Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: pixjohn on April 03, 2009, 06:43:57 pm
-
I am looking for a new lens to shoot some 360 VR tours. I am looking at the Nikon 14 and 14 - 24
The 14mm lens is a Rectilinear design provides straight-lines
or
AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens.
I am not sure the 14 -24 is going to be the best choice if I want straight lines?
John
-
Both lenses are rectilinear. The 14-24/2.8 has less barrel distortion than the 14/2.8 does, and it does everything else better too -- i.e., it's no contest.
-
If the 14-24 is that much better why would nikon even keep the 14 in the line up. I will rent the 14 -24 and test it out.
Since I come from shooting wide angle with a schneider 24xl with med format, is the 14-24 wide enough? I was thinking if i need more top to bottom i might try shooting vertical and stitch more images. .
Both lenses are rectilinear. The 14-24/2.8 has less barrel distortion than the 14/2.8 does, and it does everything else better too -- i.e., it's no contest.
-
I am looking for a new lens to shoot some 360 VR tours. I am looking at the Nikon 14 and 14 - 24
The 14mm lens is a Rectilinear design provides straight-lines
Rectilinear lens and straight lines are two separate issues.
I am not sure the 14 -24 is going to be the best choice if I want straight lines?
Why would you want straight lines for a 360° VR tour? The stitcher, which creates the pano for the VR tour will bend even the straight lines in your shots.
The best on stitching is, that one does not need to care for the geometric distortion (i.e. barrel and pincussion). The stitcher will take care of that.
-
I am guessing with your screen name, you might have a clue about this pano stuff? Is 14mm wide enough on a d700? I am not even sure what software works best for post?
John
-
I am guessing with your screen name, you might have a clue about this pano stuff? Is 14mm wide enough on a d700? I am not even sure what software works best for post?
John
Panopeeper is far more experienced than I, I believe, however here's my own experience.
Firstly, as others have said, lens distortion is irrelevant when creating VRs. Most people use fisheye lenses. The images are remapped by the software into the equirectangular form (2x1, 360 x 180 deg equivalent) which is the basis of the viewed image.
I had been using a D200 with the Nikkor 10.5 fisheye for about a year and a half before I bought a D700 and, amongst others, the 14-24 2.8 - which is in itself a wonderful lens. It can be used to do VRs - but so could a 200mm lens if you wanted to spend a month creating one from the hundreds of shots that this focal length would require. As some people have done, with amazing high-resolution results.
However I would say that the 14-24 lens is completely unsuitable for the purpose. I've used it; it requires that you shoot 2 rows of six shots (assuming you're not doing HDR, which would require exposure bracketing too) plus however many shots required by your chosen method for patching the nadir - which many people don't find necessary. This approach requires a LOT of PP time in stitching - at least it does for me using PTGui Pro, which I find to be excellent, if a little difficult to learn initially. Others swear by AutoPano Pro. Both will do a good job once you know how to use them I believe. Also the lens is huge and heavy, requiring a very substantial pano head. It's also very easy to nudge the zoom ring and accidentally shoot at >14mm, possibly scr3wing up the whole job.
Give that the final use for most VRs is a tiny .mov or flash file on a website, it's fairly pointless to take this approach. I have had the lens hood shaved from my 10.5 FE which enables me to use it on the FF body, which gives a circular image. In theory this enables you to shoot 3-round, plus zenith, plus nadir(s), however I usually shoot 4-round as the greater overlaps make for more accurate, faster stitching. The resulting tif created by this approach is about 70Mb (I can't recall the actual pixel values as I'm on my laptop.)
In fact I now usually revert to shooting with my D200/10.5 FE. For the time taken to shoot an additional 2 shots the difference is negligible. In this format the lens fills the entire frame (at an effective equivalent f/l of about 15mm). So the resulting stitched equi.tif inclusive of the patched nadir is about 200Mb. Once reduced to a 1Mb .swf file these two approaches are effectively indistinguishable. I usually shoot HDR so the s/n ratio and DR difference between the D200 and D700 has an insignificant impact on the final output on a website.
I now tend to use the D700/14-24 combination to shoot "stills" asociated with the VR job, so less lens changing involved. FWIW I believe that most people tend to like the Sigma 8mm fisheye for VR shooting. I started using the Nikkor 10.5 assuming that the full-frame fisheye would be more generally useful even when "defished": it isn't, particularly now that I have the D700/14-24 combination.
Anyway, I hope that this helps. Others may have better and/or more useful advice.
Roy
-
I am looking for a new lens to shoot some 360 VR tours. I am looking at the Nikon 14 and 14 - 24
The 14mm lens is a Rectilinear design provides straight-lines
or
AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens.
I am not sure the 14 -24 is going to be the best choice if I want straight lines?
John
I had both the 14/2.8 and the 14-24/2.8 when it first came out and ended up keeping the 14mm which has been a favorite lens for since its introduction. @14mm the zoom is VERY distorted, specially compared to the prime. As far as sharpness goes they're exactly the same but the zoom with its new coating has a higher contrast which I didn't care for.
There's another option which I prefer for shooting interiors over both Nikkors and its the Sigma 12-24; its a true rectilinear design and is wider than both. It has less distortion @12mm than even the 14/2.8! Its a slower lens but in this case shouldn't make a difference since you wont be shooting wide open anyway. Sharpness is on a par or very close to the 14-24, but its more compact, lighter and easier to handle.
-
Is 14mm wide enough on a d700?
The narrower the lens, the higher resolution the result; however, as Roy indicated, most of the resolution will be ignored in the movie.
14mm sounds to me incredible wide, for I have a cropping camera (this comes to 9mm!). If you really need 360° vertically too, you might even mix the lenses: a somewhat narrower for making the horizontal shots for higher resolution and one wide for the zenir and nadir each.
The 14mm yields 80° along the shorter edge and 104° along the longer edge. In portrait orientation about seven frames should do it horizontally, and two frames for the zenith and two for the nadir would suffice.
I am not even sure what software works best for post?
This is primarily the question of stitching; the movie will be created from the 360° pano as an extra step. Both PTGui and PTAssembler can stitch even frames with different focal lengths. If Autopano can do that, that's great, for you don't need to learn much.
Depending on the distances, the accurate adjustment of the camera on the bracket is the most important issue. If you still have parallax errors, the process becomes painful and tiresome; you have to "hide" some errors in stitching and edit the masks before blending, to control which part of the result is taken from which frame. On the other hand, small errors may not be even visible in a movie.
-
I had both the 14/2.8 and the 14-24/2.8 when it first came out and ended up keeping the 14mm which has been a favorite lens for since its introduction. @14mm the zoom is VERY distorted, specially compared to the prime. As far as sharpness goes they're exactly the same but the zoom with its new coating has a higher contrast which I didn't care for.
There's another option which I prefer for shooting interiors over both Nikkors and its the Sigma 12-24; its a true rectilinear design and is wider than both. It has less distortion @12mm than even the 14/2.8! Its a slower lens but in this case shouldn't make a difference since you wont be shooting wide open anyway. Sharpness is on a par or very close to the 14-24, but its more compact, lighter and easier to handle.
It's worth pointing out that the OP's question was specifically about lenses suitable for VR panoramas.
In any case your assertion that "@14mm the zoom is VERY distorted" is not shared, as far as I can recall, by any of the notable reviewers who have tested this lens, nor is it true IMVHO. There's a little easily corrected barrel distortion. The general consensus seems to be that this is the best wide-angle zoom ever made, comparable with the best primes at equivalent focal lengths: I have to take this on faith of course. I have never used the 14mm prime or the Sigma you mention so I can't comment.
In any case the distortion issue, even if true, is totally irrelevant in this context and may well confuse the OP! What do you use for VR panoramas, DDK?
Roy
-
It's worth pointing out that the OP's question was specifically about lenses suitable for VR panoramas.
In any case your assertion that "@14mm the zoom is VERY distorted" is not shared, as far as I can recall, by any of the notable reviewers who have tested this lens, nor is it true IMVHO. There's a little easily corrected barrel distortion.
I guess everything is relative, compared to both the Sigma 12-24 and the Nikkor 14/2.8 it has a lot more distortion @14mm than either lens, and I stand by my statement. Unfortunately I don't have the test images any longer otherwise I'd post them for you to see.
The general consensus seems to be that this is the best wide-angle zoom ever made, comparable with the best primes at equivalent focal lengths:
Its a wonderful piece of glass and I never said that it was bad, just that its distorted and not rectilinear @14mm. As far as it being comparable to the best primes at equivalent focal lengths, well, maybe to equivalent Nikkors but compared to the Zeiss ZF lenses, its wishful thinking in every way. 14mm to 35mm is my main shooting range and I would have loved to have one lens for most of that fl, unfortunately its not available yet and I'm still stuck carrying 4-5 lenses and 3 bodies.
I have to take this on faith of course. I have never used the 14mm prime or the Sigma you mention so I can't comment.
In any case the distortion issue, even if true, is totally irrelevant in this context and may well confuse the OP!
Maybe, but OP specifically asks about the linearity of the two lenses and nothing else, so it might be relevant to his application.
What do you use for VR panoramas, DDK?
Roy
I don't shoot VR panoramas, I merely answered OP's question regarding the linearity of the two lenses.
-
14mm sounds to me incredible wide, for I have a cropping camera (this comes to 9mm!).
If you have a cropping camera, 14mm becomes longer, not shorter (perhaps 21mm, not 9mm).
Peter
-
If you have a cropping camera, 14mm becomes longer, not shorter (perhaps 21mm, not 9mm).
14mm on full frame is very wide for me; I would need a 9mm lens to achieve that angle of view on the cropping camera.
-
OK!
I wasn't wishing to be contentious at all, just to clarify things for the OP. Obviously shooting conventionally (whatever that might mean) with flawless Zeiss primes and shooting VR panos with anything at all are at opposite ends of a spectrum. I don't pretend to have the breadth of experience or level of skill found on these forums.
I'd say that amongst people who do VRs commercially, the Sigma 8mm circular FE on a crop-sensor camera seems to be the favoured combo. For "normal" web-resolution use the limitations are pretty well irrelevant. I think that most people who shoot VRs are primarily concerned about minimising the number of shots required. This is particularly true if shooting in uncontrolled environments - ie those that contain free-range humans, other animals, or moving inanimate objects. The less shots the less time spent in tedious masking before stitching.
Good luck to the OP. Let us know what you decide on and how it goes!
Roy
-
I am definitely confused even more. I shoot high end architectural photography using a Cambo wide DS. I have a 32 location project that I need to photography plus produce four 360VR for the web. My plan was to buy a D700 plus a lens and a VR mount. I know from looking at other vr from the clients they are not the floor to ceiling movies.
I have my first project in a week and will maybe test out 2 lens.
John
-
I know from looking at other vr from the clients they are not the floor to ceiling movies
This is a very important issue. IMO the "full height" movies are in most cases for the sake of making them. (There are exceptions, like the ceiling in a church can be important.)
If the ceiling is very high, then you can get away with a hand-held shot.
With the 14mm in portrait orientation, if the camera is at 5' hight and level, the floor is covered from 5-6' from the tripod. Note, that the camera does not need to be level (but the plane of rotation does); you can decide for more coverage of the ceiling without an elevated tripod by tilting the camera slightly upwards (but the overlap has to be greater). Of course if you shoot two rows, this is a non-issue, but the stitching becomes more of a problem due to parallax issues.
Note, that some lenses (perhaps most) change the entrance pupil location with focusing. If you have a pano bracket which allows for very high accuracy adjustment and you pre-calibrate the position, you need to do that with the expected focusing distance and aperture, and you should not refocus between the frames; this may put a strain on the aperture selection.
If you are so far that you calibrate the lens position, send me a message, perhaps I can give you some helpful advice.
Btw, zooming definitively changes the entrance pupil location (perhaps there are lenses excepted from this). Thus a fixed focal length makes life easier.
If you can try the lens, mount it, select a small aperture, look into the lens from the front (i.e. in the "inside of the camera"), and actuate the aperture with the DoF preview. The entrance pupil is there, where you see the aperture (the aperture is not really there, this is the projected location). Now change focus from a few meter to infinity and look if the aperture's position changes. If it does, the adjustment depends on the focusing distance as well.
-
Phew. I'd say that you need to borrow or rent some gear and do a test sooner rather than later.
From my own experience the choice of lens, so long as it's an adequately short focal length (14 mm on FF is fine but I think you'd be better off with even wider...) is not the "problem". It's the initial setup and getting used to the whole workflow.
1) What pano head are you intending to buy?
For guidelines I'd say the NN5 (Nodal Ninja) would do the job fine. The setup values (position of the no-parallax point aka "nodal point") for the 14mm Nikkor are probably already on their site - take a look.
2) What stitching software?
PTGui Pro and Autopano Pro will both do the stitching well; I've heard it said that APP is easier to learn. There's a good user forum for both applications - www.panoguide.com. There are some good tutorials available there.
As PP points out, If you don't need to show the zenith and nadir in the pano (ie the "polar regions") the stiching job is a lot easier and quicker. But you need to get used to the software!
You need to get some practice with the software ASAP in my opinion. I'm sure someone can supply you with some suitable files to practice stitching - me for example. I can let you have a set of six shots at approx 15mm f/l that would suffice to practice on. Or four round using a 10.5 circular FE on the D700 body.
Roy
edit: some useful sites.
http://www.nodalninja.com/ (http://www.nodalninja.com/)
http://www.nodalninja.com/html/nikon_settings.html (http://www.nodalninja.com/html/nikon_settings.html)
http://www.johnhpanos.com/epcalib.htm (http://www.johnhpanos.com/epcalib.htm)
NB the 14mm Nikkor isn't listed on the NN site. The johnpanos site has valuable tutorials.
-
Its a wonderful piece of glass and I never said that it was bad, just that its distorted and not rectilinear @14mm.
Frankly, I consider your assertion that the 14-24 is not rectilinear at 14mm totally bogus -- especially since you are not qualifying that and therefore saying it is a fisheye lens at 14mm! It's just too bad we can't see your proof that it is not rectilinear, or that it is even in some way less rectilinear than the other lenses you are recommending here (I would welcome being proved wrong on this as I like to learn new things). I just looked for myself to make sure I hadn't missed something, and at 14mm my 14-24 is rectilinear with some mild barrel distortion, and that would be less barrel distortion than the 14mm prime has according to Photozone:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-...-report?start=1 (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/208-nikkor-af-14mm-f28-d-ed-review--test-report?start=1)
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-...-review?start=1 (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review?start=1)
They have sample images there also, and while there are no direct comparisons, you can see that the 14-24 at 14mm is rectilinear and shows little relative distortion; and there is a shot taken with the 14 prime that shows significant barrel distortion along the vertical axis of a brick wall in the foreground.
As far as it being comparable to the best primes at equivalent focal lengths, well, maybe to equivalent Nikkors but compared to the Zeiss ZF lenses, its wishful thinking in every way. 14mm to 35mm is my main shooting range and I would have loved to have one lens for most of that fl, unfortunately its not available yet and I'm still stuck carrying 4-5 lenses and 3 bodies.
Zeiss has no 14mm prime. You also say your 14mm prime is as sharp as your copy of the 14-24 (@ 14mm) was, but again that is at odds with Photozone's tests of these lenses at their borders and extreme corners. Either you got a bad copy, or you're just not as critical as I am about these things.
-
Frankly, I consider your assertion that the 14-24 is not rectilinear at 14mm totally bogus -- especially since you are not qualifying that and therefore saying it is a fisheye lens at 14mm! It's just too bad we can't see your proof that it is not rectilinear, or that it is even in some way less rectilinear than the other lenses you are recommending here (I would welcome being proved wrong on this as I like to learn new things). I just looked for myself to make sure I hadn't missed something, and at 14mm my 14-24 is rectilinear with some mild barrel distortion, and that would be less barrel distortion than the 14mm prime has according to Photozone:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-...-report?start=1 (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/208-nikkor-af-14mm-f28-d-ed-review--test-report?start=1)
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-...-review?start=1 (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review?start=1)
They have sample images there also, and while there are no direct comparisons, you can see that the 14-24 at 14mm is rectilinear and shows little relative distortion; and there is a shot taken with the 14 prime that shows significant barrel distortion along the vertical axis of a brick wall in the foreground.
I must say that I could care less wether you think what I said is bogus or not nor care much for pz's figures on this subject; specially since you never did the comparison for yourself. Shoot a room with the 14-24 @14mm and the 14/2.8 and look at the curvature of the side walls, then try the same scene with the Sigma 12-24 and you'll see that Sigma is more??? rectalinear??? than both those lenses.
Zeiss has no 14mm prime. You also say your 14mm prime is as sharp as your copy of the 14-24 (@ 14mm) was, but again that is at odds with Photozone's tests of these lenses at their borders and extreme corners. Either you got a bad copy, or you're just not as critical as I am about these things.
Nikon has a wonderful 14mm and Zeiss has 18, 21 and 25mm primes which covers most the zoom's range. As far as the extreme corners goes, I mostly shoot DX so it doesn't even enter my tests and even on FX slight differences at EXTREME corners wouldn't much to me either.
My edit:
By the way did which fl and aperture did pz use to come to their extreme corner conclusions compared the 14/2.8's test? 14-24's coating is more contrasty than the 14/2.8, could that have affected their results which is easy to fix by boosting contrast a bit in post?
-
I must say that I could care less wether you think what I said is bogus or not nor care much for pz's figures on this subject; specially since you never did the comparison for yourself. Shoot a room with the 14-24 @14mm and the 14/2.8 and look at the curvature of the side walls, then try the same scene with the Sigma 12-24 and you'll see that Sigma is more??? rectalinear??? than both those lenses.
You offer an opinion which you state as a fact that is outside the experience reported by everyone else. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but you in fact offer no proof at all. You really need to get your facts straight too if you want to have any credibility -- the 14-24 is a rectilinear lens. Now as to linear distortion, well I have shot extensively with the 14-24 and it has very little of that sort of distortion, and certainly less than the 14 prime according to Photozone.
You may say you have no respect for Photozone, but then you better show us why you would be any more credible -- and you flat out haven't done that here. My strong suspicion is that you don't care for Photozone's figures because they are proof that you are wrong. What I find particularly aggravating about your "I know because I had both lenses, and you don't because you only have one of them" argument is that you had the opportunity to take the test images and share them with us, but apparently the dog ate your homework and we'll just have to take your word for it.
Nikon has a wonderful 14mm... As far as the extreme corners goes, I mostly shoot DX so it doesn't even enter my tests and even on FX slight differences at EXTREME corners wouldn't much to me either.
Your credibility with me is dropping off a cliff -- it started by going straight down and it hasn't hit the bottom yet. Photozone does all their measurements on a D200, so the results of their tests are relevant to your DX camera. Like I said before, you apparently don't care, can't see, or got a bad copy of the 14-24; whatever the case, your arguments that your prime is just as good as the 14-24 at 14mm don't hold water. I hope you don't plan on presenting a web sized image to prove how good your lens is; given your posts so far in this thread that's what I'm expecting to see next, and it will prove nothing more than what we already know -- you think your 14mm prime is the cat's meow.
-
You offer an opinion which you state as a fact that is outside the experience reported by everyone else. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but you in fact offer no proof at all.
Since I haven't seen anyone else testing these lenses next to one another so I don't see how I'm contradicting everyone? and there's really nothing extraordinary about my comments.
You really need to get your facts straight too if you want to have any credibility -- the 14-24 is a rectilinear lens. Now as to linear distortion, well I have shot extensively with the 14-24 and it has very little of that sort of distortion, and certainly less than the 14 prime according to Photozone
Not according to my eyes, @14mm the 14-24 has linear distortion, and as far as I know pz never conducted side by side tests of these lenses, so I don't understand what you're referring to.
You may say you have no respect for Photozone, but then you better show us why you would be any more credible -- and you flat out haven't done that here. My strong suspicion is that you don't care for Photozone's figures because they are proof that you are wrong. What I find particularly aggravating about your "I know because I had both lenses, and you don't because you only have one of them" argument is that you had the opportunity to take the test images and share them with us, but apparently the dog ate your homework and we'll just have to take your word for it.
No, dog didn't eat homework, it was a bunch of test shots from Dec. 2007 and I threw them away. I might have kept them had I known that a year and half later you'd want to look at them.
Your credibility with me is dropping off a cliff -- it started by going straight down and it hasn't hit the bottom yet. Photozone does all their measurements on a D200, so the results of their tests are relevant to your DX camera. Like I said before, you apparently don't care, can't see, or got a bad copy of the 14-24; whatever the case, your arguments that your prime is just as good as the 14-24 at 14mm don't hold water. I hope you don't plan on presenting a web sized image to prove how good your lens is; given your posts so far in this thread that's what I'm expecting to see next, and it will prove nothing more than what we already know -- you think your 14mm prime is the cat's meow.
Are you so full of yourself that you think that you're the only one who can see? Or do you think that you're so important that I should care about your personal opinion of me or do I care to prove something to you? I haven't seen you produce anything to the contrary. Prove me wrong, post your tests and we'll see. From your reaction it seems to me that you're the one who thinks his 14-24 is the cat's meow otherwise you wouldn't have a coronary when someone doesn't agree with you.
-
Guys, honestly, you are quarreling about the Kaiser's bart. I don't believe David meant that the 14-24 becomes a fisheye at 14mm. Sure, the correct term is not "not rectilinear" but "rectilinear with strong/perceivable/untolerable geometric distortion" (barrel, pincussion).
So, in effect you are arguing about if that distortion is acceptable or not. For whom, for what purpose?
-
Since I haven't seen anyone else testing these lenses next to one another so I don't see how I'm contradicting everyone? and there's really nothing extraordinary about my comments.
...according to my eyes, @14mm the 14-24 has linear distortion, and as far as I know pz never conducted side by side tests of these lenses, so I don't understand what you're referring to.
It's really quite simple, Photozone tested both lenses using the same methodology and measured barrel distortion on the 14/2.8 at 2.6% while they measured 1.4% barrel distortion on 14-24/2.8 at 14mm.
No review of these lenses anywhere will indicate that the 14-24/2.8 has more of a problem with its barrel distortion and than the 14/2.8 has with its barrel distortion -- you are the only person reporting that, so in that regard your comments are extraordinary and to be taken seriously should be accompanied by some proof. Now I've provided proof from Photozone that you choose to reject, so let me offer some more proof to challenge what you are claiming.
Here's what Moose Peterson says about this:
"What about distortion? Shooting wide at 14mm, you might be worried about barrel or edge distortion. At its minimum focusing distance to infinity, I pushed photos with straight elements at the edge of the frame. It was total fun seeing these images in the viewfinder with straight lines. After about two weeks of pushing the 14-24AFS to the extreme in this regard and it proving itself, I never hesitated to use the lens to its extreme. Compared to the older 14mm, the 14-24AFS has the same if not better performance in regards to distortion. Don't confuse the leaning in of straight lines when you point the lens up or down as distortion. That's just perspective."
From: http://www.moosepeterson.com/D3/new_lenses.html (http://www.moosepeterson.com/D3/new_lenses.html)
Here's what Thom Hogan says about this:
"14mm – The 12-24mm f/4G DX lens on the APS-sensor cameras, the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G on the FX bodies. Optically, the 14-24mm is the better choice and has fewer optical problems, but the 12-24mm allows the use of (very thin) filters and is a reasonably close second (but it doesn’t cover the FX frame at 14mm). The 14mm f/2.8D has more distortion, more chromatic aberration, plus more edge effects when used wide open, so it is a distant third choice on any camera."
From: http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm (http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm)
Now it's your turn, bring back a review or a test result that supports your claim and contradicts what everyone else I'm aware of says about theses two lenses.
I will accept this, you like the Nikkor 14/2.8 more than the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 -- there's nothing wrong with that. You have some reasons that may or may not have validity to them, such as not liking the greater contrast delivered by the zoom -- that's your prerogative and I say great for you. However, don't mislead people because you did some tests with unknown and uncheckable methodology that lead you to believe that the 14-24/2.8 was not rectilinear or that it suffered greater linear distortion than the 14/2.8; as far as that's concerned you don't have any proof and you can't find anyone that will substantiate your observation.
-
Quite astonishing that a question about a SUITABLE lens for shooting VRs degenerates into a completely different set of issues centred on lenses that are UNSUITABLE!.
You need a FISHEYE lens for this purpose - end of story. UNLESS you need absurdly high resolution in the final product.
A 14 mm "regular" lens (whether truly rectilinear or not) will require TWO ROWS, at minimum (12 shots), to produce a VR panorama on an FF body. I've tried it, and it works(obviously) but it's a total PITA. The automatic control point generation (in PTGui at least, which is what I know) tend to "cross-stitch" diagonally related shots (don't know a better way of putting this) and a lot of manual intervention's needed. PITA...
It's noticeable that the OP has been driven away by all the "angels on a pinhead" squabbling. I believe he may now be posting a different question under a different id - I don't blame him.
Roy
-
Quite astonishing that a question about a SUITABLE lens for shooting VRs degenerates into a completely different set of issues centred on lenses that are UNSUITABLE!.
You need a FISHEYE lens for this purpose - end of story. UNLESS you need absurdly high resolution in the final product.
A 14 mm "regular" lens (whether truly rectilinear or not) will require TWO ROWS, at minimum (12 shots), to produce a VR panorama on an FF body. I've tried it, and it works(obviously) but it's a total PITA. The automatic control point generation (in PTGui at least, which is what I know) tend to "cross-stitch" diagonally related shots (don't know a better way of putting this) and a lot of manual intervention's needed. PITA...
It's noticeable that the OP has been driven away by all the "angels on a pinhead" squabbling. I believe he may now be posting a different question under a different id - I don't blame him.
Roy
You have a point Roy, apologies to OP!
-
You have a point Roy, apologies to OP!
Ok ddk - it's not a war! This thread drift is so common as to be scarcely worth noting (guilty, m'lud). Seems to have frightened off the OP though...
Roy
-
*****
-
....but again that is at odds with Photozone's tests of these lenses at their borders and extreme corners.
To my understanding, photozone does not do testing with Full-frame cameras, unless he has changed his approach recently.
Thus testing Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras are meaningless, to gauge how a FF lens performs on a FF body.
-
"14mm – The 12-24mm f/4G DX lens on the APS-sensor cameras, the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G on the FX bodies. Optically, the 14-24mm is the better choice and has fewer optical problems, but the 12-24mm allows the use of (very thin) filters and is a reasonably close second (but it doesn’t cover the FX frame at 14mm). The 14mm f/2.8D has more distortion, more chromatic aberration, plus more edge effects when used wide open, so it is a distant third choice on any camera."
Note that he is talking about the Full-frame Sigma 12-24, which is the widest rectilinear FF lens currently available, and not the Nikon 12-24 which is a crop lens. These are 2 entirely different animals.
-
Note that he is talking about the Full-frame Sigma 12-24, which is the widest rectilinear FF lens currently available, and not the Nikon 12-24 which is a crop lens. These are 2 entirely different animals.
Actuallyl he's quite clearly referring to the Nikon 12-24DX, and the recommendations in the paragraph you quoted are about usage on a DX camera.
-
Actuallyl he's quite clearly referring to the Nikon 12-24DX, and the recommendations in the paragraph you quoted are about usage on a DX camera.
I am sorry, but I was referring to Post# 7 on this thread (referring to Sigma 12-24 and not the Nikon 12-24), quoted below:
---------------
There's another option which I prefer for shooting interiors over both Nikkors and its the Sigma 12-24; its a true rectilinear design and is wider than both. It has less distortion @12mm than even the 14/2.8! Its a slower lens but in this case shouldn't make a difference since you wont be shooting wide open anyway. Sharpness is on a par or very close to the 14-24, but its more compact, lighter and easier to handle.
---------------
-
Actuallyl he's quite clearly referring to the Nikon 12-24DX, and the recommendations in the paragraph you quoted are about usage on a DX camera.
I was talking about the Sigma 12-24 if you were talking about my posts and never the Nikon 12-24.
-
I used to shoot panos with a Coolpix and fisheye extender, 3 shots at most!
I have a nagging suspicion this type of extender has disappeared precisely because the cheap and fast solution cost the manufacturers too much money.
Maybe an full auto solution like roundshot or gigapan will make the OP happier, as an SLR is really overkill for panos, if only because of the increased DOF you get with the P&S.
Edmund
-
I rented the D700 with the nikon 14 - 24 I plan to test shooting vertical. I will let you know how it goes.
John
-
I rented the D700 with the nikon 14 - 24 I plan to test shooting vertical. I will let you know how it goes.
John
I for one certainly look forward to hearing how you get on; what panhead and software are you going to use? To repeat myself (and why I'm bothering I don't really know,) after shooting >100 VR panos with the 10.5 FE on a DX body and subsequently also owning precisely the hardware you're testing, I feel absolutely certain that, unless you have some overriding requirement for huge resolution, this is absolutely the wrong choice for VR panos. VR panos call for fisheye lenses! Of course that's a matter of opinion, but it's an opinion that I'd hazard a guess that >90% of people who have experience of VR panos would share. You'd be far better off soliciting opinions on the panoguide forums - as I dimly recall having suggested - as very few people on LL are particularly interested in this muddy backwater of photography.
Roy
-
This is just my first impression. The 14 - 24 is great for outdoor 360 shots, but is just ok for interiors. The 12 mm might be another lens to try, or the fisheye. When I have a pic ready, I will post it. My back ground is shooting high end projects, this is something a little different.
I for one certainly look forward to hearing how you get on; what panhead and software are you going to use? To repeat myself (and why I'm bothering I don't really know,) after shooting >100 VR panos with the 10.5 FE on a DX body and subsequently also owning precisely the hardware you're testing, I feel absolutely certain that, unless you have some overriding requirement for huge resolution, this is absolutely the wrong choice for VR panos. VR panos call for fisheye lenses! Of course that's a matter of opinion, but it's an opinion that I'd hazard a guess that >90% of people who have experience of VR panos would share. You'd be far better off soliciting opinions on the panoguide forums - as I dimly recall having suggested - as very few people on LL are particularly interested in this muddy backwater of photography.
Roy
-
This is just my first impression. The 14 - 24 is great for outdoor 360 shots, but is just ok for interiors. The 12 mm might be another lens to try, or the fisheye. When I have a pic ready, I will post it. My back ground is shooting high end projects, this is something a little different.
I'm not sure what you're after, the Sigma 12-24 will certainly give you better results than the Nikon 14-24 at the wide end but if you're after a high end look here you're not going to get it from either lens. For a high end finish you have to either use one of the new Zeiss ZF lenses or mount a Hassy with an adaptor. Unfortunately they don't have anything that wide but all it means is more shots, but it shouldn't matter since this isn't something that you do normally.
-
This is just my first impression. The 14 - 24 is great for outdoor 360 shots, but is just ok for interiors. The 12 mm might be another lens to try, or the fisheye. When I have a pic ready, I will post it. My back ground is shooting high end projects, this is something a little different.
I just happen to have made a pano 360 with a nikon d3 and the 14-24mm lens at 14.
you need 6 shots at least and can make a 12000 x4200 pixel perfect pano with it ( or the d700)
I used ptmac software and the pano elements solution by Really right stuff
PK
-
I just happen to have made a pano 360 with a nikon d3 and the 14-24mm lens at 14.
you need 6 shots at least and can make a 12000 x4200 pixel perfect pano with it ( or the d700)
I used ptmac software and the pano elements solution by Really right stuff
PK
Curious to know what "6 shots at least" means in this context. On my D700 @ 14mm I need two rows of 6 shots (@60 deg yaw)+ zenith + nadir(s) to get a full 180 x 360. I suppose that it would work without the zenith shot if the top row were pitched up a bit more. But 6 shots? Please enlighten.
Roy
-
This was my first test at doing a 360
360 Mov (http://www.johngibbel.com/udr/Unit_119.mov)
Shot with Nikon D700 + 14 - 24 on a manfrotto 360 pano head.
I used one bounce light and shot 2 rows. The client was very happy and now commissioned 31 more projects.
Since I rented the set up I now need to make a purchase. I was thinking about the nikon 10.5 lens, but think its a dx lens and not the best solution for the D700? I plan to buy a RRS pano head (http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Customkititems.asp?kc=Ult%2DPro%2DOPP&eq=)
I am not sure if the D700 is over kill for this type of project? I need to make a decision asap to get everything by my first shoot date.
-
I got no responses to my test image?
I just purchased a
Nikon D700
RRS Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot Package
and still need to see what lens works. I posted a test with the 14-24
sample 360 (http://www.johngibbel.com/udr/Unit_119.mov)
-
I got no responses to my test image?
I just purchased a
Nikon D700
RRS Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot Package
and still need to see what lens works. I posted a test with the 14-24
sample 360 (http://www.johngibbel.com/udr/Unit_119.mov)
Sorry to be a pain, but what am I supposed to be seeing? All I have is a rather poor quality wide-angle image.
Rob C
-
I got no responses to my test image?
A few small issues:
- There appears to be a stitching error in the upper part of the colored wall.
- Flare is a problem around the windows.
- zenit needs to be shot as well
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am not sure what your seeing? the mov worked for Bernard. The image is just a test.
Sorry to be a pain, but what am I supposed to be seeing? All I have is a rather poor quality wide-angle image.
Rob C
I saw the stitching error after I uploaded the mov. As stated above the mov is just a test and they do not need the zenit. I will do a new test with the D700 and shoot it to play with the image.
A few small issues:
- There appears to be a stitching error in the upper part of the colored wall.
- Flare is a problem around the windows.
- zenit needs to be shot as well
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am not sure what your seeing? the mov worked for Bernard. The image is just a test.
I saw the stitching error after I uploaded the mov. As stated above the mov is just a test and they do not need the zenit. I will do a new test with the D700 and shoot it to play with the image.
Hi again
I just came back to this thread and I'm having trouble recalling what it was about... But, and it's a big but, I seem to remember pointing out that the D700/14-24 combination (which I have) is, emphatically, total overkill for VR panos, indeed completely unsuitable.
The posted sample test is supposed to demonstrate what exactly? I don't mean to be impolite, but it just shows a badly stitched (at least two errors), badly exposed incomplete "VR" (this sort of shot - which I've done ****loads of times needs HDR: I've never tried using lighting for VR panos and don't intend to try). It's actually a cylindrical 360.
As far as I'm concerned doing a VR pano well requires a fully stitched 360 x 180 including zenith and nadir. It may be expedient to exclude the latter and incorporate a mirror-ball effect with advertising content, but if you want to do VRs properly, you need a setup that works with all the elements in place. In the case of the rig in question, this means at least two rows of six shots. Time consuming in PP and generating a huge file, even at 8 bit. For final web display as a Flash or QT file at (usually) <1Mb...
I haven't used the lens, but I'd guess that a 16mm Nikkor FE would be the ideal for use on an FF body. Personally I use a 10.5 FE which has been shaved so it can be used on the D700 as well as my D200, which is my preferred body for this purpose. I shoot it at base ISO and bracket +/- 3 stops, then use Enfuse for HDR of 3 selected exposures. I've used the lens on the D700 as a circular FE but on balance prefer to shoot with the D200 (6 round + zenith + 3 x nadirs; 70 shots in all - that's enough work for me, thanks) which results in a final equirectangular 8 bit tif @ just over 200 Mb after a few tweaks in PS.
Is anyone using the 14-24 for fully stitched VR panos? I'd be interested to know what the advantages are.
Short version for all this waffle is: VR panos require a FISHEYE!
Roy
-
I purchased the nikon 10.5 and starting over testing the lens.
-
I purchased the nikon 10.5 and starting over testing the lens.
For non critical use I convert with ACR, correcting vignetting (even at F8) and ca (approx +30 / -30 but I can't recall which way round) but the best results are from NX2 (switch off defishing!) although it takes a little longer.
Have you had the lenshood shaved, or are you using the D700 in DX mode?
Good luck.
Roy
-
The brand new lens met a hacksaw last night So now its a shaved 10.5
-
The brand new lens met a hacksaw last night So now its a shaved 10.5
More nerve than me. I got it done by someone with a lathe (and the skills to turn it).
-
When you're trying to print or make really high-res panos, the 14-24 really gets you the best results, definitely recognizable over some other combinations. I do agree though that for basic QTVRs with the cube faces at 1024x1024, it won't make much of a difference.
On the other hand, when you're also using your panos to print and sell posters like I do...
-
It took 15 min to make the cut. It was easy
The nikon is not my main system, If I want high end files I use my Leaf Aptus 75 on a cambo wide DS or H2
When you're trying to print or make really high-res panos, the 14-24 really gets you the best results, definitely recognizable over some other combinations. I do agree though that for basic QTVRs with the cube faces at 1024x1024, it won't make much of a difference.
On the other hand, when you're also using your panos to print and sell posters like I do...
-
It took 15 min to make the cut. It was easy
The nikon is not my main system, If I want high end files I use my Leaf Aptus 75 on a cambo wide DS or H2
The 10.5 is a great lens too - I was replying to the other poster who seemed to think that the 14-24 was an unworkable solution for some reason.
-
The 10.5 is a great lens too - I was replying to the other poster who seemed to think that the 14-24 was an unworkable solution for some reason.
And I still think it is.
You say elsewhere that you print, and even sell, prints. From VR 360 x 180s? Well oddly enough so do I, sometimes. Unaccountably some people seem to like the wierd perspective of an equirectangular projection (I actually crop them a bit for prints.) But we were talking about VR panos, weren't we? For which the whole raison d'etre is the web.
I stand by my original assertion that it's an unsuitable lens. It requires two rows of six shots at minimum, and if you do viewpoint correction nadir patching (I do) another three shots. Total, 15. And you get diagonally linked nuisance control points created if you use auto cp generation. Its sheer bulk and weight makes big demands on the pano head too. Plus with a zoom there's always a chance of accidentally altering the fl whilst working. File sizes are huge too.
I have never heard of anyone else routinely using a 14-24 for VR pano creation Stephane. The full frame 16mm fisheye would be the lens of choice, I'd have thought, for optimal resolution, manageable, 360 full-frame panos - not a shaved 10.5 (which, again, I have) - it leaves unused a large proportion of the sensor (or requires DX mode...) Of course there are people out there who like to create huge resolution panos using longer focal lengths and good luck to them. You're obviously in this category. But 360 x 180s for web use?
I think it would be very bad advice to recommend this huge, expensive, inappropriate lens to someone inexperienced in creating VR panos primarily for web use.
Roy
-
Hi OldRoy,
I think we agree, I'm just a bit less sanguine in the way I express my view .
I certainly wouldn't recommend the 14-24 as a "first lens" for aspiring panoramists. I successively used a D50 with the Sigma 10-20mm, then a D80 with either the Sigma or the 10.5, and then switched to a D3 with the 14-24 (I bought the D3 before the D700 was announced).
And as I progressed, each combination was very definitely "good enough" for what I was doing. I think I got lucky with my instance of the Sigma 10-20: it was just razor sharp on my D80, much more than the reviews led me to hope for. In the end though, it's the 14-24 + D3 that brings out the most details in the image.
I haven't tried the 16mm yet. I certainly will, knowing that it's the lens of choice for high end 360 automated gear (the $30k rotating thingies with a sensor that is only a narrow strip) - so it obviously qualifies for the precision. I'm just waiting for a good second hand one to cross my path.
You can see a small sample set of my panos at http://www.360cities.net/search/desnault (http://www.360cities.net/search/desnault) - the 10 first ones are shot with than 14-24. I think the difference of quality is visible, even on the web.
One last thing: I process all lens distorsion and vignetting with DXO before feeding my pics to the stitcher (except when using a fisheye of course), and that way I avoid some vexing issues with both the Sigma and the 14-24.