Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: hassiman on March 09, 2016, 03:02:12 am
-
I have heard this is a great lens. Obvious flare problems but supposedly sharp as hell. DXO rated it better than the Canon 11-24 at 14mm... Less CA. But the Nikon is not as good at 11mm.
The Canon is a BEAST!... Not that the 11-24 is an lightweight.
I have noticed quite a few for sale here. Are people not happwith them?
-
I liked mine but sold it because I realized that wider than 20mm is in fact too wide for me, except for some panos where I stitch. I was hardly ever using it. I replaced it by the Sigma 20mm f1.4 that is better optically at 20mm f2.8 but goes down to f1.4. I lost on AF speed and accuracy though.
As with most wides, the level of sharpness you can expect compared to top short tele primes is not very exciting when checking images at 100% in PS, but it remains the best ultra-wide for Nikon mount 9 years after its release. And the results are excellent nonetheless in print.
My guess is that Nikon will probaby update it fairly soon though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think it's a very good lens with a couple limitations.
The main thing is filtering because without a huge and expensive adapter for equally huge filters, you're boned.
The next is weight, like you said, it's very solid.
I find it more than sharp enough for the stuff I shoot with it.
Compared to the Canon 16-35II I had before, it's a much better lens.
In hindsight, if something like the new 20 1.8G had been available 3 years ago when I switched to Nikon , I might not have the 14-24, but it has been useful in those rare moments it comes out.
-
In hindsight, if something like the new 20 1.8G had been available 3 years ago when I switched to Nikon , I might not have the 14-24, but it has been useful in those rare moments it comes out.
I replaced my 14-24 with the new 20mm f/1.8, because the zoom was so heavy and clumsy that I usually did not bother to take it with me and just made do with the 24-70mm f/2.8. New 20mm Nikkor is so much smaller and lighter that I actually use it.
That said, 14-24mm is an amazingly sharp lens (for a zoom) and actually one of the sharpest ultra-wideangles in general, primes included. Flare is the only technical problem, and filters, of one wants to use those.
-
I'm a bit of a dissenter - had one (for work in smaller spaces) , less than impressed, sold it. Flare was an obvious, but not unforeseen issue. Bigger issues were focus shift (drove me nuts) and the corners, at least on my copy, didn't live up to billing.
If you did get a copy, to use filters, you'll need something like the Lee SW150 (modified with hood) or 150 MKII kit to take 150mm filters (full disclosure: I have one for sale). Two-3 other firms make similar systems.
-
I had one, it was a good lens, but it was one of the last zooms I had- size matters. 8)
-
.. But the Nikon is not as good at 11mm....
for sure! ;)
i have it and it is big good and sharp.
F8 overall very good F11 for the extreme corners- that said F2.8 is very sharp.
flare is a problem - in the case of backlight or large lit areas, not in the case of little lights.
size and weight is a problem-
and it is a lens that you have to be careful with - do not drop it.
( so in the case of secondhand i would like to test it )
-
Since my move to Nikon in 2012, I have used the 14-24 as my main wide. No doubt it has some issues, but nothing I have used can give the same look and rendering of the 14-24, at least mine. I have used it on the D800, D750 and D810, all with excellent results. It does have it's issues, but the positives out-weight the negatives for me and I still carry it and it's my number 1 lens for Nikon.
Pro:
1. Great range, 14-24mm and it is very sharp wide open @ 14mm and F 2.8. It has always been my main astrophotography lens for night shoots. Excellent hyperfocal at F 2.8.
2. Focus shift, yes, it's there, but I just don't see that many issues with it
3. Mine is very sharp at 14mm across the frame and only starts to suffer at around 22mm to 24mm, wide open. But is still very good from F 6.3 out.
4. Rendering, this lens just renders landscapes well, I tried the Nikon 20mm 1.8, and I don't prefer the way it renders out. The Sigma 20mm 1.4 is as large and heavy as the 14-24, so I choose to keep the later. If the Sigma was coma free at F 1.4 to F 2.0 I might feel
different. But the Sigma has pretty harsh coma.
5. Lack of coma on the 14-24 wide open, it's basically coma free or very close to it.
6. Easy to manually focus, the focus ring on the 14-24 give a very nice feedback, unlike the focus ring on the 20mm 1.8, which give no really good feed back.
7. Right now it has a instant rebate in the US last time I checked.
8. Will create sun stars very nicely,
9. Can be set for a nodal pan, (24mm vertical orientation)
10. VERY well made, trust me on this. It's durable
Con:
1. Flare, it's just going to get the sun or moon every time and in fact seems to reach behind you to get the moon at times. The flare is destructive most times, i.e. not pretty, a bright rainbow to magenta color, most times the worst in the opposite corner of the sun. At
night the moon will create a horn shaped flare that will ruin a star trail stack very easily
2. Needs the Lee SW-150, if you want filters, I use them all the time. The newer Lee sun anti reflection shade works much better than the older version. You can now find glass 150 x 150 in 2mm thick filters also
3. Heavy, yes it's a beast
4. Distortion, but all 14mm retrofocus lenses have it, Not the distortion like barrel, but where objects at the edge of the frame elongate and get squat. No fix for that I know of. Even Rodenstock wides show this.
5. I would have said price before, but now it's a bargin at $1,700.00 or so in the US
6. Odd's are an upgraded version is in the works, but mine handles the 36MP resolution of the D810 with no problems.
Below is a shot taken in January, the hyperfocal distance is around 5 feet to infinity. The rocks in the lower left corner are about 4 feet away. Single frame, but required exposure bracketing for all the massive amount of light range. Used both a ND 1.2 and CL-PL (NiSi brand) in the Lee SW-150. (note, my colors never look good when attached here, but just wanted to show the effectiveness @ 14mm and hyperfocal range this lens can aquire).
-
4. Distortion, but all 14mm retrofocus lenses have it, Not the distortion like barrel, but where objects at the edge of the frame elongate and get squat. No fix for that I know of. Even Rodenstock wides show this.
A lens can not be faulted for that, unavoidable planar projection geometry, always. The wider the picture angle, the more distortion there is. Fisheye lenses do not have it, but they are (too) funny in other ways.
-
I had the 14-24 for my D810, but sold it for the much better (and half the price) Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. Not only is it sharper (especially on the edges) it has image stabilization. It ain't light, but worth the trade up for me for the improved image quality.
-
I have heard this is a great lens. Obvious flare problems but supposedly sharp as hell. DXO rated it better than the Canon 11-24 at 14mm... Less CA. But the Nikon is not as good at 11mm.
The Canon is a BEAST!... Not that the 11-24 is an lightweight.
I have noticed quite a few for sale here. Are people not happwith them?
I shot it a number of years ago (borrowed from a friend, never owned it.) Is it a good lens? Yes. There is a reason it was considered part of the "holy trinity." When introduced, it set the standard, but time has past it buy some as happens with gear. The size, weight, price and bulbous front element no longer are outweighed, in my opinion, compared with numerous alternatives. For my use the Nikkor 16-35mm (from 18mm on) and the 17-35mm are better options from a value and handling perspective, if not quite as sharp. There are also a number prime and 3rd part options.
-
It took me a while to get used to the 14-24 had to figure out how not to worry too much about it's weaknesses that others pointed out. But the funny thing I discovered was that some of my favorite images resulted using that lens. I will buy the 24 and 28 1.8 G lenses sooner than later but the 14-24 stays in my bag ;-)
William
-
I have had mine for a number of years and it is a most dependable lens. I also invested in the Wonderpana filter system for ND and CPL filters. Yes it is heavy along with my D800, but I also have the Fuji system for travel. I enjoy using the lens and it is very flexible for both landscape and real estate interior work. The biggest issue is the initial investment in the system to utilize filters.
Mark
-
I used to own the 14-24mm. I used it on a D800. It renders nice micro contrast and good color. The lens was sharp, but ever so slightly soft in the lower left corner. By f/8, the problem cleared up.
I sold that system years ago and migrated to mft. The Olympus 7-14mm f/4 Pro is a great lens.
-
I have a long experience with the 14-24... Sharp lens, but this is about the only good part with it... The lens is very prone to flare and ghosting, is bulky but feels even bulkier, doesn't take filters and front element is difficult maintain unscratched if the lens is used in windy conditions... I'm very attracted to the new IRIX 15mm f2.4 now, for which I've started a discussion... http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=109003.0
-
It took me a while to get used to the 14-24 had to figure out how not to worry too much about it's weaknesses that others pointed out. But the funny thing I discovered was that some of my favorite images resulted using that lens. I will buy the 24 and 28 1.8 G lenses sooner than later but the 14-24 stays in my bag ;-)
William
A very nice looking borealis indeed... :)
nothing wrong with this lens ( in the hand of the skilled)
-
I’d like to mention that here is also the Nikkor 16-35mm 1:4G ED VR with very good performance, especially in the range 16-24/28mm. This lens does not have many of the disadvantages of the 14-24mm due to the extremely curved front element.
-
I love my 14-24 with the D800E - it is an amazing, inconvenient, purposeful lens that has real mojo. The Lee filter system is clunky, effective, and expensive. There are alternatives - but make no mistake, the 14-24 is a beautiful lens for your camera.
-
I've been very happy with mine, but I find I mainly use it at either end (either 14mm or 24mm). I have 24mm covered so I am going for the Samyang 14mm so I can afford to get a filter system for it (I shoot mainly rainforests with it now, so desperately need a polarising filter). It's also a brick to take bushwalking, so a bit of weight saving will be nice too.
-
This discussion points to just how spoiled we have become with the embarrassment of riches laid in front of us. Within the Nikon range we have:
14-24 f/2.8
16-35mm f/4 VR
17-35mm f/3.5-4.5
A host of reasonably fast primes new and older; and
A plethora of 3rd party choices.
While each has specific strengths and weaknesses, very few people would ever be able to distinguish a real world image similarly shot and processed among these different lenses. If one shoots brick walls, then that is how a lens should be chosen. Otherwise, probably not. I own the 16-35mm, but only for the VR to hand hold in lower light. Otherwise, I would have opted for the much cheaper, smaller and lighter 17-35mm f/3.5-4.5.
-
I've been using the 14-24 for many years now and it's a killer lens. Because I've moved on from Nikon to Sony, I'd love to sell it and move to an alternative that works with the AF on the Sony - but I just can't find one! This lens is so sharp, solid and relatively compact considering it's range. I found it very balanced and comfortable on my D800E. Although the front element is certainly prone to flair, I have not had a lot of problems in that regard.
-
I had the 14-24 for my D810, but sold it for the much better (and half the price) Tamron 15-30 f/2.8. Not only is it sharper (especially on the edges) it has image stabilization. It ain't light, but worth the trade up for me for the improved image quality.
I couldn't agree more. The Tamron 15-30 is incredibly sharp and punchy (zeissy?).
-
...
4. Distortion, but all 14mm retrofocus lenses have it, Not the distortion like barrel, but where objects at the edge of the frame elongate and get squat. No fix for that I know of. Even Rodenstock wides show this.....
I have the 14-24 and I'm very familiar with this extremely annoying problem at the wide end - volume anamorphosis. A relevant DxO article:
http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/tutorials/understanding-volume-deformation
As far as I recall (I've largely lost interest in photography) their software, which I tried a few years ago, is a fairly useful tool, having 2 different strategies for dealing with the problem depending on the subject. I believe there's a stripped-down version of the full package which is available and dedicated to the fix. It shouldn't be hard to locate on the DxO site - assuming my memory is correct.
-
Returned mine about 8 days after getting it. Optically a fine lens but it's too wide for me... Screams HDR and that typical wide perspective that is so pervasive across the net.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I have the 14-24 and I'm very familiar with this extremely annoying problem at the wide end - volume anamorphosis. A relevant DxO article:
http://www.dxo.com/us/photography/tutorials/understanding-volume-deformation
As far as I recall (I've largely lost interest in photography) their software, which I tried a few years ago, is a fairly useful tool, having 2 different strategies for dealing with the problem depending on the subject. I believe there's a stripped-down version of the full package which is available and dedicated to the fix. It shouldn't be hard to locate on the DxO site - assuming my memory is correct.
It's called rectilinear projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectilinear_lens), and it's "correct". If you don't like it, the choices are A: depart from a rectilinear projection to something more spherical (barrel-distorted or fisheye lens), or B: step back.
-
Optically I found it pleasing but anything wider than 20 (perhaps even 24) takes on this stereotypical wide fascination - landscape esque effect.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
As most wides are retrofocus, not sure what you can use. However the look of the 14-24 for me is very nice. Can't see the HDR comparison, as HDR has nothing to do with wide focal focus, at least to me.
As previous mentioned I guess you will need to step back a bit or go to the fisheye style lens, of which the look is a lot more stereotypical to me than the retrofocus look from the 14-24 or any other wide.
You might also look at the 17-35, as it's optical very good and not quite as wide, may see less of the aspects of retrofocus element, (widening and flattening of objects to the edge of the frame). Plus it takes normal filters and does not have the outer curved element which is flare prone.
Paul C