-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why do so many people sell their Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 lenses after just a few tries?
- Thread starter Rudy Pohl
- Start date
dave gaines
Veteran Member
Well, I went back to look again and the Nikon site does give MTF charts for wide and long ends of both zooms. The 14-24 mm lens was tested at f/2.8. It doesn't say what f-stop the 17-35 was tested at, but it is easy to see it is less sharp than the 14-24 according to Nikon's MTF charts.
Rudy Pohl
Veteran Member
sd40
Senior Member
+1
Mine is very sharp. Color and contrast just like a Nikkor. It won't take a lens filter but does have a hard plastic front cover that snaps on. The 14-24 I rented came with a foam sock that you needed to slip over the front of the lens. Trying to do that in the field is a good way to drop something.
StillLearning
Veteran Member
StillLearning
Veteran Member
Have you considered the 18-35? I understand the coating helps in controling flare with this lens which is probably better than the 17-35. Of course you would be giving up 1.5 mm in FOV.
Lihkin
Veteran Member
... as I almost sold mine a couple of weeks after I bought it. But then I started to read up on how to use UWA lenses and started to experiment with a critical eye. And over time I fell in love with this lens and wouldn't give it up for anything else. The versatility of a zoom lens in the UWA range is of great benefit to my kind of shooting. BTW I have never found weight to be an issue - I frequently backpack with upto 25 pounds of camera gear (including bag weight) for 10+ miles and 3,000+ feet elevation gains.
Here are some images from this lens and my D700/ D800e (some are a little dated, but you get the idea).
Tuolumne Meadows, Yosemite National Park
Joshua Tree National Park, CA
Yosemite National Park, CA
Big Sur, CA
Big Sur, CA
Downtown Los Angeles, CA
Hearst Castle, CA
Canyonlands Park, CA
Cheers,
---------
Nikhil
www.nikhilshahi.com
Here are some images from this lens and my D700/ D800e (some are a little dated, but you get the idea).
Tuolumne Meadows, Yosemite National Park
Joshua Tree National Park, CA
Yosemite National Park, CA
Big Sur, CA
Big Sur, CA
Downtown Los Angeles, CA
Hearst Castle, CA
Canyonlands Park, CA
Cheers,
---------
Nikhil
Nikhil Shahi Photography
Welcome to the website of Nikhil Shahi, a photographer based in Los Angeles, California. I specialize in landscape photography, architecture photography and portraiture.
pluton
Veteran Member
I own one copy each of the 17-35 and 14-24.
In the 12MP D3 days, the 14-24 was a slightly better lens.
Now, in the D800 days, the 14-24 is a way better lens.
The 14-24 maintains it's nice rendition all the way out to the edges of the 24x36 frame while the 17-35 blurs or fuzzes out at the edges.
Also, the 17-35 is distinctly weaker at 17/18mm, which is unfortunate because 18mm is one of my favored focal lengths.
Corners don't matter 'cause I never put subject matter in the corner.
The above applies to my copies of these lenses.
In the 12MP D3 days, the 14-24 was a slightly better lens.
Now, in the D800 days, the 14-24 is a way better lens.
The 14-24 maintains it's nice rendition all the way out to the edges of the 24x36 frame while the 17-35 blurs or fuzzes out at the edges.
Also, the 17-35 is distinctly weaker at 17/18mm, which is unfortunate because 18mm is one of my favored focal lengths.
Corners don't matter 'cause I never put subject matter in the corner.
The above applies to my copies of these lenses.
dave gaines
Veteran Member
Well, they could test it but the test chart would have to be very big!
I think you have to compare landscape or architectural shots of the same scene. You'd need something with equa-distant focus points across the image. It would also depend on the curvature of the focus plane. I don't entirely understand the focus plane, or more accurately, know how it is shaped for either lens. Maybe a very large subject, like a bridge or stadium, at infinity would be a good test subject? Maybe a very large brick wall shot from the mid-height. Good luck finding a suitable target. ;-)
StillLearning
Veteran Member
What F stop do you shoot with the 17-35 at 17? I have to shoot at F8 to even up the picture from center to edges. Still hoping for the 16-35 F2.8 nikon filed a patent on a few years back but I know doesn't mean it will come to light.
GreenMountainGirl
Leading Member
This discussion has been quite interesting, since I have been considering both the 300 f/4 and the 14-24 f/2.8! My first love is wildlife, and am often frustrated when using my 70-300mm in low light. And here in Vermont, that is how it is in winter!
This is how I am thinking when considering FX lenses for my D7000. Also, a good lens is a good lens on a good camera...
I did hear about a lens adapter that lets you use a CP filter or ND filter on the 14-24. Around $250 for the adapter and filter. Not cheap, but worth considering.
Too bad I don't know any of those people who are selling their lenses! Of course, it would have to be when I have the available funds to pay for it, even if it IS a very good price...
Your landscapes are excellent!
Susan
I don't think there is anything better then 14-24 2.8 nikon and canon users use it all the time. In terms of selling it its mainly due to weight and bulk that you have to drag it everywhere and also dust that gets in and around the front element after heavy use its easier too sell it and buy another then to service one. 17-35 2.8 was great lens back in day but its old optical formula that has issues resolving high MP sensors with poor AF motor that tends to fail. There is just other alternatives but none come in 2.8 or sharper package then the 14-24.
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
Rudy, I would get the Sigma 8-16 for DX, although the 10-24 Nikon is the undisputed champ for lack of flare, FX or DX.
The 14-24 on FX is a lens that gets all the subliminal cues exactly correct. In other words, it bypasses the gatekeeper and goes right for the pleasure centers, and I always pay attention to those. It is a truly magnificent piece of work. Shooting into the sun with the sun in the frame is no problem. Shooting with the sun just off the frame is a flare nightmare. You've got to take the good with the bad with this lens. When it is good, it is off the charts. Many times it needs to be set hyperfocal about 20 feet out at f8-9 to get the field curvature working to get sharp right down to the grass at your feet and clear into the corners, and it does, better than the Zeiss or any other superwide. Almost as if they designed it for landscape :^)
It also is my favorite 19-21mm lens, which is a really nice bonus.
Glenn Nagel is a master of this lens...
If any of you reading this have not seen Rudy's work on Flickr, then prepare for a pleasant surprise. He's what you call a very quick study!
Centre Block
Parliament Hill Gazebo
It takes correction for geometric distortion like a dream.
The 14-24 on FX is a lens that gets all the subliminal cues exactly correct. In other words, it bypasses the gatekeeper and goes right for the pleasure centers, and I always pay attention to those. It is a truly magnificent piece of work. Shooting into the sun with the sun in the frame is no problem. Shooting with the sun just off the frame is a flare nightmare. You've got to take the good with the bad with this lens. When it is good, it is off the charts. Many times it needs to be set hyperfocal about 20 feet out at f8-9 to get the field curvature working to get sharp right down to the grass at your feet and clear into the corners, and it does, better than the Zeiss or any other superwide. Almost as if they designed it for landscape :^)
It also is my favorite 19-21mm lens, which is a really nice bonus.
Glenn Nagel is a master of this lens...
If any of you reading this have not seen Rudy's work on Flickr, then prepare for a pleasant surprise. He's what you call a very quick study!
Centre Block
Parliament Hill Gazebo
It takes correction for geometric distortion like a dream.
hewhosculpts
Leading Member
- Messages
- 805
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 103
I've heard that given the right kind of optical test bench you can test a lens at any distance to the subject but since I'm not a physicist or technician specializing in optics measurements I won't vouch for it. Also, the in same discussion the expense of such a test bench was said to be way beyond that which someplace like Photozone could ever possibly afford.Well, they could test it but the test chart would have to be very big!
I think you have to compare landscape or architectural shots of the same scene. You'd need something with equa-distant focus points across the image. It would also depend on the curvature of the focus plane. I don't entirely understand the focus plane, or more accurately, know how it is shaped for either lens. Maybe a very large subject, like a bridge or stadium, at infinity would be a good test subject? Maybe a very large brick wall shot from the mid-height. Good luck finding a suitable target. ;-)
--
Dave
Last edited:
StillLearning
Veteran Member
Rudy, I would get the Sigma 8-16 for DX, although the 10-24 Nikon is the undisputed champ for lack of flare, FX or DX.
The 14-24 on FX is a lens that gets all the subliminal cues exactly correct. In other words, it bypasses the gatekeeper and goes right for the pleasure centers, and I always pay attention to those. It is a truly magnificent piece of work. Shooting into the sun with the sun in the frame is no problem. Shooting with the sun just off the frame is a flare nightmare. You've got to take the good with the bad with this lens. When it is good, it is off the charts. Many times it needs to be set hyperfocal about 20 feet out at f8-9 to get the field curvature working to get sharp right down to the grass at your feet and clear into the corners, and it does, better than the Zeiss or any other superwide. Almost as if they designed it for landscape :^)
It also is my favorite 19-21mm lens, which is a really nice bonus.
Glenn Nagel is a master of this lens...
If any of you reading this have not seen Rudy's work on Flickr, then prepare for a pleasant surprise. He's what you call a very quick study!
Centre Block
Parliament Hill Gazebo
It takes correction for geometric distortion like a dream.
Was admiring the 1st picture at 100%. Tried to figure out why the left center was distorted then it hit me the heat from the flame was distorting it. Nice detail.
dave gaines
Veteran Member
Very fine shots. I like the 2 1/2 hour star trails exposure in Joshua Tree. Hearst castle is really well done, and at ISO 3200 too. I know that viewpoint in Los Angeles. I think Canyonland Park is in Arizona or Utah, not California.
Yes, maybe I'll take the 14-24 to Zion and Bryce this summer instead of the 17-35. Thanks for posting these.
Yes, maybe I'll take the 14-24 to Zion and Bryce this summer instead of the 17-35. Thanks for posting these.
Jeff31M
Well-known member
In Saskatchewan where I live, this lens has consistant and fun use! Wont sell 
--
jeffwizniak.smugmug.com
--
jeffwizniak.smugmug.com
Last edited:
Not the 24 f1.4G. I have the 14-24, 16-35, and 24 f1.4G and the 24 f1.4G is the best of the lot, overall, in general IQ and sharpness.
--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg
Last edited:
Rudy Pohl
Veteran Member
Well hello Rielly!!! Gosh it's great to hear from you after such a long time! I hope all is well out there in God's country USA!
Thanks very much for your thoughts and experiences with the 14-24/F2.8. I am particularly pleased with your detailed comment regarding the flare issues (sun in frame - no problems... sun just outside of frame - nightmares). This is exactly what I need to know.
And yes, I really want the grass at my feet, the cherry blossoms at my 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock, and overhanging leaves along the top of the frame to be as tack sharp as the centre. It's a sense of depth and natural effect that I'm trying to recreate in many of my landscapes by placing full or partial subjects in the very near foreground to make you feel you are standing right there. Right now I am having to do this most often with focus stacking using two separate images. I would like to be able to do this with just one lens and one image and that would require edge-to-edge sharpness. Here's an example:
Regarding my using a DX body... I figure that if the 14-24/F2.8 is great on an FX body then it will be near perfect on a DX (so says Ken Rockwell). Then, if and when I buy a full-frame I'll have a great lens to go with it.
All the best,
Rudy
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum