-
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
PaulV
Senior Member
I find mine indispensable, but I only use it for very specific types of shots. for those shots, absolutely nothing else will work.
--
Life is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be lived.
--
Life is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be lived.
It has been said many times, in more eloquent ways,but the lens does not travel well.
I purchased it to use nearby, not on a trek to Peru; the 16-35 will have to pick up the slack.
But when all is said and done and you review your images,the 14-24 never disappoints.
I purchased it to use nearby, not on a trek to Peru; the 16-35 will have to pick up the slack.
But when all is said and done and you review your images,the 14-24 never disappoints.
PHXAZCRAIG
Forum Pro
Well, mostly yes. But in my use, out here in the desert southwest of Arizona, flare from the sun is a constant problem and has disappointed me numerous times. (Examples of such flare here: http://www.cjcphoto.net/lenstests/14-24/index.html)
"Link is wrong, or not up to date", is the error message i get when clicking on it.
Did some really deep digging in the 16-35mm F4 VR flickr group today, and after tons of clicking, discarding downsized images (2048*1600 resolution), i finally found some D800/d600 full ress images, of city/landscapes. It's certainly better then all the 'bad talk' about it seems to suggest. At the same time, it's not the best out there. Primes beat it (but don't exist in that range, with an up to date design, apart from maybe 24mm, but not wider, except Carl zeiss), but overall not bad. Pixel peepers will notice it though. A little downsize should mask most of it. I dunno if these images have been 'distortion corrected' - i think so, knowing how that would look like - but the images really had very straight lines, even in the corners. There was only perspective distortion (wich is to be expected, and if you use good compositions, you mask it). Think I might bit the bullet and go for 16-35mm after all. Especially the contrast/clarity of the lens seem great, masking the just below 'top of the line' sharpness pretty well. I guess in the end, for the compromise the 16-35mm is, it certainly achieves acceptable/great results. Add vr on top of it, and not to crazy weight, and it seems the best all round wide angle lens.
That being said, i'm gonna be very critical, my copy must be at least as good, as the one used in the photo's i saw on the net.
Did some really deep digging in the 16-35mm F4 VR flickr group today, and after tons of clicking, discarding downsized images (2048*1600 resolution), i finally found some D800/d600 full ress images, of city/landscapes. It's certainly better then all the 'bad talk' about it seems to suggest. At the same time, it's not the best out there. Primes beat it (but don't exist in that range, with an up to date design, apart from maybe 24mm, but not wider, except Carl zeiss), but overall not bad. Pixel peepers will notice it though. A little downsize should mask most of it. I dunno if these images have been 'distortion corrected' - i think so, knowing how that would look like - but the images really had very straight lines, even in the corners. There was only perspective distortion (wich is to be expected, and if you use good compositions, you mask it). Think I might bit the bullet and go for 16-35mm after all. Especially the contrast/clarity of the lens seem great, masking the just below 'top of the line' sharpness pretty well. I guess in the end, for the compromise the 16-35mm is, it certainly achieves acceptable/great results. Add vr on top of it, and not to crazy weight, and it seems the best all round wide angle lens.
That being said, i'm gonna be very critical, my copy must be at least as good, as the one used in the photo's i saw on the net.
PHXAZCRAIG
Forum Pro
The hyperlink ended up with a ) at the end. Delete that and the link should be OK.
I shoot a D800 with the Holy Trinity. In an effort to reduce the weight of my camera bag I did a test with the four 24mm capable lenses I had. On a tripod shooting static subjects at about 100 feet distance using Live View etc, my results were:
Best 14-24
Zuiko 24mm converted for Nikon
24-70
24mm AFD a long way behind.
This was true at f2.8 and F5.6 for my lenses and this specific test. YMMV.
OK, so I could have sold my 14-24 and used the Zuiko, BUT, I also did an analysis of every shot I had ever taken with the D800 to see which focal length I actually used, and I encourage everyone to do this with the free software available on the web.
Only 5% of my shots were taken at 14mm, but essentially they were all keepers, which cannot be said of the rest.
So for now, despite its weight, I am keeping it.
I have also found that the D800 is quite unforgiving with older lenses.
Best 14-24
Zuiko 24mm converted for Nikon
24-70
24mm AFD a long way behind.
This was true at f2.8 and F5.6 for my lenses and this specific test. YMMV.
OK, so I could have sold my 14-24 and used the Zuiko, BUT, I also did an analysis of every shot I had ever taken with the D800 to see which focal length I actually used, and I encourage everyone to do this with the free software available on the web.
Only 5% of my shots were taken at 14mm, but essentially they were all keepers, which cannot be said of the rest.
So for now, despite its weight, I am keeping it.
I have also found that the D800 is quite unforgiving with older lenses.
hypercore360
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,951
- Reaction score
- 459
Rudy!
I for one LOVE LOVE LOVE the lens. Couldn't imagine not having it. Yes, it is expensive, and perhaps (I'm just guessing), people get the lens thinking it's going to change their photography... the thinking is not wrong... but when they start using it, it doesn't behave they way they think it was going to, There is a learning curve to it. But, oh, once you learn it, and learn it good, it's spectacular in every respect. I've had mine since mid-2012, and do not have a single thought of selling it.
Granted, I don't use it much, but then again, the opportunities to use it are limited by where I live. That being said, I went out yesterday around and shot everything (tall building / glass atrium structures, etc...) with only that lens. Got fantastic results.
Those people selling it off couldn't make proper use of the lens... too bad for them. Take advantage of it and perhaps consider getting of of them at a good price.
Regarding usage:
Those trying to use it specifically for landscape photography have some legitimate gripes... which I need not repeat... it's been discussed / chewed up / regurgitated ad nauseam... but those that want to do architectural photography will see it's use in the true light of things.
Last edited:
hypercore360
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,951
- Reaction score
- 459
Perhaps it just me... but I LOVE heavy lenses. To me at least, it just says quality, and more importantly it adds to the stability when hand holding it. Just love this lens. I do not mind the weight of this lens at all.
I haven't seen the data that gives you the impression the 17-35 is sharper than the 14-24. But while at some apertures and zoom settings it's it's possible it bests the 14-24 in the center (and even that I find doubtful) there is NO comparison if edge to edge sharpness is important, and for most landscape use that is a requirement. The edges of the 17-35 seriously disappointed me at all apertures when I finally got to try on a full frame DSLR (D3) and on the D800e it's very very apparent that this is a lens was designed over 15 years ago before the full frame digital era. I love the 17-35 and will keep it for film use for the rest of my life (aperture ring!!!), but I almost never use it. Unless I'm trying to put a sharp subject on a wide out of focus back ground or something like that it will leave me disappointed.
The 14-24 is an amazing lens. I found it to be about perfect at all apertures 14 to 24mm, I was STUNNED when I first got it (with my D3), but on the much higher res sensors on the D800e even this "king of UWA lenses" shows some weakness. On the D3, D700, etc, the sensor was definitely the limiting factor. With 3 times the pixels and much sharper pixels at that, the lens is it limiting factor, but still you take some care to optimize your focus and aperture the images will have plenty of edge to edge detail for pretty darn large prints. Problems with the 14-24 physical size and giant bulbous front element are one thing and not to be ignored, but for me the reason it rarely gets used is when in nature shooting landscapes it's pretty rare I can use 14 and I'm always bumping the zoom stop at 24 trying to get more towards 28 or 35mm where I shoot a lot. 18-35 is a dramatically more useful range.
I've just picked up the 18-35G to try to get better edge to edge sharpness than the 17-35D, initial results seem good, it's no 14-24, but it's about as good as it gets for it's zoom range and it's light, compact and a very good value. If you can get by with a little less aperture and can get over not having the prestige of a 2.8 lens, I'm sure you'd be better served by the cheaper, newer model.
SO..... That leaves me wondering when Nikon will make a full replacement for the 17-35 2.8. That they have made 2 new modern lenses in that range since the 14-24 release, that are both very good, but neither as good as the 14-24 and the 14-24 itself showing some weakness is a little sad. Since they have two lenses in that range now, it may be less likely they will do it, but damn if there isn't a very vacant spot for 16,17,18-35 range 2.8 that bests even the mighty 14-24!!!! DO IT NIKON!!!!
Last edited:
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. ;-)
GreenMountainGirl
Leading Member
Hi Craig. Looked at the photos and have a question. Is the flare due to some particular angle from which the images are shot, or is it unpredictable? Which gets to my REAL question - have you figured out how to avoid flare?
Thanks.
Susan
Thanks.
Susan
Desmond Ong
Active member
I owned a 14-24mm too. I would say I use the most out of it and it is part of my walk around lense. Depend on the user, for me I shoot lots of landscape and architecture shots, sometimes I also shoot with people or groups of people. Initially, it is quite tricky to compose your shot especially shoot with large crowd of people. Both edges of the lense will contribute distortion to the subject (people) due to the curvature of the front element. However, it takes times to practice and compose with this lense. Preferably, place the subject not to close to the extreme edge and also watch out your composition angle. UWA composition angle is not equal to those normal zoom lenses as straight forward.
As for focal range, I do not worry about if I want something slightly beyond 24mm. I'm using a D600, it's allow you to switch from FX to DX format framing which can give you a 1.5x crop factor. Here again, you can get 21-36mm focal range. With a 24mp sensor, when switch to DX, you still have approximate 10mp which still not bad. Doesn't it sound good? Its just like you having both 14-24mm and 17-35mm lenses in a single package, with a f2.8g, fast focusing and tact sharp images. It's a win-win.
Hope my experience helps.
As for focal range, I do not worry about if I want something slightly beyond 24mm. I'm using a D600, it's allow you to switch from FX to DX format framing which can give you a 1.5x crop factor. Here again, you can get 21-36mm focal range. With a 24mp sensor, when switch to DX, you still have approximate 10mp which still not bad. Doesn't it sound good? Its just like you having both 14-24mm and 17-35mm lenses in a single package, with a f2.8g, fast focusing and tact sharp images. It's a win-win.
Hope my experience helps.
PHXAZCRAIG
Forum Pro
All of those examples were just taken from normal shots with the lens, and all save maybe one were 'unpredictable'. Not so much unpredictable (once you know it can happen), but more like 'not noticed in the field'. I shoot a lot in Arizona sunlight, which is so bright that you often cannot see much in the LCD besides a histogram. Yes, a lot of this can be seen when you take the image, but you do have to look for it, and that slows you down.
How to avoid it? Simply be sure the lens glass is shaded. In order to do that, you almost have to be using the lens on a tripod so you can look at the front of the lens and do some sort of shading of it. Someone here has posted several times a simple shade he made that is more-or-less a round bit of shade attached to some pipe-cleaner like wires that attach to the lens. He just bends the shade into position so it shades the glass but does not intrude into the image (a pretty narrow adjustment sometimes).
I like to shoot this lens handheld, and it's pretty difficult to hold it with one hand while trying to shade it with the other, especially if the sun is coming in from the right hand side (where I'm holding the lens).
I'd say the flare is likely very predictable if you do some tests and study the images closely as you turn the lens more and more towards the sun. But in my experience, most very wide angle lenses very often have the sun just outside the frame, in the 'danger zone'. Unless you specifically want the sun in the frame. You have these choices, usually:
1. sun in frame
2. sun just outside of frame
3. sun well outside the frame - and here is where you start getting your own shadow in the image. With very wide angle lenses, you tend to have your own shadow pretty quickly when having the sun anywhere behind the plane of the camera/lens. (With my 10.5DX fisheye, I always had to look for me feet coming into frame, or sometimes a camera strap.)
If you look at a couple of my examples, you see a blue dot - particularly one on a sailboat where there was a dark area near the middle of the frame. That's not flare. It's a reflection of the sensor coming off the back of some glass element. Would not normally show up without a very bright light source and a very dark image area where the reflection would be. You can see that phenomenon (I can't remember the technical name for it) with lots of lenses, so I don't consider it particularly a defect or characteristic unique to the 14-24.
Anyway, bottom line is that if you really need to have an image with no flare, and the sun is in the 'danger area', you need to make sure all of the glass is in the shadow of the lens hood or some external object.
sterudo
Member
No idea why you would not use this lens all the time, just bought one on ebay.
After a quick tour through the city I am certain, this is a keeper:
It might be great for landscape but it is awesome in the city!
But I used the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 for over 5 years and learned to love ultra wide angle shooting.
After a quick tour through the city I am certain, this is a keeper:
Loading…
www.flickr.com
It might be great for landscape but it is awesome in the city!
But I used the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 for over 5 years and learned to love ultra wide angle shooting.
Loading…
www.flickr.com
DMT
Well-known member
Simply Nikon's BEST ZOOM EVER.
There is no other lens in the world like it.
Period.
There is no other lens in the world like it.
Period.
ExposureMeter
Senior Member
There could be many reasons.
Too big.
Too heavy.
Filters too bulky.
Filters too expensive.
Need to raise some cash.
Zeiss 15mm may be better for them, zeiss takes 95mm round filters.
Many reasons too numerous to mention.
Too big.
Too heavy.
Filters too bulky.
Filters too expensive.
Need to raise some cash.
Zeiss 15mm may be better for them, zeiss takes 95mm round filters.
Many reasons too numerous to mention.
thelenspainter
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,906
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,388
Robert, is that you?
Last week I lost some opportunities because I don't have 24mm prime, and I even needed wider. I really need a wide-angle thus. I was going for the 16-35mm after the 'improved' pictures i saw after seeing lots of crappy images taken with it (on D800). But reading that other topic about sample variation on 16-35mm scares me again. And the 14-24mm is wider (always a plus) and can up the shutter speed better with extra stop of light, also sharper wide open. Think i'm going for the 14-24mm.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum