Nikon 14-24 - Just came back from Sedona

nightmedia

Leading Member
Messages
713
Reaction score
25
Location
San Diego, US
I spent 4 days in Sedona, and did not feel the need to use any other lens but this one. Awesome lens, a pleasure to use, no need to PP anything, definitely no need tor sharpen anything :)

I shot just about everything on this trip between F5.6 and F11.

Had some issues with metering some scenes in the shade, discovered later that I have to go down at least 1EV if I don't want blown out highlights.

I could block the lens flare with the hand most of the time, except for a few shots where the lens flare was actually cool.

My surprise was that I did not have to use anything but a Giotto blower to clean up the dust off the lens - of course, I avoided water drops.

Now I want the D3x :)

Here are just a few from a few thousand shots:













 
Yes I agree, some sharpening may help. They do look positively fuzzy, this lens is capable of a lot more. Great shots, but I think the lens has let you down a bit.

Phil
Hmm, while I love the shots, there just seems to me some sort of
softness to them which I am not used to seeing from landscape photos
or from this lens. Perhaps it's your jpeg compression for web use?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ceribria
--
Matix - These Photographers are Crazy!!
 
Funny,

They looked great to me. When I see mountains hazy, it may be haze. Does anyone go out and shoot with their gear? These shots look O-K.
--
Regards,

Jeff Morris / Homecinemaman

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Snoopy, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.

I hunt, I peck, I squint, all on a Dell M1210 12.1' laptop. So don't laugh, I'm happy there aren't more typo's!
 
... for sure.

Nice pics. Some flare is there, but with that curved front element it is unavoidable.

If you decrease the size of the pics you have to sharpen them a bit always. Something like USM 150,0.3,0. JPG does not really makes it unsharp. Or you can use bicubic sharpens (best for reduction) method
 
Yeah, I wanted to keep the size of the pics small... Sharpened the files get bigger, and I get even more jpeg encoding artifacts, unless I save with max quality, then the file grows to 1MB. I will play with them and see. I shot everything in raw too, so that will come in handy.

The flare can be blocked with the hand, the lens is surely flare-happy, and that is no wonder.

I am really pleased with the color rendering and the corner performance.
... for sure.

Nice pics. Some flare is there, but with that curved front element it
is unavoidable.
If you decrease the size of the pics you have to sharpen them a bit
always. Something like USM 150,0.3,0. JPG does not really makes it
unsharp. Or you can use bicubic sharpens (best for reduction) method
 
Thanks Jeff.

It was indeed a bit hazy all 4 days I was there.
Funny,

They looked great to me. When I see mountains hazy, it may be haze.
Does anyone go out and shoot with their gear? These shots look O-K.
--
Regards,

Jeff Morris / Homecinemaman

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Snoopy, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by
example.

I hunt, I peck, I squint, all on a Dell M1210 12.1' laptop. So don't
laugh, I'm happy there aren't more typo's!
 
Nice pics. Some flare is there, but with that curved front element it
is unavoidable.
Even when you have a well-designed lens hood, and the sun is not in the frame, there may be direct sunlight striking the lens. The light can scatter inside the lens, causing flare artifacts or a loss of contrast in the shot. One way to prevent this is to hold an object (your hat, hand, etc.) between the camera and the sun, so that the front element of the lens is in shadow. Check the viewfinder to make sure that this object is not in the frame.

Most of the readers of this forum probably know this trick, but it might not be obvious to some of the newbies.
 
It was indeed a bit hazy all 4 days I was there.
Funny,

They looked great to me. When I see mountains hazy, it may be haze.
Does anyone go out and shoot with their gear? These shots look O-K.
--
Regards,

Jeff Morris / Homecinemaman

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Snoopy, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by
example.

I hunt, I peck, I squint, all on a Dell M1210 12.1' laptop. So don't
laugh, I'm happy there aren't more typo's!
--
is this lens worth not being able to put a polarizer filter on it? i was thinking about getting this lens too and that's about the only thing stopping me.
--
Darrin Lingle
 
I don't mean to be rude, but let me say that I think that they're very good. Not because of camera or composition, but because the light is very bad. The last three are usable, but the rest is not so good.

You should definitely get a circular polarizer with this lens. The sky is going towards cyan in most of the shots, you don't have these rich blue tones. You also have a lot of reflection from the vegetation which the polarizer could hopefully mitigate as well.

In the first you've got these reflections in the leaves in the left tree and none of that on the right. The sky is light blue and drawing a lot of attention out of the frame, assisted by the flare.

In the second you've got again a very harshly lit tree in the very right which has no equivalent in the picture. The blue is going towards cyan and there's the feeling of lot of unwanted contrast. E.g. the mountain in the back is too dark, the sky and some parts in the bottom are too bright.

The picture with the stones in the foreground has some potential, but the stonefield is just one bright area with little contrast and also plagued by harsh shadows. The sky again going towards cyan in the horizon.
Next shot feels overexposed by 2/3. The sky is ugly.
Last three are better, the second to last is very nice.

Some of these things may be improved in post processing. If you want to do more of these, get a CPL.

--
http://donandre.ipernity.com
 
Where will the the polarizer fit?
 
First, a CP has limited usability with a wideangle lens, since you will most definitely see only a part of the image benefiting from the effect of the CP. This is due to the angle covered, and it might not be a problem at 24, but you will see the issue clearly under 18mm, where the sky will be deep blue somewhere in the middle, and the effect will fade to the sides.

I agree with previous posters that the images are far from perfect. I did not use any PP at all, wanted to show just the raw output with this lens and the D300. I don't consider that doctoring the hell out of an image is a good representative of what the lens and the camera can do. Of course you can "pep things up" in Photoshop, then even a mediocre lens can be used to get some decent result.

It was a very bright and slightly hazy weekend, and you will see that in all images that have far background. I forgot my anti-haze 14-24 filter at home ;)

But before anything, I wanted to share the fun that can be had in Sedona this time of year, on some of the trails :)
 
Although technically OK, these pictures really lack any kink of wow factor or pop that would set them apart from any other ho-hum vacation photo taken with any camera. The light looks pretty flat and uninteresting in every shot. What times were you shooting at? The massive amounts of foilage makes me or another viewer get lost in excess foilage which distracts from any kind of focus on the composition. The piles of rocks shot is sort of interesting, but I'm not a huge fan of the quality of light or composition in any of them. Please don't take this the wrong way, as its my attempt at constructive criticism. Its just my opinion that with at $4500 dollar camera and a $1500 lens that you would have the vision and ability to make better shots with all that investment in fancy schmancy Nikon latest and greatest. My recommendation (do with it what you will) is to shoot earlier and later in the day, and try and exclude everything rather than get it all in, since the use of filters is difficult on the 14-24 at best and requires a homemade modification and you can only get a decent sky and ground exposure in boring midday light. You did most of the work getting there and being in a great place at a great time of year though, so hats off for that. Most people just sit here typing on this forum (like me) not making images at all. Probably opening up Pandora's Box here.

--
pbase.com/spitfirestu
 
Although technically OK, these pictures really lack any kink of wow
factor or pop that would set them apart from any other ho-hum
vacation photo taken with any camera. The light looks pretty flat and
uninteresting in every shot. What times were you shooting at? The
massive amounts of foilage makes me or another viewer get lost in
excess foilage which distracts from any kind of focus on the
composition. The piles of rocks shot is sort of interesting, but I'm
not a huge fan of the quality of light or composition in any of them.
Please don't take this the wrong way, as its my attempt at
constructive criticism. Its just my opinion that with at $4500 dollar
camera and a $1500 lens that you would have the vision and ability to
make better shots with all that investment in fancy schmancy Nikon
latest and greatest. My recommendation (do with it what you will) is
to shoot earlier and later in the day, and try and exclude everything
rather than get it all in, since the use of filters is difficult on
the 14-24 at best and requires a homemade modification and you can
only get a decent sky and ground exposure in boring midday light. You
did most of the work getting there and being in a great place at a
great time of year though, so hats off for that. Most people just sit
here typing on this forum (like me) not making images at all.
Probably opening up Pandora's Box here.

--
pbase.com/spitfirestu
The D300 is not 4500. If you read in my original post, I would love a D3x, but there is none, and I can't afford it anyway :)

There is a lot of detail because I did not shoot the lens wide open. This is my first trip with this lens, and I wanted to take the guess work out of it. What I did not mention is that more than half of the shots on the trip are trash, mostly cause of the light conditions. This is also my first attempt at landscape shots, so bear with me while I learn :)

Most of these were taken between 10am and noon, and the light was rather harsh. The thing with Sedona is that before 10 you just don't have light in some places, and altough sunset is at 6, the light is gone on the hikes right after 3, when the sun is going over the ridges.

Next time I go there, I will try to get the gear I need, show up at exactly the right time, and pray for good weather - these all being highly variable there.

Funny story, I forgot my memory card at home, and had to go downtown to get one - the store in town(Rollei's camera, est. 1961) was offering off-brand 8GB 44x CF for $289. After wasting another few hours in town trying to find some store that lives in this century, I ended up making the long trip to the nearest Walmart to get a couple of Lexar 4GB 80x cards that costed me less than $90 - still, no steal....

This being said, I did not have the luxury to do bracketing, play with aperture, and shoot raw for all shots, and had to contend myself with taking vacation snapshots :) As you well said, at least I got there.
 
Sort of OT, but . . .

Number 6 is a great shot of Poison Ivy in the fall!. Did it get you?

That's the number one reason I don't go hiking in Sedona much, even though I live down the road. There are just acres of it anywhere it's not desert.

Hate the stuff - very allergic to it. It's one reason I live in AZ, where there's really not that much, except Sedona and some other springs or riparian areas.

David in Phoenix
 
Wonderful place that beautiful Sedona is. Did that trip 2 years ago. The pix are very nice but I agree, soft as to what I've seen on others posted using that lens w/ it's super brilliiant detail. Search them out & see.
RB
2 D300's
 
Remember, we're talkign about sized-down images made for the web. Yeah, they look like they could use some sharpening. But the originals are probably fine in terms of sharpness.
 
Hehe you are absolutely right, I've been burned by it, I am wearing jeans on these hikes and avoid "exploring" through the underbrush.
Sort of OT, but . . .

Number 6 is a great shot of Poison Ivy in the fall!. Did it get you?

That's the number one reason I don't go hiking in Sedona much, even
though I live down the road. There are just acres of it anywhere
it's not desert.

Hate the stuff - very allergic to it. It's one reason I live in AZ,
where there's really not that much, except Sedona and some other
springs or riparian areas.

David in Phoenix
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top