Why do so many people sell their Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 lenses after just a few tries?

[WhateverNickname]

[No message]

 

[GreenMountainGirl]

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?

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.

Craig, Thanks for the explanation. It helps a lot. I shoot mostly in the Northeast - New England - and our brightest summer sunlight is no match for Arizona! Plus, we get plenty of overcast days all year long, but especially in winter.

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.

I use a tripod most of the time, so ought to be able to make adjustments for the lighting. This is a great tip to remember.

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.

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.

Recently I read a book about lighting, and this comes to mind reading your description. The "danger zone" you describe sounds like the place from which the light hits the lens wrong. And there are more "wrong" places to hit the lens with the 14-24 because of its bulbous shape. This might not be an entirely accurate description of what is happening, but it helps me visualize!

Susan

--
Craig
www.cjcphoto.net

--
GreenMountainGirl

 

[MattiD80]

Pulled the trigger. This morning my most used shop for lenses, increased the price of the 14-24 from 1549 to 1679. Quite an increase, especially since it was 1379 not so long ago (maybe a year, or two). Luckely one shop closer to my door had a promotion still going 1649 euro normal price, discounted 1529 euro. (will probably also rise after promo, since this shop is +50 euro most expensive then cheapest shops on most lenses). Lot of money, my most expensive zoom yet.

But after a lot of 24mm experimenting (24-120mm VR f4 I own), i knew a 'little bit wider' was not gonna cut it for the kind of shots I want. So the 18-35 was not much of an upgrade. The 16-35 was a worthy competitor, but the price also rose from 929 to almost 1000 euro, bringing it quite close to 14-24 price imo. The 16-35mm also gets lots of positive reviews, but the negative ones are a little more pronounced then for the 14-24 wich is almost completely positive reviews. Was a hard nut to crack, but went for the 14-24mm. Partly because it's wider, and I think that will serve my needs (I love landscape, cityscape photography, especially big things, so wide is handy). Also because I learned higher shutter speed can fix more then VR can so the extra F-stop is handy, and because D800 is demanding, and the Sigma 35mm art spoiled me lately. The weight after 3 hours of use is really a non issue for a young person like me. Truly worth it. Focus is very fast.

If i don't like the lens, was another thought, i can resell it for same price, since new price will go up. I saw many people do this with all the other Nikkors (€1000+ lenses), wich all went up 200-350 euro last years. The 14-24mm seemed like the last on the list. Since I live in touristic city, i have lot of opportunities to test wide angle, and I must say, totally amazed by the view on 14mm. It's really completely different then human view angle, making it really a creative tool, that can pull some stuff out of picture, that would be impossible otherwise. So far I had some issues getting 'far away details' sharp. With micro manual focussing i could get some sharp shots on distance stuff, but using autofocus, the far away stuff is either just out of focus or not to sharp because of handshake. I will do more experiments to rule out lens issues, but I think i gotta get used to the lens (so my mistakes). I also realize DoF is more tricky on this lens, since you can see from your feet, all the way into the horizon, making even F8 probably way to thin DOF to get everything sharp. If it's more sunny i will try some 1/200 (seems safe for handshake) + F11-F16 shots, to see if this improves distant details. But otherwise the lens is a joy to use. Very ergonomic. Not to heavy at all after 3 hours.

 

[LFBera]

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful responses.

I have been doing solely wildlife photography for the last 2 years but a few months ago I bought a Nikon 12-24mm F4 and began doing landscapes. Here is some of my stuff so far: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rudypohl/sets/72157644844338092/

Being careful with my technique, and being a self-confessed pixel-peeping fanatic, and hoping to make large format prints of some of my keepers, I am wondering whether going whole hog on a 14-24mm F2.8 is the route I should go for edge-to-edge sharpness. Or whether should simply do my best with the 12-24/F4.

Thanks again,

Rudy

Gorgeous pictures, congrats!

 

[thelenspainter]

Congratulations. I just have one comment - 18mm is vastly wider than 24, so I wouldn't discount owning an 18-35 if I already had a 24-xx lens.

 

[MattiD80]

Congratulations. I just have one comment - 18mm is vastly wider than 24, so I wouldn't discount owning an 18-35 if I already had a 24-xx lens.

I know mate. I know every mm wider, means more change. Still I did a lot of research. If i remember correctly 24mm is just below 90°, 18mm is almost 100°, 16mm 106° and 14mm 114°. I used this numbers as guidelines when I was walking in cities, forest, others, to calculate 'would this be wide enough or not?' And answer was often yes, but quite a lot of situations it was not wide enough. Would 18mm have been good upgrade? yes. But as a huge fan of landscape (so it's sort of my specialty - after lots of thinking), i think 600 euro for a tad bit wider was gonna dissapoint me in the end. I took quite some 14mm shots today, and some of them Just had the subject in the frame with barely space left to catch it (like big churges from closeby for instance). It gives a lot of freedom in composition going from extreme wide (14mm) to normal wide (24mm). My first impressions is that I made the right choice, and that 14mm over 16/18mm has enough value to justify it.

 

[photogeek]

Here's why I sold mine: too heavy and large to take anywhere. Size alone wouldn't be that much of a problem, but it has a ton of glass. After it sitting in the cupboard for a few months, I got rid of it. It's a great lens for someone who can tolerate the weight, though.

 

[Gearsau]

I love my Nikon 14-24mm lens. Haven't used it ( or most of my gear for a couple of years..health issue)

I purchased my lens around 2009 from memory.

Have taken it to China, Thailand and Cambodia, and can say, that its an amazing lens.

That 14mm focal length has helped me on many occasions, where I could not " Zoom with my feet "

I have also purchased the Lucroit adapter and a Hitech 165mm x 200mm two (2) stop, soft edge graduated filter to use with it.

My bodies are Nikon D3S and D3.


Regards Peter

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

How did you pack/carry it overseas?

I find myself unable to take it with me on trips unless I bring a backpack. Doesn't fit well in my waist bag.

 

[xtm]

Now that I have owned and sold the 14-24, I think I'm now qualified to answer.

Let me preface that I had the 16-35VR for 3 years and loved it. Sold it for 18-35G because I wanted a lighter lens, and then sold it for the 14-24 because I wanted the best, or so I thought.

A big mistake. A confounding epic fail, if you will.

For the 14-24's first test, I took it to Yosemite. Within seconds of taking the first shots, I was greeted by flares...there were flares everywhere! And not just a simple flare, but the kind of flare that destroys the entire image. It didn't matter where the sun was - in front of me, above me, behind me, it would just flare. That was my biggest issue with it.

Then I started walking around the Merced River, where the great Ansel Adams have captured so many iconic landmarks in his time. I sat down and set up my tripod. Feeling inspired about the great framing and light that is about to shimmer on the unfolding scene, where El Capitan, Bridalveil Falls, and Merced River come into one. I reached for the LEE filter pocket and realized... "oh crap, this lens doesn't take filters!"

There I stood, bewildered.

I took a shot anyway, and the ever present flare manifested itself yet again.

"Ok, fine.", I said. So I took my rig and hiked the Four Mile Trail. There, I started to realize how heavy the 14-24 is, and how I constantly had to zoom in to 24mm to retract the bulbous element and protect it from Yosemite's wilderness.

Slowly, it dawned on me that the lens is actually a liability to my style of shooting - a detriment even. It's an event lens that is capable of shooting landscapes, but not the other way around.

On the way home, I looked at the 14-24. It was staring back at me, with its bulbous element exuding that arrogance as if saying "I am the best wide angle there is on the planet and you will never get rid of me". But I didn't care. Oh no I did not. In my mind, you are overhyped. An overhyped lens that is a product of the internet, where gear heads lurk who want nothing but the best, yet disregarding actual shooting conditions.

I arrived home and humbly packed the arrogant lens, off to its next owner.

I then acquired another 16-35 and I instantly felt like I was reunited with a long lost friend. Welcome back, 16-35VR, I will therefore wrap my arms around you tightly and never let go again. Good riddance, 14-24. At least I have lived with both and I can honestly say that it is the 16-35VR that I'm in love with. Oh the horror on the perfectionists faces.

A parting shot with the 14-24 and D800E. Yosemite Valley, September 2014.

 

[thelenspainter]

A lovely tale My 16-35VR enjoyed hearing it.

 

[Gearsau]

How did you pack/carry it overseas?

I find myself unable to take it with me on trips unless I bring a backpack. Doesn't fit well in my waist bag.

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

I'm happy with my backpack (Think Tank Airport Accelerator). It fits under a seat, so I can take it most anywhere. But I rarely wear it around, and it mostly gets used (in travel situations) where we are touring by car.

I use a Think Tank Speed Racer waist bag, arrived at after a number of other bag experiences. Once I discovered that putting weight on your hips instead of your shoulders or neck allows me to go all day without hurting my back, I decided to give up anything else for walking tours. The waist bag also forces a practical limit to the weight I carry. Putting a 14-24 in it means taking another lens out. So for touring I use a 16-35 in place of the 14-24.

 

[Gearsau]

If you want to try a UWA lens that doesn't break the bank, consider Rokinon/Samyang 14/2.8 prime. It is manual focus, but how much you really need AF for a UWA is questionable. The lens gets absolutely stellar reviews for sharpness. It does have a complicated distortion pattern but for landscape/nature it is probably not that big of a deal if any. Apparently fairly flare-resistant as well, which is a big deal for lenses with huge bulbous front elements, and I've heard that 14-24 doesn't fare exceptionally well in this department. The best thing, it costs a very small fraction of what you'll pay for 14-24, and it will give an idea of how much you really need UWA. I'm considering this lens myself because knowing how little use I'll probably get out of a UWA the expense seems commensurate.

+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.

I have purchased a few genuine Nikon front lens caps as they do wear with being taken on and off after a while. Have even sourced some "copies " of the lens cap on eBay and they work OK. Nice thing, is that they are 50% of the Nikon price.

Recently, I have also purchased some OpTech soft foam lens covers , as I have purchased the Lucroit Filter Holder and a 165mm x 200mm graduated filter for this lens.

You just leave the Lucroit adapter ring on the lens, and then use the Optech soft lens hoods. I have taken to fitting two Optech lens hoods for " extra protection". One on top of the other.

There is another lens cap available ( forget the name, but, they were out of stock of the required size anyway ).. This particular lens hood has a hard front to give extra protection for that enormous piece of Nikon glass.

Trust this is of interest .


Regards Peter

 

[vbuhay]

I have never been more pleased and amazed by some of the images have taken with this lens in my 40 years of picture taking. Not that it is always right for any situation, rather in those times that those images just jump at me there is no comparison. I have only owned this lens for less than a year and I do not foresee ever getting rid of it. You have to give it a chance to grow on you and it will reward you with images you will enjoy forever. Best lens ever.

here are some samples;


Horse Shoe Bend, Page AZ


Joshua Tree NP - Elephant Arch


Joshua Tree NP - Elephant Arch

[ATTACH alt="See the Rock Climbers "in for the night" - El Capitan Yosemite, CA"]665407[/ATTACH]
See the Rock Climbers "in for the night" - El Capitan Yosemite, CA




Half Dome, Yosemite Valley, from Galcier Point.

[ATTACH alt="Half Dome, Yosemite Valley, from Glacier Point. at night! Notice the "small" fire on the right..."]665412[/ATTACH]
Half Dome, Yosemite Valley, from Glacier Point. at night! Notice the "small" fire on the right...



The amount of detail you get when printed 30" X 20" is amazing.

 

[incrediblehark]

I have been considering buying a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 for landscape photography. Here in Canada we have a popular free version of eBay called Kijiji.com There are always a number of these lenses for sale on this online market where the owner says they used it only once or a few times.

Why do you think that is? Is this lens too difficult to use? Is there too much flare? Are people that put off by no use of filters?

This is such an expensive lens I would assume that people would be slow to buy it new or used and would have done a lot of research before jumping in. Yet, so many buy it and then turn around and sell it without hardly ever using it. Just wondering.....

Rudy

The reason has been answered by a few posters here but to sum it up the 14-24 is a very specialized lens especially at the wide end and takes skill to use it. The majority that buy it are not skilled but collectors of trophy lenses and soon after buying realize they have no idea how to use it. All the catch phrases like "Holy Trinity" have been coined too often by amateurs as they worship their gear rather that using it. The good news for many is that these lenses are sold at a great discount second hand. The weight thing is a silly notion as how can one not understand the specs along with the filter issue. Does one fork out $2000.00 for a lens , then say" Oh s_ _ _t, this thing is heavy and darn it cannot take filters". That logic is juvenile but so often stated. The pixel peeping crtics are as usual, immersed in single minded useless specs as this lens is the benchmark lens of it's kind and you do not buy this lens for "perfect corners" however there are none better. It's the very common practice of amateurs buying gear they haven't a clue how to use so there should be no mystery at all.

I couldn't agree more. I recently purchased the 14-24 after a long debate between it, and the Zeiss 21mm. I was really torn but eventually decided I wanted both, but would buy them separately over a period of time. I got the Zeiss first, but received a bad copy (discussed in another thread), and I immediately exchanged it for the 14-24.

I have used this lens a lot since purchasing it and have learned to love it. The wide end is the reason I love this lens, nothing else comes close to it, IMO. I did have a hard time getting consistent keepers at first, but once I learned to use it, I'm very happy with it.

I think people purchase this lens thinking it's going to do the work for them. The reality is, this lens requires work/effort to achieve consistent, high IQ images. The side effect is lots of people who aren't experienced enough with lenses, selling the 14-24 used because too much time has passed to return it to the store.

On another note, I did hear a rumor here in the Toronto area that Nikon has been refusing to fix some 14-24 lenses under warranty for some zoom/focus related issues. The zoom ring is either really hard to turn, seems stiffer than it should be, or changes consistency throughout the zoom range. Nikon is claiming this is a symptom of being dropped or has suffered some sort of impact in it's life span. The scary thing is, these lenses show no other signs of being dropped (no scuff marks, etc) and can easily be passed of as mint. I would warn someone who's attempting to purchase the 14-24 used to make sure the zoom feels smooth and consistent, and that it focuses properly.

I would wager that someone attempting to sell a mint condition used 14-24 for less than $1450 here in the Toronto area, might be someone who fits into the above mentioned warranty issue, or has some other devious issue.

Cheers

 

[MattiD80]

I may be an amateur, but this was the hardest nut to crack. Wich wide angle lens will I buy? If sigma came sooner with their 14-24mm OS I might have gone that route, but without that, the Nikkor was simply the best. I did a lot of tests at 24mm, and the Kind of shots i like to take often require wider angle. Having read years these forums however already teached me perspective distortion is something weird, and it will quickly make you stop using the lens as 'point and shoot'. Still while the lens may not be my most used, it certainly opened options for me. And no regrets so far (research did it's work i guess). Not all amateurs make the wrong choice on it.

 

[Rick Knepper]

There are just not that many lenses engineered to a sufficient degree for suitability in landscape at or near wide open yet, however, that is what will be needed to avoid diffraction with these ever higher MP cameras. The Zeiss Otus 55 can be used for landscape at f1.4 with corner to corner sharpness in the right composition. I can use my EF 24-70 II @f2.8 with the right composition and have acceptably sharp corners. I expect the WA Otuses to be engineered to such a degree and I hope the ARTs will be too.

it is hard to use because it is too wide, heavy and can't use filter. most people like 20mm better. Landscape doesn't need f2.8.

i have 14 24 and hardly use it however other people may use it more. all depend i guess. not everyone is the same

 

[hunter20ga]

As already written in this thread, there are a lot of reasons to like or dislike this lens. Personally, even at 64 YOA I can't imagine leaving home without it in my camera bag if I think there's any chance at all to use it. Architecture, jousting, and everything in-between can be captured with this lens. I used it to get stunning photos of the Dale Chihuly Glass Art exhibit in Seattle, and the next day used it to capture a great image of Snoqualmie Falls. It's heavy, and it's versatile. So much depends on what you shoot and what you value in a lens. For me, the 14-24/2.8 is a must-have tool.

 

[Gearsau]

Now that I have owned and sold the 14-24, I think I'm now qualified to answer.

Let me preface that I had the 16-35VR for 3 years and loved it. Sold it for 18-35G because I wanted a lighter lens, and then sold it for the 14-24 because I wanted the best, or so I thought.

A big mistake. A confounding epic fail, if you will.

For the 14-24's first test, I took it to Yosemite. Within seconds of taking the first shots, I was greeted by flares...there were flares everywhere! And not just a simple flare, but the kind of flare that destroys the entire image. It didn't matter where the sun was - in front of me, above me, behind me, it would just flare. That was my biggest issue with it.

Then I started walking around the Merced River, where the great Ansel Adams have captured so many iconic landmarks in his time. I sat down and set up my tripod. Feeling inspired about the great framing and light that is about to shimmer on the unfolding scene, where El Capitan, Bridalveil Falls, and Merced River come into one. I reached for the LEE filter pocket and realized... "oh crap, this lens doesn't take filters!"

There I stood, bewildered.

I took a shot anyway, and the ever present flare manifested itself yet again.

"Ok, fine.", I said. So I took my rig and hiked the Four Mile Trail. There, I started to realize how heavy the 14-24 is, and how I constantly had to zoom in to 24mm to retract the bulbous element and protect it from Yosemite's wilderness.

Slowly, it dawned on me that the lens is actually a liability to my style of shooting - a detriment even. It's an event lens that is capable of shooting landscapes, but not the other way around.

On the way home, I looked at the 14-24. It was staring back at me, with its bulbous element exuding that arrogance as if saying "I am the best wide angle there is on the planet and you will never get rid of me". But I didn't care. Oh no I did not. In my mind, you are overhyped. An overhyped lens that is a product of the internet, where gear heads lurk who want nothing but the best, yet disregarding actual shooting conditions.

I arrived home and humbly packed the arrogant lens, off to its next owner.

I then acquired another 16-35 and I instantly felt like I was reunited with a long lost friend. Welcome back, 16-35VR, I will therefore wrap my arms around you tightly and never let go again. Good riddance, 14-24. At least I have lived with both and I can honestly say that it is the 16-35VR that I'm in love with. Oh the horror on the perfectionists faces.

A parting shot with the 14-24 and D800E. Yosemite Valley, September 2014.

Obviously you didn't try enough

I love my Nikon 14-24 lens and would never part with it. BTW, I have ly recentpurchased the Lucroit Filter holder and a 2 stop soft edge Hi-Tech Graduated filter for it...

Haven't used the filter yet, but have used the lens extensively in China and Cambodia ( Angkor Wat )

I could not have taken some photos if I didn't have the 14mm focal length . I could not have " zoomed with my feet , either "

Loading…

lucroit.com

Regards Peter