Hello,
I am looking for landscape photographers in this forum that are currently using the Nikon 14-24 AFS 2.8 on a full frame sensor. I am about to buy this lens and the most common negatives I read about it are the inability to use filters and that for some the lens is "to wide". If any of you are working with this lens I liked to hear your thoughts and perhaps share some images. Thank you
Jack
www.allstarimaging.com
I have a bunch of them. True you can't use filters, but technically you aren't supposed to use filters with the other ultra wide angles at their widest. Of course we all do. I'm just more selective with what I shoot. My bigger concern is the gigantic, bulging piece of glass in the front. I always expect to hit it on something...
On the other hand I have the 10-24mm which I use on my D300 with filters occassionally. And I'm sure others are hand holding their filters if they are using Lee 4x6" or similar types...
I'm not sure about "too wide" - There are times I wish it would go even wider than 14mm, however, no filers is sometimes no fun. Granted, 14mm is a bit awkward with a polarizer anyway, but 18-24 really isn't. Plus, no super long exposures with ND filters.
I am actually thinking about switching to a 17-35, but haven't done it yet (the 14-24 really is stellar). If Nikon were to come out with a 16-35 like Canon, that 1mm more would probably be just enough to seal the deal for me.
As it stands, it's a tough call, esp if you like filters.
and that for some the lens is "to wide". If any of you are working with this lens I liked to hear your thoughts and perhaps share some images. Thank you
*******
I made a DIY holder for ND grads. I would think that a polarizer at 14mm would give strange results.
As far as negatives with landscapes, IMO is lens flair with that huge front element.. The shade is very limited, otherwise it would cause vignetting.
I don't think that Nikon intended the 14-24 as a landscape lens, maybe aimed more at photo journalists who don't need to use filters, I have the 17-35 and I'm very happy with it, plus I have the option to use my Lee ND Grad filters, the 14-24 is a fine lens though.
Its in no way a fault of the lens, but I found that quite often when using the 14-24 with my D3 that I was happier stitching several frames together from a longer focal length to get the same FOV as the wider end of the 14-24, but with more resolution, whenever possible at least.
Taking in such wide vistas and only have 12 megs to work with often wouldn't give me the detail I was really seeking for larger prints and I found myself using my 24 PC-E and stitching more than I pulled out the 14-24.
As I said, its still an excellent lens, and the sharpest UWA I've ever owned, but, due to its wide FOV, subjects can get very small very quickly and you tend to lose some detail.
Stitching isn't always the solution, and in many cases might not work, but before spending $1800 on a lens like the 14-24 I might suggest people give stitching a try, because it can give great results, all the resolution you can dream of, and save you a ton of money, especially if your not usually in need of such a wide FOV for your shooting style
I never understood why people said the 14-24 was specialized. To me, PC-E lenses are specialized, not something like the 14-24.
I rented the 14-24 for a couple weeks, and it was a huge mistake, because I am convinced I now NEED it. It was amazing. I didn't think it was too wide at all, and I found myself wanting to get extremely close to my subject. When I would get very close to an object, I would think I had plenty of room left to get closer, but the lens would be nearly touching the object.
I'm very happy with the 24-70, but I think if (when) I get the 14-24, it will get lots of use. I think I am a wide-angle junkie without a wide-angle lens yet
I use the 14-24 for landscapes at any time I need a view wider than 24mm, with a polarizer or not. I use a polarizer at 14mm with fullframe with no issues (a special Schneider pola made for the movie industry that is 6.6" square). Some folks seem to think that using a polarizer is limited to only views that include skies (which do cause issues with wides), but I use a polarizer for about 75% or more of my images that don't include skies - if you are not then you are missing out on a lot of nice rich colors that are often blocked by glare on leaves, rocks, twigs, etc. I also use the 14-24 as my main star lens when shooting a sky full of stars since it is pretty nice wide open, and when doing pinpoint stars and the landscape below you need the shortest exposure you can get in order to keep the stars as points and not streaks. (20 seconds is about max time with the 14mm).
Tim Ernst wrote:
I use the 14-24 for landscapes at any time I need a view wider than 24mm, with a polarizer or not. I use a polarizer at 14mm with fullframe with no issues (a special Schneider pola made for the movie industry that is 6.6" square). Some folks seem to think that using a polarizer is limited to only views that include skies (which do cause issues with wides), but I use a polarizer for about 75% or more of my images that don't include skies - if you are not then you are missing out on a lot of nice rich colors that are often blocked by glare on leaves, rocks, twigs, etc. I also use the 14-24 as my main star lens when shooting a sky full of stars since it is pretty nice wide open, and when doing pinpoint stars and the landscape below you need the shortest exposure you can get in order to keep the stars as points and not streaks. (20 seconds is about max time with the 14mm)....Show more →
I agree. Actually, blue skies are about the least of my reasons for a pola. My main use is to knock reflections of of leaves, grass, even rocks. Like you say, all the colors look richer with a polarizer.
Now, my question - is there anywhere the average guy can order a polarizer like you describe?
It's a UWA zoom, so it can't be too wide - definitely not in places like Yosemite Valley. The lens is so highly coated (like Leica lenses) you don't really need a polarizer - which does a lousy job with UWA anyway. I prefer to use the graduated filter in Lightroom as it allows you so much better control in terms of tilt and density. The 14-24G is a terrific lens as it is literally 4 prime lenses for the price of one. And I am endorsing this lens as a Canon shooter!
Now, my question - is there anywhere the average guy can order a polarizer like you describe?
******
Cokin has a polarizer for the X-pro system and I think that Lee(?) has a system just for the 14-24. The Cokin is probably the least expensive at $460. I am thinking about trying it but it's a lot of money if it doesn't work.
