01Ryan10 wrote:
I spent a Saturday night into Sunday morning on 3/20 to 3/21 of this year shooting nightscapes in Joshua Tree National Park. This was the first time I deliberately waited 7 days after the New Moon to go out and shoot Milkyway nightscapes, so I could utilize the Moonlight to light the foreground instead of artificial lighting. So much more convenient. The Moon set about 20 minutes before the MW core rose that night.
For this image, I shot the foreground right around midnight with the Moon camera right about 4'Oclock position and roughly 90 minutes before it set. This allowed me to capture the foreground scene at ISO 400, F/7.1, and 2mins, (nice and clean).
I then packed up and drove about 5 miles South East to capture the MW image. The MW exposure was F/2.8, ISO 400, 4mins, (used a tracker).
The MW exposure is positioned to almost near perfect natural alignment with its respective foreground location.
Nikon Z7 and 14-24 F/2.8 Z lens, (the lens is spectacular!)...Show more →
I wonder if I can ask a question since you use and seem to really like this lens:
Several years ago, I owned the 14-24G and thought it was one of the best Nikons I ever owned. It performed as well as any ultra wide that I had ever used, especially at 14mm, and most importantly I still look at prints I did with that lens and marvel at the corner sharpness even at 14mm.
For various reasons i got out of Nikon and used both a 21mm Zeiss Distagon and a 21mm Leica F3.4. I thought both were absolutely superb lenses but both suffered a bit with corner sharpness.
I recently came back to Nikon (Z7, 24-70F4, and a few primes). Last week, I picked up a 20F1.8S and today decided to bring it back and replace it with the 14-24. Biggest reason was that I reasoned that 14, 16, and 18mm are an advantage and even bigger was that although it wasn't bad, I did see some smearing the corners with the 20. I never saw any with the 14-24G and felt, ok I'll pay the extra, get the extra focal lengths and hopefully go back to a zoom that showed very little if any corner smearing.
Well, I hate to say this but the corners are (at least with this copy of the 14-24) barely acceptable. I don't understand why, but they are no better than the old Zeiss and Leica 21 that I had years ago. I do have lens corrections turned on in camera. Might I get better corner sharpness if I turn this off? If not, what else can be going on here? Even the corners in the 14-30 which I tried a couple of years ago, are better. The 24-70F4 puts it to shame.
Any ideas?
Jay968 wrote:
I wonder if I can ask a question since you use and seem to really like this lens:
Several years ago, I owned the 14-24G and thought it was one of the best Nikons I ever owned. It performed as well as any ultra wide that I had ever used, especially at 14mm, and most importantly I still look at prints I did with that lens and marvel at the corner sharpness even at 14mm.
For various reasons i got out of Nikon and used both a 21mm Zeiss Distagon and a 21mm Leica F3.4. I thought both were absolutely superb lenses but both suffered a bit with corner sharpness.
I recently came back to Nikon (Z7, 24-70F4, and a few primes). Last week, I picked up a 20F1.8S and today decided to bring it back and replace it with the 14-24. Biggest reason was that I reasoned that 14, 16, and 18mm are an advantage and even bigger was that although it wasn't bad, I did see some smearing the corners with the 20. I never saw any with the 14-24G and felt, ok I'll pay the extra, get the extra focal lengths and hopefully go back to a zoom that showed very little if any corner smearing.
Well, I hate to say this but the corners are (at least with this copy of the 14-24) barely acceptable. I don't understand why, but they are no better than the old Zeiss and Leica 21 that I had years ago. I do have lens corrections turned on in camera. Might I get better corner sharpness if I turn this off? If not, what else can be going on here? Even the corners in the 14-30 which I tried a couple of years ago, are better. The 24-70F4 puts it to shame.
Any ideas?...Show more →
Did you get the 14-24G or S?
The 14-24G was never noted as a better performer in the extreme corners than the 21 Distagon, especially at 21-24mm. At best it was on par with the Zeiss 21 (which was generally considered best in class for corner performance until the 21 Loxia showed up)
Jay968 wrote:
I wonder if I can ask a question since you use and seem to really like this lens:
Several years ago, I owned the 14-24G and thought it was one of the best Nikons I ever owned. It performed as well as any ultra wide that I had ever used, especially at 14mm, and most importantly I still look at prints I did with that lens and marvel at the corner sharpness even at 14mm.
For various reasons i got out of Nikon and used both a 21mm Zeiss Distagon and a 21mm Leica F3.4. I thought both were absolutely superb lenses but both suffered a bit with corner sharpness.
I recently came back to Nikon (Z7, 24-70F4, and a few primes). Last week, I picked up a 20F1.8S and today decided to bring it back and replace it with the 14-24. Biggest reason was that I reasoned that 14, 16, and 18mm are an advantage and even bigger was that although it wasn't bad, I did see some smearing the corners with the 20. I never saw any with the 14-24G and felt, ok I'll pay the extra, get the extra focal lengths and hopefully go back to a zoom that showed very little if any corner smearing.
Well, I hate to say this but the corners are (at least with this copy of the 14-24) barely acceptable. I don't understand why, but they are no better than the old Zeiss and Leica 21 that I had years ago. I do have lens corrections turned on in camera. Might I get better corner sharpness if I turn this off? If not, what else can be going on here? Even the corners in the 14-30 which I tried a couple of years ago, are better. The 24-70F4 puts it to shame.
Any ideas?...Show more →
The strength of the 14-24/2.8G lens is its performance at 14mm. At 20-21 mm, I felt that ZF 21 Distagon has its advantage with better outer zone sharpness and cleaner color. I recently got a copy of the newer Z 20/1.8 that I really like it. I prefer it to the ZF 21 Distagon and Loxia 21. It's as good as the Leica Super-Elmar 21/3.4 but with a f-stop of 1.8.
I got the S version today thinking it had to be as good as the G at 14, probably even better. I used to shoot an awful lot at 14mm with the G and did some shooting today at 14 and 20 with the S.
I can honestly say I was always impressed by the edge sharpness at 14 with the G, but I was totally disappointed today with the S. I basically shot between F4.5 and F8. The edge sharpness looked no better than what I remember I used to see using the Zeiss 21. While I can understand the praise for that lens, I never was real impressed with its corner sharpness. I think the Loxia is better.
What struck me most is that the 14-24S doesn't even look as sharp in the corners as the 14-30 and it's not even close to the 20S.
Please look at some images enlarged at least 50% and let me know what you see. Strangely, if I photograph the famous brick wall, the corners look fine, but if I shoot a landscape or anything like it beyond 20 feet or so, things start to deteriorate.
Strange lens indeed. What Nikon was thinking with the lens caps is beyond me, and that control ring (or whatever it's called) has to be the most useless thing I have ever seen on a lens.
I'm really starting to think I made a mistake by returning the 20 and going with this lens. The 20 literally puts it to shame when it comes to corner sharpness and overall rendition. Its contrast, color and tonalities are gorgeous.
The Leica 21SEM is the other 21 that I have a lot of experience with. Great color, stunning center sharpness, but the corners are a mess compared to some of today's ultra wides.
I'm not trying to cause a stir here, I'd just kind've like to know what's going on as I always felt the old G lens was about as good as it gets. The S version is incredible at center frame. Extremely sharp. But I was so disappointed today with the edges and I just don't get it.
Jay968 wrote:
I got the S version today thinking it had to be as good as the G at 14, probably even better. I used to shoot an awful lot at 14mm with the G and did some shooting today at 14 and 20 with the S.
I can honestly say I was always impressed by the edge sharpness at 14 with the G, but I was totally disappointed today with the S. I basically shot between F4.5 and F8. The edge sharpness looked no better than what I remember I used to see using the Zeiss 21. While I can understand the praise for that lens, I never was real impressed with its corner sharpness. I think the Loxia is better.
What struck me most is that the 14-24S doesn't even look as sharp in the corners as the 14-30 and it's not even close to the 20S.
Please look at some images enlarged at least 50% and let me know what you see. Strangely, if I photograph the famous brick wall, the corners look fine, but if I shoot a landscape or anything like it beyond 20 feet or so, things start to deteriorate.
Strange lens indeed. What Nikon was thinking with the lens caps is beyond me, and that control ring (or whatever it's called) has to be the most useless thing I have ever seen on a lens.
I'm really starting to think I made a mistake by returning the 20 and going with this lens. The 20 literally puts it to shame when it comes to corner sharpness and overall rendition. Its contrast, color and tonalities are gorgeous.
The Leica 21SEM is the other 21 that I have a lot of experience with. Great color, stunning center sharpness, but the corners are a mess compared to some of today's ultra wides.
I'm not trying to cause a stir here, I'd just kind've like to know what's going on as I always felt the old G lens was about as good as it gets. The S version is incredible at center frame. Extremely sharp. But I was so disappointed today with the edges and I just don't get it....Show more →
Sorry to hear about your experience with the 14-24/2.8 S. As I mentioned above, I do like 20/1.8 S very much. Here is one taken with Z7 + 20/1.8 S.
Yeah, I hate to think the answer may be to just go back to the 20 but it may come to that. I really thought that based on my experience with the14-24G that the new one made more sense than the 20.
Maybe not.
If you scroll down to suteetat's post showing corner and center comparisons between the S and G versions of the 14-24, you see that the older lens (until F8) may indeed provide better corner sharpness. The conclusion is made that maybe Nikon is making some compromises by making a less bulbous front element in order to be able to fit a filter over the front of the lens.
Jay968 wrote:
I wonder if I can ask a question since you use and seem to really like this lens:
Several years ago, I owned the 14-24G and thought it was one of the best Nikons I ever owned. It performed as well as any ultra wide that I had ever used, especially at 14mm, and most importantly I still look at prints I did with that lens and marvel at the corner sharpness even at 14mm.
For various reasons i got out of Nikon and used both a 21mm Zeiss Distagon and a 21mm Leica F3.4. I thought both were absolutely superb lenses but both suffered a bit with corner sharpness.
I recently came back to Nikon (Z7, 24-70F4, and a few primes). Last week, I picked up a 20F1.8S and today decided to bring it back and replace it with the 14-24. Biggest reason was that I reasoned that 14, 16, and 18mm are an advantage and even bigger was that although it wasn't bad, I did see some smearing the corners with the 20. I never saw any with the 14-24G and felt, ok I'll pay the extra, get the extra focal lengths and hopefully go back to a zoom that showed very little if any corner smearing.
Well, I hate to say this but the corners are (at least with this copy of the 14-24) barely acceptable. I don't understand why, but they are no better than the old Zeiss and Leica 21 that I had years ago. I do have lens corrections turned on in camera. Might I get better corner sharpness if I turn this off? If not, what else can be going on here? Even the corners in the 14-30 which I tried a couple of years ago, are better. The 24-70F4 puts it to shame.
Any ideas?...Show more →
I've had the 14-24 Z lens about 3 weeks and sadly have only been out with it once. I don't have any wide open vistas at 14mm to show at this point, but my guess is that any 14mm lens will show some smearing on the edges and corners reletive to the center due to physics.
In any case, I did get a tracked sky shot at 14mm, F/2.8 for 4 minutes. The red boxes are the 100% crops in the images that come after.
Astro tracked single exposure at 14mm, F/2.8, 4 minutes
