Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2013 · lighter 14-24mm
  
 
jim allison
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · lighter 14-24mm


My thought would be to get the 16-35mm vr and also a 14mm2.8 Samyang.


Feb 11, 2013 at 07:33 PM
Cagey75
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · lighter 14-24mm


binary visions wrote:
Not to mention considering the percentage increase. The 16-35mm is 70% more expensive than the 18-35mm when comparing MSRP. If Nikon announced a new, higher performing 70-200mm at a price point of $2800, would people be saying there's not much price difference? What about a new 500mm f/4 at $14,500? That's the same percentage jump.



I wasn't even aware the 18-35 was available yet!? :/

I know the prices for the 16-35 have dropped a lot recently in the UK, and nowhere over this direction has the new 18-35 for sale, but if it is indeed a lot cheaper than I was led to believe, I'll seriously consider it. As the widest I have is 24mm atm.



Feb 11, 2013 at 08:22 PM
Javier Munoz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · lighter 14-24mm


If size were an issue, then the 20 f2.8 should fit the bill


Feb 11, 2013 at 08:55 PM
davidnholtjr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · lighter 14-24mm


Cagey75 wrote:
I wasn't even aware the 18-35 was available yet!? :/


It's suppose to start shipping March 7.



Feb 11, 2013 at 11:53 PM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · lighter 14-24mm


Foto Dude wrote:
I love using the 14-24mm. I just wish that Nikon would make a lighter version of this lens. I don't quite understand why it is necessary for a landscape lens to have a 2.8 aperture capability. I mostly shoot at f/8-11 on this lens. I've never use any other aperture outside of this range. I've been into photography for about 2 years and landscape photography for about a year. So I figure I have much to learn.

Would anyone mind sharing what kind of landscape photography they do that would required an aperture outside of f/8-11?


This kind. Shot at 14mm, f /2.8, as are most of my nightscapes. For what I do, the 14-24 is simply indispensable; a 21mm Zeiss is useless principally because it doesn't shoot at 14. That said, I have considered the 15mm Zeiss, but can't justify the price just yet.









Feb 12, 2013 at 01:16 AM
DocsPics
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · lighter 14-24mm


For those who have not looked at Steve's work, do so, and this discussion will be over. (Just sayin'....)


Feb 12, 2013 at 01:38 AM
RRRoger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · lighter 14-24mm


Thorsten wrote:
Do you actually shoot many landscape at the 14mm end? I rarely see those anywhere. If not, then the 16-35 is your "lighter" 14-24, and there are others.


Think of the Grand Canyon.
Even my 8mm FishEye was not wide enough for that Landscape.



Feb 12, 2013 at 03:36 AM
Foto Dude
Offline

Account locked
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · lighter 14-24mm


DocsPics wrote:
For those who have not looked at Steve's work, do so, and this discussion will be over. (Just sayin'....)



Do you have a link to his work?



Feb 12, 2013 at 06:57 AM
Foto Dude
Offline

Account locked
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · lighter 14-24mm


Arka wrote:
This kind. Shot at 14mm, f /2.8, as are most of my nightscapes. For what I do, the 14-24 is simply indispensable; a 21mm Zeiss is useless principally because it doesn't shoot at 14. That said, I have considered the 15mm Zeiss, but can't justify the price just yet.


I see. If you had used any aperture higher than 2.8, that would force your shutter to stay open longer, and in-term the stars would be more fuzzy. Am I correct?



Feb 12, 2013 at 07:01 AM
ChrisDM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · lighter 14-24mm


The 14-24 is not a "landscape lens", it is an UWA lens. It is best for architecture, interiors, concerts/events (hence the 2.8 aperture) etc... It is not particularly well suited to landscape because if its weight and the fact that it doesn't accept filters. The 16-35 is a better choice of you're concerned about weight, or cost, or filters, etc... I guarantee you nobody is going to be able to tell just looking at your photos whether they were taken with the 16-35 versus the 14-24. This is an exercise for the gearheads, not the photographers (I can talk about them that way because I am one )...

Furthermore, it is likely the number one amateur mistake of budding landscape photographers, to want to zoom out and back up to get "everything in". The more elements you try to include in a photograph the less significant either one becomes. Some of the best landscape photographers I can think of (Tony Sweet, William Neill, etc) cite the 70-200 as their favorite landscape lens. It allows them to isolate a particular element creating a more intimate composition.



Feb 12, 2013 at 12:10 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Steve Perry
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · lighter 14-24mm


I kind of like the way the 14-24 sucks at landscapes:














































Feb 12, 2013 at 03:13 PM
RRRoger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · lighter 14-24mm


They say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Thanks for showing us what the 14-24 f2.8 can do Steve.



Feb 12, 2013 at 03:52 PM
lxdesign
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · lighter 14-24mm



Ominous Skies At Superior by lxdesign, on Flickr

Another 14-24 horrible landscape image.....



Feb 12, 2013 at 04:28 PM
Thorsten
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · lighter 14-24mm


Steve Perry wrote:
I kind of like the way the 14-24 sucks at landscapes:


Wow, stunning shots! But they were all between f/8 and f/11, which kind of goes to the OP's point why isn't there a lighter and slower version of this lens for landscapes.



Feb 12, 2013 at 05:59 PM
ryankarr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · lighter 14-24mm


It's been said, the 16-35mm and new 18-35mm are the lighter versions of this lens.


Feb 12, 2013 at 06:14 PM
Arka
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · lighter 14-24mm


Foto Dude wrote:
I see. If you had used any aperture higher than 2.8, that would force your shutter to stay open longer, and in-term the stars would be more fuzzy. Am I correct?


Exactly... the stars would start forming trails. Some people like star trails, but I hate them.

Thorsten wrote:
Wow, stunning shots! But they were all between f/8 and f/11, which kind of goes to the OP's point why isn't there a lighter and slower version of this lens for landscapes.


Steve, correct me if I am wrong, but if you had to shoot that first shot without the aid of an Astro-Tracker and composite blend, you'd probably prefer to shoot at f/2.8.

ChrisDM wrote:
It is not particularly well suited to landscape because if its weight and the fact that it doesn't accept filters. The 16-35 is a better choice of you're concerned about weight, or cost, or filters, etc... I guarantee you nobody is going to be able to tell just looking at your photos whether they were taken with the 16-35 versus the 14-24. This is an exercise for the gearheads, not the photographers (I can talk about them that way because I am one )...

Furthermore, it is likely the number one amateur mistake of budding landscape photographers, to want to zoom
...Show more

I could not disagree with you more re: the 14-24. It isn't just about getting "everything in." The extreme perspective at 14mm can make a scene interesting, and permit some otherwise unavailable foreground compositions. Obviously a 70-200 has its place in a landscape shooter's kit, but it doesn't obviate the benefits of a 14-24. I also completely reject your implication that you need a long lens to develop "intimate" compositions; you can get pretty darn intimate with your subject through a 14-24.



Feb 12, 2013 at 08:03 PM
Steve Perry
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · lighter 14-24mm


Thorsten wrote:
Wow, stunning shots! But they were all between f/8 and f/11, which kind of goes to the OP's point why isn't there a lighter and slower version of this lens for landscapes.


Oh, I think the 16-35 is supposed to be the alternative, but neither of the copies I've owned are as sharp f/stop for f/stop. It would be great if they were. I do keep a 16-35 around (used it twice in the last 6 months) for when I need a polarizer and my 21 zeiss isn't wide enough. However, if I can get away without a polarizer you can bet I grab the 14-24 every time.

It's a bit heavy & bulky, but I don't mind. I like 2.8 - it makes it easier to compose astro shots and setup before sunrise when seeing your composition in the dim viewfinder is a challenge. I think if I could ask for an improvement to the lens it would be a drop in filter drawer like my 300mm and 500mm have - don't even know if that's possible, but sounds good lol.



Feb 12, 2013 at 08:04 PM
Steve Perry
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · lighter 14-24mm


Arka wrote:
Steve, correct me if I am wrong, but if you had to shoot that first shot without the aid of an Astro-Tracker and composite blend, you'd probably prefer to shoot at f/2.8.



Actually, the foreground is shot separate from the stars from the same positon (the tracking device moves the camera during exposure, so you have to do separate foreground / star shots). The stars - even with the astro trac mount, are shot at 2.8. Would not have wanted to go F4 and glad I didn't need to



Feb 12, 2013 at 08:08 PM
ChrisDM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · lighter 14-24mm


Arka wrote:
I could not disagree with you more re: the 14-24. It isn't just about getting "everything in." The extreme perspective at 14mm can make a scene interesting, and permit some otherwise unavailable foreground compositions. Obviously a 70-200 has its place in a landscape shooter's kit, but it doesn't obviate the benefits of a 14-24. I also completely reject your implication that you need a long lens to develop "intimate" compositions; you can get pretty darn intimate with your subject through a 14-24.


I should have expanded on that point. I didn't say there was no place for ultrawide in landscape photography. But it is like HDR, its power is often abused by improper use by those with less experience: An ultrawide shot requires a VERY strong foreground element to succeed, as in Steve's examples above. But most just try to "get everything in", foreground elements be damned, creating the stereotypical tourist with a wide lens shot.




Feb 12, 2013 at 09:26 PM
Hardcore
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · lighter 14-24mm


I have the fotodiox polarizer for the 14-24mm. Works great for removing glare. Great shots Steve!

This thread is about using what works best for you. To say the 14-24mm is not a landscape lens is a bit odd, but hey... maybe it isn't a good lens for landscapes... for you.

Personally, I love the 14-24mm for landcapes. It is so sharp and even the corners hold up very very well on the d800. As for filters, it has enough options to keep me happy. Really the only filter I need is a mid strength nd and a polarizer. Both options are available from fotodiox for a very affordable price.



Feb 12, 2013 at 09:26 PM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password