DxOMark test results for the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 lens are out

Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f2.8G ED lens DxOMark test
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f2.8G ED VS Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8D IF-ED

DxOMark published their test results for the Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED lens ($1,996.95) which was not part of their previous selection for best wide angle lenses for the Nikon D800 camera. They have now updated their findings and of course the 14-24mm lens is the top performer:

DxOMark wide angle test

DxOMark also published the test score for the Carl Zeiss Distagon T 25mm f/2 ZF.2 lens ($1,699):

DxOMark test score for Carl Zeiss Distagon T 25mm f2 ZF.2 lens

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Mark Scherz

    That’s more like it!

    • +1

      Now the true winner is known. I’m waiting for the 70-200 f2.8 VRII and that Canon rematch. 😉

  • No longer Pablo Ricasso

    They should have waited for another five years so as not to appear as if they gave in to the crybabies.

    • David K.

      Amen … and what happened to all the crybaby conspiracy theories? Still, even the Nikkor 14-24 doesn’t touch the best primes.

      • The 14-24 doesn’t match the wide primes, but those are 24mm and longer. If you want a fair comparison, you have to compare to primes with a similar focal length, which are their ultrawide group. The 14-24 comes out ahead of any prime with a focal length shorter than 24mm, including Zeiss primes that are in the same price range.

        • I can’t agree,It is centrally very sharp but I have the 14-24 nikkor and the Zeiss 15mm and the Zeiss is the better lens.. the Zoom is of course super versatile..

      • No zoom compares with a prime. I guess you need a bit of education to understand that fact.

        • ballscrubber

          generalize much?

        • anon

          you’re right… the 14-24mm blows the 14mm prime out of the water.

          • No longer Pablo Ricasso

            I think you’re right for the most part. But you can shoot the 20 f3.5 and the 24 f2.8 like you’re retarded and get every shot and if you try that with the better sharper zoom you will get flare like crazy. Just sayin’.
            And I think the Zeiss 15, 21 are probably a tiny tiny bit better. I think the new Zeiss 25 is going to be a LOT better, but each costs about the same money, and as I said earlier the 25 is outside the range of the zoom, a focal length that is easier to produce, and going against the zoom at (beyond) it’s longest focal length with a prime isn’t necessarily a fair contest.
            I suppose De Mentia would be right if he said that no zoom compares with a prime OF THE SAME CALIBER. I have got rid of a lot of primes for not keeping up with my zooms. Why does everybody try so hard to sound like Peewee Herman on here? Please quit trying to make me hate my hero.

        • NRA Advocate

          I guess YOU need a bit of education to know when to admit you’re wrong.

        • fjfjjj

          How about some facts instead?

      • twoomy

        Do you guys care to elaborate which 14mm, 18mm, or 20mm primes the 14-24mm can’t touch? (I have the Ziess 18mm and 21mm and the 14-24 actually DOES “touch” them.)

        • Sahaja

          It’s a lot bigger and heavier though – and can’t take filters easily.

        • I think the claim that the Nikkor “can’t touch” the Zeiss glass is childlike,but the Zeiss 15mm,21mm and 25mm are a little more brilliant at their respective focal lengths… the biggest advantage of the Nikkor is the sheer versatility of it while still producing very high quality..

      • NRA Advocate

        No, it typically beat sthem.

  • Cesar

    Wow, the lens is a stinker!

    • JakeB

      And you stink are a lenser.

  • Neogene

    The tokina is quite 3x times less expensive but really close to it, really nice lens.

    • Yes and a Kia is really close to a Mercedes … uh, yeah, right.

      • +1

        • NRA Advocate


      • Twaddler Belafonte

        Nikon is a Toyota, Leica is the Mercedes. It’s a good thing.

        • Nitsubishi

          Nikon is Mitsubishi 🙂

          • rich

            this, Nikon is under the Mitsubishi umbrella/ owned.

        • papa smurf

          On which planet, Twaddler?
          Stop twaddling, you bozo.

          • Twaddler Belafonte

            On Uranus.

            • papa smurf

              That would be about right. Just make sure you pull your head out every now and again to get some air.

            • Zivko Radovanovic

              LOL! Good one, papa.
              This forum is getting more interesting by the day 😉

        • If Nikon is Toyota, than Tokina is Dacia 😉

      • patto01

        My guess is you’ve never shot with the Tokina 16-28. If Neogene had said the Tokina was better, I’d assume he’d never shot with the Nikon 14-24. The fact is: according to DxO, and any objective photographer having used both lenses, if the Nikon 14-24 is a Mercedes, the Tokina 16-28 is a Lexus.
        Overstating your opinion doesn’t support it, it only makes you sound like an idiot.
        Neogene is absolutely, 100% correct. Well, maybe I wouldn’t have said “really close,” just “close.”
        I replied to you because Christian Hacker and NRA Advocate are just “yes men.”

      • No longer Pablo Ricasso

        You know I’ve seen people have good results going off road in their Kias. Admittedly I wouldn’t have thought as much either, but they make a variety of 4wd vehicles that are apparently functional and virtually maintenance free. On a similar note, I’ve seen a lot of engines from the plainest Honda Civics in various junk yards and not once did I find visible wear. Yeah, sometimes I’ve seen ones where the rod went through the block because someone drove it (way) beyond it’s rated rev limit (or put a turbo on it and intentionally gave it too much boost), but never anything I could describe as wear…

        And I think Hyundai now has a sedan producing something like 450 horsepower.

        Why do people criticize things they don’t know about?


        • neversink

          But can I mount the Kia on the Nikon J1???? That should give me 2.5 times the rated horsepower!!!!

          • No longer Pablo Ricasso

            That’s 2.7 Bud! (and just wait until they put a crop button on the J3…)

    • Tim

      I tried the tokina before getting the 16-35. The tokina focus adjust varies 6 units from wide to tele. Ie if you focus tune at 16mm, then shoot at 28mm, it’ll be 6 off. Tried 3 copies before giving up.
      Of course you could leave it in the middle and get soft pictures across the whole range.
      Tokina really need to up their motor tech.

      • patto01

        Actually, Tokina needs to improve their QC. It’s rather hit-n-miss.

      • No longer Pablo Ricasso

        It sounds like those old varifocal Kiron lenses that people still rave about and that I can’t understand why. I haven’t used the Tokina lens but the photos I’ve seen have a similar nasty color cast, although to a lesser degree. I don’t care as much about distortion as some people but to me color may be as important as sharpness. It seems to me that someone could use an 18 and a 20 or a 17-35 and get the good colors and be able to use filters if they don’t want the last few millimeters.

        But I don’t think it’s the focus motor. It sounds like it’s varifocal. Between it’s size, color cast, lack of filterability, the problem you describe, and the bit of distortion it has… it sounds like more trouble than it’s worth.

    • VerySeriousSam

      I extensively tried with my D800 both the Nikon and the Tokina. Found no discernible difference in the final results, except that the Tokina was a little bit less prone to flare. So I bought the Tokina.

      As for cars, I’ve a Porsche. Now, what lens type and brand in the UW-zoom market does this correspond to? 🙂

      • No longer Pablo Ricasso

        Obviously a Noctilux. I could have been more specific had you included the year and model.
        Now I have a question for you. Do you shoot outside much and, if so, how does the color compare against your Nikon primes?

    • Keep in mind that Tokina lenses often have “the Tokina glow” surrounding highlights, they produce way more lens flare, and produce soft images at wide apertures.

      I find that Tokina glass will easily compare with the name brands if you stop it down beyond f4, and the lens flare is way more appealing than Nikon’s lens flare.

      With Tokina, you get great performance around the middle of a lens’s range; with Nikon, you get great performance right through to the extremes – and that’s what you are paying 3X more for.

      (I’m not trying to bash Tokina here, I own 3 of their lenses and am very happy with the brand, best quality-to-price ratio IMO)

  • hypercore

    There a reason why the Nikkor 14-24 is one of the ‘holy trinity’ lenses.

    • Patrick McKay

      I have this lens, and love it. But perfection is a relative term. With the advent of ultra mega-pixel FX DSLR’s like the D800, the weaknesses of this amazing lens, are now much more evident.

      Here’s what Lloyd Chambers has found: “Physical downsides to the 14-24 zoom are its substantial size and weight. The main downside to the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G is its strong rearward focus shift. This issue cuts resolution in half in central areas, so it must be dealt with for serious work.

      Price and value: “The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G is about $2000. For an ultra-wide zoom with this kind of performance, it represents a terrific value.”

  • The comparison is irrelevant because the “best” focal length & the f-stop, from which the DxO score is taken is not consistent.

    • I agree the numbers should be taken with a large pinch of salt. The overall placings seem to concur with most people’s findings on the featured lenses though. As a Nikon shooter however, even I am very suspicious of DxO’s impartiality. Canon cameras and lenses get pretty poor results, which is at odds with the rest of the known world!

      • No longer Pablo Ricasso

        Quit looking at the overall score. And consider the f stop.

        • Still Pablo Ricaso

          You should consider an overall score of a picture…not only the f-stop…

          • No longer Pablo Ricasso

            I agree that the picture is what it is all about.
            But we’re talking about the validity of test results here.
            And we know that DXO scores their tests on max aperture.
            So that means that a fast lens has a disadvantage over a slower one. (usually)
            The only lens I can think of that is at it’s best wide open is the 400 f3.5 tied to the 2x converter. Everything else gets better when stopped down one.
            So if the Zeiss f2 outscores this great lens, just think about how it would do at the same aperture…
            And remember that when using these amazing toys in the real world that flare can make anything look weak. So maybe sometimes I can take a better shot with that 24 f2.8 that I paid a hundred dollars for. It almost never flares.
            And I had never heard of any photographer going by that name before I made up it up for myself. It was just a joke regarding the quality of my “work.” Then one day I was bored and googled that name…

        • You lost me pal. What’s an “f-stop”? Is that something to do with punctuation? To be honest I just look at the pictures and buy the prettiest lens…. I can’t see anything in my previous post that asked to be patronised. I’m fully aware of how DxO conduct their lens tests, and my previous post gives no indication to the contrary.

          • No longer Pablo Ricasso

            I don’t like the way they do their tests very much either. But you can get some bit of useful information from them, which is much better than nothing. I believe that they are impartial.
            I think that they should have a sharpness score for whatever aperture (f stop) gives the best resolution as well as the score that they have for shooting it wide open as they do. It is much more difficult for a lens that opens to f1.4 or f2 to score well than it is for a lens that only opens to f3.5 or less. So in that regard, the Tokina has a disadvantage when placed against the Nikon 16-35 as does the 14-24. The same is true for vignetting and, in most cases, for CA. Fast lenses generally have more light fall off and especially at their max aperture. The distortion score is necessarily useless for a zoom because it either represents one focal length or is an average, neither of which would tell you anything, and, as others have pointed out, fails to specify whether the distortion is simple or complex. That these numbers are then weighted equally and lumped together to give a final score makes the number useless in my mind.
            Things that are important to me like flare, and not just the obvious type but the subtle kind that kills color definition and contrast are not factored. That said, a good lens will score higher in sharpness than a bad one. And a lens that opens to f(stop)2 and has more sharpness at that aperture than one that only opens to f(stop)2.8 would almost inevitably show even more difference over the other lens were they both compared at the same f(stop) value. So, in order for these tests, as they are presented, to make any sense, you should consider the f stop of the lens being tested and consider the individual scores for what they are. And, of course, you should look at the picture, because that’s what it’s all about.

      • Roger

        Certainly not at odds in terms of sensor performance.
        Haven’t owned many Canon lenses though…

    • No longer Pablo Ricasso

      But you could compare the f2.8 lenses against each other at least. Then you could also discount the results slightly for the F4 lens and add points for the faster primes. That Zeiss F2 has got to be ONE SHARP LENS, probably much more so when stopped down a bit. I wouldn’t want to put anything against it. But then again, it is a prime and a new and expensive one at that, so what do you expect. It also is a millimeter outside the range of the zoom and has apparently has a little distortion and lot of vignetting…

      I kind of like my Nikon 24 f2 AIS. It takes a 52 filter just like (mostly) the rest of them between 20 and 200 and all the good ones in that range short of 100. And form factor is something to consider. Initially, small form was one of the things Zeiss had going for it. But if these new lenses keep getting any bigger I’m going to have to compare them against medium format, just to be fair…

      • No longer Pablo Ricasso

        And, of course I also like the 24 f2.8 AIS. The color is just a bit better and maybe it’s sharper if you are examining the print with a microscope…

    • neonspark

      I have to say I agree. the 14-24 has been around for a while and every review shows the 14mm end is the better end. testing the lens at 16mm seems to miss the point, and then comparing it with 24mm primes at 16mm is even worse.
      then again that is what testing zoom lenses means. you can’t have it all.

  • YC

    ZF25’s sharpeness is 22p-mpix is much higher then nikon’s 17p. is that means the sharpness of zf25 is much better then 14-24?

    • I think you’re mixing the 24/1.4G and the 14-24/2.8G.

      • YC

        they are both 17p-mpix..

        • You’re right. Its sharper.
          Not suprising comparing a MF prime to an AF zoom, tho.

  • for the price that lens should take the photo by herself

  • Joshua DeSario

    bought my tokina 16-28mm for $650 after rebates. I can’t complain for how well it does with my D600. I don’t think the nikon is justified at $2K for just that little bit more.

    • Studor

      16mm is not 15mm nor is it 14mm.

      That “little bit more” at the wide end costs a lot more.

      Get Tokina to bring out a 14-24mm f2.8 lens and then you talk about justifications.

      • Roduts

        16mm with no native distortion is extremely close to 14mm with distortion recovered

        • Studor

          According to DXO’s results the 14-24 is best at 16mm and f2.8, while the Tokina is best at 20mm and f4. So, I don’t understand your point. In any case the distortion on the 14-24 at 14mm is quite low, and for landscapes it’s a complete non issue.

        • Dregd

          Wrong. 2mm on the wide end is a significant difference. Also, the Nikon is noticeably sharper, especially in the corners. The price difference is not only justified, but utterly obvious to professionals.

    • Maybe not in your mind but you probably think cubic zirconia is a suitable replacement for a diamond as well since it is much less expensive?

  • dudette

    i’ll take the new and awesome 16-35 g

    • dudette

      i mean 18-35 g f/3.5-4.5

  • Shawn B

    Seems to echo Roger Cicala’s test at lens rentals–though I do hate boiling down a lens to a simple number. Anyways, the Tokina really looks like a great price-performance contender. And the 16-35 is really a pretty decent lens and is simply a lot more usable than the 14-24, especially for landscape shooters (weight, filters, etc.)

    • neonspark

      16-35 is useless at 16mm because of two metric tons of distortion. sorry but that lens is a non starter if you’re doing landscape work. you’re better off with the zeiss if you don’t mind getting a bunch since Nikon’s 14mm prime is as bad as it gets.

      • desmo

        photoshop or Lightroom automatcally correct the distortion,
        not a problem for people who know what they’re doing

        unfortunately I guess that leaves loud mouthed no it alls such as Sparky out

        • Spy Black

          Everybody seems to forget that correcting for distortion comes at the expense of….get for ready for it….DETAIL. So all that money you spent on God’s own wide-angle zoom? It just got flushed down the toilet. Don’t believe me? Try it yourself. Look at your images shot with the Nikkor before and after corrected for distortion.

          The Tokina actually winds up being a sharper lens when all is said and done.

          • writergenotype


            • typewritergeno

              Wrong is right!

            • typegenowriter

              Or is that a right is wrong? Mind boggles!

            • genowritertype

              Yup, definitely a riddle…

            • genotypewriter

              Can the real “genotypewriter” please stand up…
              Guys, you’re hilarious 🙂

            • Spy Black

              Don’t take my word for it, try it. On any lens.

          • neonspark

            which is why the 16-35mm is a total non starter on a D800 unless you put a hard stop to prevent it from going any wider than 18mm.

            • Zivko Radovanovich

              You don’t apper to know much about the lenses and camers, do you?

          • No longer Pablo Ricasso

            And it also means that, when corrected, the lens isn’t as wide as claimed. Of course, most Nikon primes have distortion also, especially the wider ones. The 15 is a RARE exception.That’s the lens that everybody seems to be forgetting. If you start correcting distortion, the 14s are all 15s anyway and you don’t need auto focus to use a 15.
            People complain a lot about the mustache distortion on the 18 (f3.5) that I like to use a lot. I get around that by mostly using it for things that don’t have too many big straight lines. I don’t notice the distortion in my photos and find that it renders people more accurately than my 20 f3.5 and is sharper than my 20 f2.8 (but not the 20 f3.5). But if architecture is your thing, get the 15 and not the 14s or the zooms. Otherwise, center your horizon somewhat and you should be OK. People make way too much issue out of that distortion.
            Also, avoid the kit lens that comes with the D600. Heck, even I can see THAT level of distortion. The 80-200 f2.8 (“macro”) and the 35-70 f2.8 have almost no distortion, much less than the primes that they run across. The Tokina 20-40 has very little, again less than the Nikon primes in it’s range, and gives about the same color on a good day when it’s not busy flaring out all the contrast. If you can’t stomach using a zoom, the 15, the PCs and the Macro lenses are what you want. The 15 is acceptably sharp and the macros are as sharp as anything. The zooms I mentioned are extremely sharp when stopped down, enough so that you really don’t need primes anyway. I suppose the PC lenses will give you less falloff than the others and be much sharper corners than the zooms, but that last bit is a guess. The macro lenses and zooms do have more falloff than normal primes when stopped down to the same aperture, generally, but this, like distortion, I don’t notice much.

        • neonspark

          it does so at a loss of field of view yes. to call that lens a 16mm when you have to correct and crop is silly. total non starter.

      • RamesesThe2nd

        Some distortion is expected in wide angle shots. 16-35 is easily fixed in LR. Go see the Flickr 16-35 group. This lens is not as bad as you think.

        • neonspark

          other than a fisheye, I don’t know of a single nikkor lens, or any even sigma/tamron which is as bad as the 16-35. at 16mm the distortion is so bad that it set a new world record.

          • Pablo Ricasso

            “..I don’t know of a single nikkor lens, or any even sigma/tamron which is as bad as the 16-35. at 16mm the distortion is so bad that it set a new world record…”

            By which measurements and whose reference? Yours personally?
            If you don’t believe us owners of the 16-35 lens than I suggest start reading reviews on the web. You may change your mind, but I doubt it.
            Stop smoking that weed, it’s clouding your judgement.

            • neonspark

              yes my own experience with the lens. shoot at 16mm and if it is straight, then it won’t be 🙂 absolutely hideous.

      • Mandola R.

        “…sorry but that lens is a non starter if you’re doing landscape work. ”
        You obvioulsy haven’t shot any landscape with the 16-35mm.
        Armchair criticisizing much?

        • Roscoe Tanner

          Well said.

          • fjfjjj

            There is a +1 button so you don’t have to waste time with an extra comment.

            • Kapa Ronald

              No sh$t, Sherlock?

        • neonspark

          I will never shoot with that lens. a week rental was enough to leave me scared for life. worse nikkor lens I’ve ever used.

      • Ted

        Actually, read about rectilinear and fisheye lenses, then go sit in the corner.

        • JakeB

          The guy is an idiot, full stop.

  • georg

    tokina rulez

    • For those who cannot afford the best, maybe.

      • anon

        ..or who don’t make money from their camera equipment and don’t want/need to spend 3 times the price for only margin increase in image performance. Guess what.. 99% of paying client’s (assuming they are non-enthusiast-photographers) will see any difference at all between the tokina 16-28 and the nikon 14-24 at 16mm and same given aperture. If i were in the market for a wide angle for consumer/enthusiast use, i’d definitely buy the tokina, even for pro i may consider it depending on what the paying jobs were

      • Remedy

        Please be so kind and tell me where I can buy Nikkor 11-16 f/2.8 for my DX cam. Oh wait, You can’t. You fail at life.

        • genotypewriter

          No but you can buy an excellent Nikkor 10-24mm variable aperture, which the 11-16 Tokina you talk about still needs to be able to catch up with.

        • desmo

          buy the nikon 10-24 not only better but more capable
          and holds its resale value as well
          the price?
          you give up one stop of light ,
          not that big a deal with UWA

          • anon

            it’s not more capable for low light situations where anything is moving. 1/FL rule doesn’t apply to anything other than still life, so giving up available aperture, IMO, is always a bad idea. perhaps the 10-24 is slightly sharper than the tokina wide open, but at 2.8 the nikon is non-existent, and by f5.6 or so the tokina likely matches the sharpness of the nikon, which is pretty much the Nikon’s max ap. Not all tokinas hold their values well, but the 11-16 is regarded as such as great lens that it tends to hold moreso than it’s brand siblings.

            Plus go back to my argument above. The nikon is more money than the tokina and comes with smaller aperture (variable at that) and piss-poor build quality. I tried the 12-24 and thought it felt like it would smash to pieces like a poorly built lego house if dropped and have heard the 10-24 is even worse.

            The interesting thing about the tokina is you can use it on FX as a 16mm without crop factor with very little vignetting even at 2.8. So essentially a 16mm prime. However, you have to watch out for very slight blue cast and softness in the corners. Nothing a small crop to say 17mm FOV won’t fix.

            • desmo

              if your light is that low
              1/4 vs 1/8 or even 1/5 vs 1/30
              shutterspeeds common using UWA’s in low light
              your not going to stop subject motion with either.
              it’s one stop ,
              not as big a difference as people seem to think

            • desmo

              meant 1/15 vs 1/30
              typo my bad

            • Remedy

              Sorry dude but you are completely wrong. 1 stop is a huuuuge difference, as a matter of fact sometimes it’s all the difference in the world. Your shutter speed is twice as fast – TWICE! That’s exactly the difference between blurry and sharp photo (object movement wise). For instance 1/50th vs 1/100th. You really don’t get it? No matter how much you push in post to compensate for the exposure with darker lens you won’t be able to compensate the blur in post. Facts.

            • desmo

              I shoot low light a lot with UWA lenses ,
              if I’m debating 1/50 vs 1/100 I increase the ISO,
              but thats rarely the case.
              in true low light work your much lower shutter speeds than that.
              if your goal is stopping action your working higher than 1/100.
              At higher shutter speeds , even swapping 1/100 for 1/200,
              let alone 1/500 for 1/1000 upping the iso causes very little penalty as iso noise is minimal at high shutter speeds.
              But again true low light your working lower speeds where your not going to stop subject motion any way.

        • Remedy

          You both have problems with reading? I said tell me where I can buy Nikkor that is 11-16mm f/2.8. Two point FKING eight! I dunno bout You but for me the difference between 1/30s and 1/60s is pretty fking substantial. ,,,and I beg to differ, 10-24 is not better, it’s worse in every aspect apart from the CA (don’t get me wrong, both lenses suck at it). Worse build quality, worse sharpness across the frame and on top of that it’s fking 3.5-4.5. Facts.

  • neonspark

    finally all the crybabies will stop complaining about DXO….oh wait. crybabies never stop making noise.

    • Foolishcfo

      If you don’t put it out there you won’t get it.

    • Has DxO reviewed the best APSC sensor XPro-1 (before its discontinued)? No!

      DxO is still garbage.

      DxO I know you are reading this thread. Eat shit.

      • Spy Black

        Yes, they know that you know that they are reading this. They also know that you’re eating it all up, because you went out of your way to read this article and reply to it. They’re patting themselves on the back as you read this.

        • neonspark

          ha ha so true.

  • Nejko

    if it is 17Mp at 16/2.8.. how much is it at.. say.. f/8 or f/11.. don´t really care for the f/2.8 in a UWA… 🙂

    • Gleb

      That’s actually very important for people who shoot starts (on the sky). They must be under 10-15sec in exposure time to keep stars as dots and not trails.

  • i can not understand, that everyone judges lenses by the dxo mark. it´s nice to know, but i choose my lenses by the pictures they produce.

    • ajendus

      No one is using this to fire out whether to buy this lens. Everyone already knows the Nikkor 14-24mm is one of the finest lenses ver made.

      • BroncoBro

        Based on a lot of the remarks here I’m not sure I share your conclusion.

        • ajendus

          I honestly don’t know what remarks you’re referring to. I have read dozens of reviews and they are pretty much unanimous about this being one of the finest lenses available.

          I own it and have shot with it around the world. I am a cinematography and only wish I could more easily use it on my cinema cameras because it rivals some $20,000 cinema lenses I have shot with.

          This lens has been around for nearly 6 years. This DXO test is brand new. No one has used it to determine whether they will buy the 14-24. At this point, the DXO test more or less just confirmed what we already knew.

          • BroncoBro

            Actually, many of the comments here seem to indicate that 1) without the confirmation by DxO they would be unsure of their own assessment of the lens 2) a few have been waiting to see DxO test this lens and now they claim they are better prepared to buy or at least admire it 3) while many praise this lens they still seem intent on picking it apart. One person compared it to a 25mm Zeiss prime and went on to qualify his remark by acknowledging that it is 1mm out the range of the zoom! All of which is silly, really. I’m sure it’s a great lens and I think people should base their buying decision on the fact that it fits a need in terms of coverage, angle of view and its reputation. All lenses have weak points and good photographers learn to work around them. So, we’re in agreement.

            • Remedy

              Please be so kind and point a weakness of 200mm f/2 or 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8 or 500 f/4 or 600mm f/4 or 800mm f/5.6. Please be so FKING kind and point out those weaknesses. I’m all ears.

            • Spy Black


            • fred


            • Spy Black


            • orpickaname


              (Sometimes too big is just too big, twss…)

            • Remedy

              Please be so kind and invent new physics/universe where long tele made using conventional optics (glass etc) with fast aperture is small as a post stamp. Where can I apply to your new physics/universe?

              Size of those lenses is not a weakness, it’s a physical fact. Triple facepalm.

            • orpickaname

              Well, you don’t have to invent a new universe for that… You don’t even need a lens. Try astral projection and remote viewing.instead…

            • Remedy

              Yeah try that. Where can I buy that for my camera? Price?

              Oh wait… you just threw a bunch of words you heard about on the internet. Come back when you will make it an available solution for my camera.

            • orpickaname

              You don’t need a camera for that either. But it helps if you can paint so you can share it with others in visuals. Cheers.

            • orpickaname

              Btw remedy, why don’t you just take your flawless 200mm f/2 or 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8 or 500 f/4 or 600mm f/4 or 800mm f/5.6 out and shoot something beautiful? Surely that’d be much more fun than patronizing [NR] all day/night, no? Aight, see ya!

            • Remedy

              Please be so kind and invent new physics/universe where glass (lots of it) and metal is light as a feather. Where can I apply to your new physics/universe?

              Weight of those lenses is not a weakness, it’s a physical fact. Triple facepalm.

            • BroncoBro

              Triple facepalm? Really? LOL!!!!

            • Remedy

              Do You also complain about the price of gold? It’s rare, it’s complicated to make it properly, it’s using expensive components. It’s how world works. Nikon is not a charity organization. Please be so kind and make those lenses cheaper. May I already preorder it? Myeah… that’s what I thought.

            • BroncoBro

              Wow, didn’t get laid this month? What’s with you? No reason to take it personally. Every lens has a shortcoming and users adapt. If you think otherwise perhaps you are just easy to please or have lower expectations.

            • Remedy

              Easy to please? No, I just use my brain. I know how physics/optics works and I don’t state ridiculous (not to say idiotic) claims. The question is what’s with all of you?. All the lenses I listed above are fantastic lenses without any shortcomings, face it and stop making ridiculous statements and expectations. Complain to the God about how our universe works. Oh right, You don’t believe in any… Apple maybe.

            • Spy Black

              You gotta scale back that Ritalin intake dude…

            • BroncoBro

              Have it your way…lol. Shot any interesting pictures lately?

            • Remedy

              As a matter of fact I did, Mig29 and F16 low altitude, fast maneuvers training flights. Awesome stuff. Cheers

            • babola

              “…while many praise this lens they still seem intent on picking it apart..”
              Nothing new when it comes to Nikon 14-24mm lens. It’s been like that ever since its release, and it won’t stop until another sub 2x extra-wide angle zoom overtakes this one, in both the performance and build quality.
              It’s tough being at the top; such an easy target for armchair critics and theorists, as well as envious types and/or ones who are unable to afford the lens in this price range.

            • JakeB


            • NRA Advocate


              The haters can hate. They don’t have enough talent to shoot with a lens of this caliber anyway.

              Bring it.

        • desmo

          The best advocates for the 14-24 Nikkor
          are all the Canon shooters who bought F mount adapters so they can fix this lens to their 1D ‘s

          • No doubt it’s a great lens but have you tried the canon tse-17m… it’s awesome..

            • desmo

              true nikon needs a 17 tilt shift

            • Nikon’s F mount makes this more difficult to design ..canon’s EF mount is 10mm wider,a big advantage..

            • Remedy

              That sir is completely not true. Not only all Nikon wide lenses are better than Canon’s but also all Canon’s vignette like pigs. There is no limitation in the F mount. Lenses as wide as 10mm Sigma work perfectly fine on it (and You gotta admit that 10mm rect. lens is frigging wide on FF) and in terms of aperture there is no problem to make f/0.7 lenses for F mount. I don’t have to explain how ridiculously expensive, difficult to master and pretty much pointless such lens would be. Once again, there is absolutely ZERO problems for Nikon to make PC 17mm lens. ZERO.

            • Spy Black

              I think they have a sale on Xanax this month…

            • neonspark

              it’s the old myth of the F mount being too narrow. They said Nikon couldn’t do an 800mm lens because of the F mount. They said they couldn’t do a TS lens and then Nikon released 3, they said Nikon couldn’t do a 200f/2 and they released two. The optical formula is more important than the throat diameter.

              Nikon sold 50mm f1.1 lenses for its rangefinders half a century ago. the mount of these rangefinder was only 33.3mm. with today’s technology a 17mm TS is really only limited by Nikon’s long term lens roadmap than any actual technical problem.

            • When we actually see one then we be be certain of that,until then as remain skeptical …

            • I will only believe that when I see a nikon 17mm tse..

            • neonspark

              for a 17mm TS you don’t need more than the F mount can handle. there is already a patent for it published by NR so clearly it is on the list of Nikon’s future lenses.

            • neonspark

              manual focus, and 17mm only. not even in the same line of application so no, pointless comparison.

        • neonspark

          remarks made by people that think know more about a lens they’ve never used.

    • For me, I shoot a lot of artwork, paintings mostly. It’s pictures of a flat surface where I need crisp focus corner to corner, no glow, no vignette, no distortion, etc. So for me, this whole pixel peeper movement -people shooting flat charts straight on is wonderfully helpful because that’s exactly what I shoot in the studio.

      But as soon as I take a camera outside or out to a rock show, none of that matters anymore.

      There is a time and place for both looking at charts and looking at photos, and DXOmark scores do have there place.

  • Spy Black

    I wish DxO would acknowledge the existence of the D600, and include it in it’s tests.

    • Foolishcfo

      They will…..eventually. We had to wait a year for them to review the D800 with lenses.

    • FredBear

      Use the D3X in comparisons but yes, understand what you’re getting at.

  • Twaddler Belafonte

    Good! One less thing for the loonies to rant about in the comments at DXO. It seems like those comments are only used by people who want to complain about how their brand/lens/camera has been wronged, and they seem to think their rage is justified (is not).

  • John H

    Would have been nice to see the Tokina 17-35 f/4 included, especially since at $600 it is less expensive than any of the options tested, and it has significantly less distortion than the 16-35 VR. It does not have VR and I don’t think it is quite as sharp, but I would have liked to see results.

  • Aldo

    zomg NOT a fair comparison without the 13-25.6mm lens. shame on you DxO

    • Pablo Ricasso

      Aldo, you just proved again that you are as intelligent as you’ve always been.

      • Aldo

        Thank you =]

      • JakeB

        Dude’s been smoking some dodgy weed for some time, if his recent posts are anything to go by.

        • Aldo

          LOL! you guys are clueless.

  • CPhotoLaw

    I think because modern day lenses are getting so good, statistically speaking, the DxOMark scores would be more relevant if they were a little more precise. Say, just using a 100 point final score instead of a 30 point score system would bring the numbers more in line with how photographers “feel” about the lenses in real-world shooting scenarios.

    I’ve got to say, I’ve shot with both the Nikon 14-24 and the Tokina 16-28, and even though they’re “close” on the chart, they’re a bit further away in real-life.

    So for example, just using their current scores for the wides but extrapolating out to a 100 point system…

    Nikon 14-24 — 93

    Tokina 16-28 — 80
    Nikon 16-35 — 77
    Nikon 17-35 — 70
    Sigma 12-24 — 53

    I know this is all touchy-feely hippie talk, but how people interact with the data, is just as important as the data itself… and those numbers I’ve posted based on a 100 point system, is much more in line with how I think and feel about the performance of those lenses.

    • desmo

      Your suggestion has merit, but DXO would still fail due to their trying to reduce the result to one number that is effected by what and
      how they weight the average

      for example the t-stop would be useful if they counted off for not delivering the f-stop the lens is rated for. Instead they simply markup an f2.8 lens and mark down a slower lens (explains the high score of third party lenses as many of them are f2.8 in marketing only).
      Plus i don’t need to know this, as I already know the lenses Fstop when making my purchasing decision (its stamped on the lens)
      In a similar way their CR number is of little value as Nikon software has all but eliminated in the camera for jpegs(RAW converters correct this as well)
      They give a distortion rating without considering the merits of the distortion-Simple(easily corrected in post) or complex (hard to correct and rarely yields a great result)

      In short DXO tests are mostly worthless except they make me feel good when they tell me my Nikon sensor scores way better than Canon’s

    • Can’t Believe It

      We NEED more touchy-feely hippie talk about lenses. As you point out, numbers don’t really tell the tale especially when the range on the scale is so narrow.

  • EHEM! NIKON 70-200mm F2.8 VRII? (although not effectively a 70-200mm)

    • The VRI isn’t a 70-200mm “effectively”, either. People forget that while the new 70-200 is closer to a 70-180 (average), the old 70-200s were 80-195s. While we don’t get a true 200, we do get a true 70… and that’s worth mentioning.

  • Micah Goldstein

    DX0 must pay attention to the threads. This still doesn’t make their opinion important.

  • The Tokina certainly fares well. (QA issues?)

  • Nikonian808

    To quote Fat Bastard, “well surprise, surprise.” Anyone with eyes knew the 14-24 would win.

  • lorenzo

    Wonder if Nikon ever reads these DXO ^*(*^$# and what they think about it.

    • fjfjjj

      They sponsor it, dumbass.

  • NRA Advocate

    Yes, “of course.” Those in the know, already knew.

  • DonD

    I’m a little surprised it only scored a 28. I own it. Seems better than that to me.. Im not surprised that the 17-35 scores only a 21, but what does surprise me is how many people own it and speak so highly of it. I’ve never thought it was very good.

    • neonspark

      it wasn’t tested at 14mm which is where that lens is at its strongest.

  • Test shooting with the 14-24mm lens.
    Great results have come when shooting backlit.

  • Mr. Mamiya

    While I own both the 14-24 and the 16-35 VR, 80% of the time I use the 16-35 on my D800E: Much more practical zoom range, lighter, no huge damageable front element, takes filters, VR allows longer exposure times without tripod, results more than pleasing. Therefore these numbers really don’t express which lens really is “the best” for actual photography (for me).

  • Bjorn

    Not a big shock. And I wont be at all suprised if the 70-200 mm VR2 goes to the top as well. For some reason DxO left out the two lenses we assume are the best in their range when they did their tests…

  • Nikon

    Now complete the holy trinity and test the 70-200 VR II

  • Patrick Jakubowski

    I don’t agree. AF-S 16-35mm f/4 has no distortion at 24. As it goes from barrel at 16mm to pincushion at 35 and 24 is sweet point of geometry.

    • Patrick Jakubowski

      DxO lost its credibility so much that I even doubt in their results. They do those tests just to sell their product. Also their limited lens collection tells me about how serious they are. Not testing telephoto primes on D800? And where are old AI-s lens. Modern lenses are very good wide open but old lens are often unmatched at maximum performance around f/8.

      • neonspark

        so you want them to test every lens of the F mount for them to be credible. lol. show me ONE SITE that does that.

  • fjfjjj

    What’s a “perceptual megapixel” (P-MP) again? Oh yeah, nobody knows, except for the guys at DxO.

  • mrcontinental

    Still not giving up my 17-35mm AF-S… or my filters.

  • alex

    To me, one the best wide angle I am still using is the 24 1.4. It provides me with – both – the most amazing pictures and most out of focus pictures. Amazing tone, dof but so unreliable … just like a woman, I love it so much. i am always scared when I fire a unique shot with it, but it is worth the risk.

    On a different matter, dont you guys think that we really miss a nice pancake lens like Canonist have? My favorite lenses for personal project & travel are the pancakes from voigtlander: 20mm 3.5 and 40mm 2.0. Manual focusing with the 20mm is not an issue but I am dreaming of a 40mm f2 or f2.8 with autofocus Canon does. This is my dream lens, and it is so cheap … just make one.

  • jknotzke

    I own the 17-35 and have for years.. If you owned one, would you sell it for the 14-24 ?

  • tedtedsen

    sorrey for my bad inglish yeh that test is onley numbers and sharts in reallife you wil practicly see no different what so ever in other test the 16-35 is sharper than the old 14-24mm and oter again the tokina is sharpest taking images is more than sharpnes it is alabout finding the opptimum setting and offcourse the images People is winding about sharpnes.sharpnes.sharpnes is that all they ceare about there are 8mor factors that making the images good

  • Back to top