14-24

[kervin13]

it has been quite a while for me considering to buy this lens. i used to own 24-70, 70-200 and 50g. but after sometimes, i started to bored in photography, and concerning i'm graduating soon, and will be going back to indonesia in the end of the year, i believe i won't use my camera that much anymore.
So now, i want to own only the d700, 14-24 (for scenery), and 50 for walkabout and general purposes. how do u guys think about this set up?
btw, i appreciate all the comments, and nice reply from u guys, besides, for those who asked and would like to ask question regarding these lenses, feel free to post any questions in this thread.. cheers..

 

[Spectrum]

NASA did ordered a few piece of this lens you know. ;p

 

[Spectrum]

Hi I'm juz wondering, I'm still new to photography n I wAnna know that can an FX lense be use on a D90? Sorry for side tracking in ur thread, coz I'm thinking of renting this lense also..;p

After the 1.5 crop factor, you still have a good 21-36mm wide-angle zoom range.

 

[tomcat]

it has been quite a while for me considering to buy this lens. i used to own 24-70, 70-200 and 50g. but after sometimes, i started to bored in photography, and concerning i'm graduating soon, and will be going back to indonesia in the end of the year, i believe i won't use my camera that much anymore.
So now, i want to own only the d700, 14-24 (for scenery), and 50 for walkabout and general purposes. how do u guys think about this set up?
btw, i appreciate all the comments, and nice reply from u guys, besides, for those who asked and would like to ask question regarding these lenses, feel free to post any questions in this thread.. cheers..

From my own experience, I find that the 24-70mm is much more useful for landscape and scenery photography. The 14-24mm could produce images that are too 'flat' and boring looking in many situations and some dramatic looking ones if the composition could exploit the perspective exagerration effects of an UWA.

Up to 90% of my overseas holiday landscape shots were taken with the 24-70mm with the rest by the 14-24mm and 15mm Fisheye which surprisingly I used even more than the UWA for landscape shooting.

 

[fevernova]

From my own experience, I find that the 24-70mm is much more useful for landscape and scenery photography. The 14-24mm could produce images that are too 'flat' and boring looking in many situations and some dramatic looking ones if the composition could exploit the perspective exagerration effects of an UWA.

Up to 90% of my overseas holiday landscape shots were taken with the 24-70mm with the less by the 14-24mm and 15mm Fisheye which surprisingly I used even more than the UWA for landscape shooting.

I've read that the 14-24 is pretty much specialist and I've got friends who've sold their UWA's because they realized that its quite hard to use?? :dunno: Guess I'll start renting one for 3 days first before gunning for one...

 

[Kit]

From my own experience, I find that the 24-70mm is much more useful for landscape and scenery photography. The 14-24mm could produce images that are too 'flat' and boring looking in many situations and some dramatic looking ones if the composition could exploit the perspective exagerration effects of an UWA.

Up to 90% of my overseas holiday landscape shots were taken with the 24-70mm with the rest by the 14-24mm and 15mm Fisheye which surprisingly I used even more than the UWA for landscape shooting.

I consider that the user's inability to select the appropriate lens to use. This and coupled with lack of planning and taking photos to hastily and not so much of a problematic lens. Just like people complaing about the perspective distortion UWAs render and saying some lens are better controlled than the others. Its really about the lack of understanding of the lens since perspective distortion is focal length dependent rather than lens design. As with all other lenses, it takes time to master.

I've read that the 14-24 is pretty much specialist and I've got friends who've sold their UWA's because they realized that its quite hard to use?? :dunno: Guess I'll start renting one for 3 days first before gunning for one...

Perhaps with the exception of the 14mm, the 14-24 covers focal lengths which are used by many photographers, for many years, in countless situations, covering a vast number of genres. Its hardly a specialised lens. Misunderstood...always but definitely not specialised. Its not like a perspective control lens or a macro lens with magnification which performs other functions. Most probably, those people sold their UWAs way before they even start learning how to use these lenses.

 

[Kit]

Kit, your shots are :thumbsup:

Thank you.

 

[tomcat]

I consider that the user's inability to select the appropriate lens to use. This and coupled with lack of planning and taking photos to hastily and not so much of a problematic lens. Just like people complaing about the perspective distortion UWAs render and saying some lens are better controlled than the others. Its really about the lack of understanding of the lens since perspective distortion is focal length dependent rather than lens design. As with all other lenses, it takes time to master.



Perhaps with the exception of the 14mm, the 14-24 covers focal lengths which are used by many photographers, for many years, in countless situations, covering a vast number of genres. Its hardly a specialised lens. Misunderstood...always but definitely not specialised. Its not like a perspective control lens or a macro lens with magnification which performs other functions. Most probably, those people sold their UWAs way before they even start learning how to use these lenses.

I agree that perspective distortion is directly related to the lens focal length. The beauty of a UWA is the dramatic effect its exagerrated perspective distortion imparts on the photo. The amount of perspective distortion for a particular focal length is the same regardless of brand of the lens. What actually distinguish one UWA from another is the control of chromatic and spherical aberrations and the sharpness at the centre and the corners. In these aspects, the Nikon 14-24mm has no equals. To me, it is not really expensive even as I have had to pay more for Olympus' FourThirds 7-14mm which was not as bright (only f/4) and not as sharp. Perhaps the new 16-35mm f/4 would be better value for money and I'm seriously considering getting one for travel use.

What many new UWA owners don't realise is that to shoot landscapes, there must be some foreground interests in order to maximise the drama effects of the UWA and lead the viewer's eyes into the image. It exagerrates the distance between those foreground objects and the background in a very dramatic and esthetically pleasing manner. Shooting just distant mountains and forests with an UWA is extremely boring as they just look very far away and small to boot. In such situations, the 24-70mm (or even 70-200mm) would be my lens of choice. That is probably also why a UWA is very useful for shooting interiors of buildings as the perspective distortion exagerrates the amount of space present.

 

[Kit]

What many new UWA owners don't realise is that to shoot landscapes, there must be some foreground interests in order to maximise the drama effects of the UWA and lead the viewer's eyes into the image. It exagerrates the distance between those foreground objects and the background in a very dramatic and esthetically pleasing manner. Shooting just distant mountains and forests with an UWA is extremely boring as they just look very far away and small to boot. In such situations, the 24-70mm (or even 70-200mm) would be my lens of choice. That is probably also why a UWA is very useful for shooting interiors of buildings as the perspective distortion exagerrates the amount of space present.

Not entirely true. The thing with UWAs is everything gets "sucked" into the frame. Objects further away will appear smaller (and probably less significant) in the frame. This is where experience comes in to decide if the distance of your subject is too far or too near and how it will turn out in the photo e.g. its size and coverage of the frame. This relationship between distance and focal length takes time to understand though. UWAs can work well in a whole lot of instances, not only scenes with foregroud interests.

 

[tomcat]

Not entirely true. The thing with UWAs is everything gets "sucked" into the frame. Objects further away will appear smaller (and probably less significant) in the frame. This is where experience comes in to decide if the distance of your subject is too far or too near and how it will turn out in the photo e.g. its size and coverage of the frame. This relationship between distance and focal length takes time to understand though. UWAs can work well in a whole lot of instances, not only scenes with foregroud interests.

Not everything gets 'sucked' into the frame. Objects that are close to the lens get 'sucked' towards the lens especially at the 14mm end of the UWA, hence the exagerration in perspective distortion. It is probably OK for geometric shaped objects but not so for non-geometric objects like people who will look more distorted the closer they are to the lens or to the sides of the frame. Not many friends and relatives like to be depicted as cartoon caricatures or 'squashed' in all their holiday pics if taken with a UWA at the wide end. Also, lots of time during travel photography, there could be lots of people in the scene and it is not always good to have distorted people in the frame... unless that is the intended effect of course.

As you said, background interests would work with a UWA if they are not too far away, in which case, the UWA would be able to capture a more panoramic view of the scene.. which is a good thing. But gauging when it is close enough to use a UWA and when it's may not be, does take time to master. If we are on a leisurely tour when time does not matter too much, changing lens is not too toublesome but if we are on a packaged tour (which I'm almost always on when travelling on holidays overseas) when we are in a such rush most of the time, it could be quite difficult to change lenses on the go especially with the weight and sizes of these Nikon FX lenses.

That's why in the real world situations which I'm faced with in my travels, the 24-70mm is a good compromise. Now maybe the 16-35mm would be a better compromise what with the additional features of filter thread and VR and lighter weight and smaller size.

 

[Kit]

Not everything gets 'sucked' into the frame. Objects that are close to the lens get 'sucked' towards the lens especially at the 14mm end of the UWA, hence the exagerration in perspective distortion. It is probably OK for geometric shaped objects but not so for non-geometric objects like people who will look more distorted the closer they are to the lens or to the sides of the frame. Not many friends and relatives like to be depicted as cartoon caricatures or 'squashed' in all their holiday pics if taken with a UWA at the wide end. Also, lots of time during travel photography, there could be lots of people in the scene and it is not always good to have distorted people in the frame... unless that is the intended effect of course.

Like I said before, its the job of the user to decide what is appropriate for the wor and not blaming the inherent properties of the lens if the photos did not turn out the way they wanted.

As you said, background interests would work with a UWA if they are not too far away, in which case, the UWA would be able to capture a more panoramic view of the scene.. which is a good thing. But gauging when it is close enough to use a UWA and when it's may not be, does take time to master. If we are on a leisurely tour when time does not matter too much, changing lens is not too toublesome but if we are on a packaged tour (which I'm almost always on when travelling on holidays overseas) when we are in a such rush most of the time, it could be quite difficult to change lenses on the go especially with the weight and sizes of these Nikon FX lenses.

You are justifying the decision to use a lens which you think is more appropriate for your applications. That's fine. However, that does not render a UWA not suitable for travelling or will certainly give you flat and boring photos. If you are experienced enough, it wouldn't take you more than two ticks to figure out if a UWA would suit your needs there and then. Period. Perhaps you want to consider a good PnS for your travel needs then.

That's why in the real world situations which I'm faced with in my travels, the 24-70mm is a good compromise. Now maybe the 16-35mm would be a better compromise what with the additional features of filter thread and VR and lighter weight and smaller size.

Your issue seemed to be composing with a UWA focal lengths from previous posts but you are ready to change your mind beacuse of an added filter thread, VR and a lighter body on a newer lens?:dunno:

 

[tomcat]

Like I said before, its the job of the user to decide what is appropriate for the wor and not blaming the inherent properties of the lens if the photos did not turn out the way they wanted.



You are justifying the decision to use a lens which you think is more appropriate for your applications. That's fine. However, that does not render a UWA not suitable for travelling or will certainly give you flat and boring photos. If you are experienced enough, it wouldn't take you more than two ticks to figure out if a UWA would suit your needs there and then. Period. Perhaps you want to consider a good PnS for your travel needs then.



Your issue seemed to be composing with a UWA focal lengths from previous posts but you are ready to change your mind beacuse of an added filter thread, VR and a lighter body on a newer lens?:dunno:

I did not say that UWA is not suitable for travel photography or will always give flat and boring images. I have always brought along my 14-24mm when I travel for I don't want to regret not bringing it along if I come across scenes that could put it to good use... and I have gotten some really good images out of the UWAs that I have used so far on my holidays.

What I'm saying is that I could not do without the 24-70mm as it is wide enough for most of the situations that I have been faced with. The TS is saying that he has sold off his 24-70mm and is contemplating on relaying solely on the 14-24mm for landscape shots. I don't know what kind of landscape pics he is shooting that could be done 100% with a UWA but I am just stating my own experience when travelling.

The 16-35mm is also UWA, just that it's not as wide as the 14-24mm. Losing 2mm and getting a longer focal range plus the filter thread for CPL and VR and lower weight and size, great optical quality and cheaper price is a good compromise for me. If it had came out 2 years ago, I would probably have bought it instead of the 14-24mm. But that is just my opinion on what I think is good for me. I think I'm quite average in my holiday travelling arrangements ie packaged tours to scenic places and would be similar to those of many members here. If your travelling arrangements and shooting requirements are different, then your equipment needs would be different and I'm not insisting that you listen to me or follow me. Don't read too much between the lines. :dunno:

 

[Goenitz2009]

Hi chill guys...

Sorry to hijack this thread, but if there's only one lens I could bring on a travel, that would be the 24-70

The lenses, be it 24-70 or 14-24 have no fault, it is up to the individuals usage and perception of a 'good' image.

 

[Danntbt]

I agree with Tomcat that 16-35 seems like a better option for most people, the 14-24 is sharp as hell, but as Kit mentioned, it requires planning and thinking to frame your shots...without foreground objects, a landscape may look somewhat flat for example. In a way its a specialist lens as its range is quite to the extreme, making it limited in application for flattering portraits. In anycase, looking at Kits samples, I do wonder about the blurring of the top right hand of the 1st image and the disturbing blur in the reflection of the last image....the rest do give us some idea of how we can play with perspective, albeit an exaggerated one....after awhile it does get monotonous if one is not careful.

 

[Kit]

I agree with Tomcat that 16-35 seems like a better option for most people, the 14-24 is sharp as hell, but as Kit mentioned, it requires planning and thinking to frame your shots...without foreground objects, a landscape may look somewhat flat for example. In a way its a specialist lens as its range is quite to the extreme, making it limited in application for flattering portraits. In anycase, looking at Kits samples, I do wonder about the blurring of the top right hand of the 1st image and the disturbing blur in the reflection of the last image....the rest do give us some idea of how we can play with perspective, albeit an exaggerated one....after awhile it does get monotonous if one is not careful.

The top right corner of the 1st image is in shadow. That impacts on the local contrast in that particular area and will skew perception of sharpness (less sharp in this case).

The last photo, I sure hope you are not expecting the reflection to be as defined as the actual buildings. Or are you?

 

[fevernova]

Just rented a 14-24 and playing around with it....Not so simple....Its easy to screw up with all that perspective distortion...But probably also because I'm still noob....Been looking at
http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=13016&p=2

to gain some inspiration on what to do with the 14-24...

 

[Danntbt]

The top right corner of the 1st image is in shadow. That impacts on the local contrast in that particular area and will skew perception of sharpness (less sharp in this case).

The last photo, I sure hope you are not expecting the reflection to be as defined as the actual buildings. Or are you?

...ah definitely not..but the blur is distracting...feel like having cataract...as for the 1st image, the effects of the local contrast also makes it distracting...just my humble opinion,

 

[Benji77]

I didn't see the ''fault'' in the first image till you guys mentioned it.
My personal feel is that its 'there' after post processing (contrast, levels etc).
It does not appear in the other images, even from the other CSer's post.

 

[Kit]

...ah definitely not..but the blur is distracting...feel like having cataract...as for the 1st image, the effects of the local contrast also makes it distracting...just my humble opinion,

All I can say is am truly, seriously and frankly lost for words.....

 

[Kit]

I didn't see the ''fault'' in the first image till you guys mentioned it.
My personal feel is that its 'there' after post processing (contrast, levels etc).
It does not appear in the other images, even from the other CSer's post.

The light source is at the other end of the room so the shadowed area will always be there regardless of any any editing, unless I use a strobe.