12-24 vs 18-35 n2

Now, do you remember what Bjørn Rørslett wrote in his website about the 12-24? "No Nikkor 24 mm prime lens gives this kind of quality images", period. Well I tested the 12-24 @ 24 mm and f/9 and compared the results with the same amateur zoom, set at the same focal length and aperture. The first image below shows my bookshelf photographed with the 12-24 at 24 mm; two crops are also highlighted. The lens was (AF) focused using the central AF sensor of my D100, as shown in the other image, the one taken using the 18-35.

AF-S DX Nikkor ED 12-24/4 G mm @ 24 mm f/9.

The two cropped areas used to compare the results are shown.

AF Nikkor ED 18-35 mm @ 24 mm f/9.

The images were focused using the central AF sensor.

Again, the lower distorsion of the 12-24 lens was quite evident, although a slight pincushion distorsion is visible. What about sharpness? I decided to show the sharpness in the out of focus areas (100 % crops in the first image taken at 24 mm). Why? because a sharper lens has more depth of field (DOF) and wideangle lenses/zooms are also used for their DOF, namely in landscape photography, right?

Both crops show areas that did not lay on the focus plane. The crops are in front of (crop #1) and behind (crop #2) the focus plane. And in both cases the pictures taken with the amateur 18-35 zoom were crisper. For sure my 18-35 has a better "practical" performance than that of the 12-24 at 24 mm. "Practical" performance to me means real shooting conditions, with three-dimension subjects (and not just brick walls), using the same AF system of the same AF DSLR camera (my D100). Also the aperture I selected (f/9) is the aperture I mostly use when shooting landscapes (with wideangles I rarely use apertures closer than f/11, to avoid loss of sharpness due to diffraction).

Now, I never used a 24 mm prime lens. However, I should conclude that either my 12-24 is a lemon or my 18-35 behaves better than a Nikkor 24 mm prime lens!

Therefore, my first set of test shots showed that the 18-35 amateur zoom is a sligthly better performer than the 12-24 DX. I would have preferred an opposite behaviour of the two lenses ...

The quality gap between the two lenses increases at full aperture, where the 18-35 confirms its high quality: