12-06-2011, 03:51 AM
As I mentioned in Vieux loup's thread, I am considering a fast prime wide-angle lens for D700. I have the Nikon 16-35mm f4 and I am happy with it, but I feel that it is soft at f4 and sometimes I need a WA lens with a larger aperture. I said that I am considering the Zeiss 35mm f2 and 25mm f2.8 (while for Nikon prime WA lenses, the new 35mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 are both excellent but very expensive, and old WA primes AF 35mm f2, 24mm f2.8 and 20mm f2.8 are not very remarkable). Indeed I am also considering the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 but I cannot convince myself that having the 21mm f2.8 is a significant addition to my lens set since I have the 16-35mm f4, while a 35mm f2 lens will compensate it much at the 35mm end.
Sure, the 21mm f2.8 and the 16-35mm f4 are not in the same class, the 21mm lens is great in many spects and for Nikon users probably the only competition is the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8. But, for lanscape shooting where the used aperture is usually f10 and beyond (e.g. f16, f22), I wonder at such a small aperture if the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 can still give much better results than the Nikon 16-36mm f4 (setted at 21mm). According to the PZ test results on D3x, from f8 and beyond the difference in resolution betwen Zeiss 21mm f2.8 and the Nikon 16-35mm f4@21mm is indeed not that big:
![[Image: mtf.png]](http://www.opticallimits.com/images/8Reviews/lenses/zeiss_zf_21_28_ff/mtf.png)
![[Image: mtf.png]](http://www.opticallimits.com/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkorafs1635vrff/mtf.png)
So, can someone tell me for landscape shooting can the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 deliver much better results than the Nikon 16-35mm f4 at 21mm?
Yes, I understand that it may sound odd to compare theses two lenses. But I want to know if buying a Zeiss 21mm f2.8 lens just does not make much sense for me since I have the Nikon 16-35mm f4 which behaves very good at 21mm when it is not whide open.
Sure, the 21mm f2.8 and the 16-35mm f4 are not in the same class, the 21mm lens is great in many spects and for Nikon users probably the only competition is the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8. But, for lanscape shooting where the used aperture is usually f10 and beyond (e.g. f16, f22), I wonder at such a small aperture if the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 can still give much better results than the Nikon 16-36mm f4 (setted at 21mm). According to the PZ test results on D3x, from f8 and beyond the difference in resolution betwen Zeiss 21mm f2.8 and the Nikon 16-35mm f4@21mm is indeed not that big:
So, can someone tell me for landscape shooting can the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 deliver much better results than the Nikon 16-35mm f4 at 21mm?
Yes, I understand that it may sound odd to compare theses two lenses. But I want to know if buying a Zeiss 21mm f2.8 lens just does not make much sense for me since I have the Nikon 16-35mm f4 which behaves very good at 21mm when it is not whide open.