tends to happen around f/3.2-f/3.5. One thing I did notice is the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration"]CA[/url] in the 24 1.4G was higher than on the Canon at these apertures.



Long story short: if you want better sharpness, go for the Canon (I have to disagree with photozone's measurements, as I have visually demonstrated). If you want better bokeh, go for the Nikon.



GTW
#19
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1289359089' post='4074']

Where have you been all this time! The same has been around for 35 years ;D

[/quote]



Hadn't seen too many shots like these, to be honest. And for some part of those 35 years, I wasn't even alive, ya know...
#20
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1289360415' post='4075']

People are quite quick to misunderstand the purpose of ultra fast lenses. We never shoot IQ critical shots (e.g. landscapes) at f/1.4 or even at f/2.8. With fast apertures, it makes sense only to shoot near by subjects for shallow DOF. The differences in the resolution/blur between the in-focus and out of focus areas is so high that we perceive even very soft lenses as being very sharp. Also the spatial area of the image that is actually in focus is very tiny, making edge-to-edge resolution figures almost insignificant. It's only if you keep the two shots side by side you'll notice differences. Even then, it's not fair because shots with more DOF always look sharper because of that increased area that's in focus.

[/quote]



Agreed... with some reservations: Concerning the landscape shots, 14-24mm shows better sharpness than this one between f/8 - 11 and it is much more affordable with a decent zoom range. So I think beyond f/4 choosing this prime lens over 14-24mm (or 17-35mm) for landscape photography doesn't seem to be reasonable. OTOH, background blur and softness on the edges are mostly distinguishable -and not only for this lens- (check the second image Markus posted).



All in all, it is really a tempting beauty... I don't want to be misunderstood, it's a state of art in it's kind. Has a very beautiful bokeh for a wide angle lens and excellent center resolution @f/4. But I have difficulties in putting it into a class of lens usage where I can say "ok it fits here properly". The field samples Markus posted were giving a clue, but guys, it costs more than 2.000$...



Kind regards,



Serkan
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)