Nikon Z Images Thread
Apr 14, 2021 at 11:06 AM
p.150 #2Nikon Z Images Thread
Jay968 wrote:
Just noticed this:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1664173/5
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.
Not according to Photography Life, the 14-24 f2.8S seems to measure better and my own experience with both lenses tends to agree with Photography Life:
Review of the Trinity Z lenses:
https://photographylife.com/nikon-z-lens-trinity
Review of the 14-24 f2.8G:
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-14-24mm-f2-8g/2
Last line in the 14-24 f2.8S review:
"For now, I am just going to say that the Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S is the best ultra-wide-angle zoom lens I have ever tested."
When compared to the 20mm f1.8S, the review states:
"Those who own the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S (which is another excellent lens, by the way) might be wondering how it compares to the Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S. As you can see from the above chart, the Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S actually managed to beat the lighter prime at the f/4-5.6 range in the center frame. However, the prime is still a bit sharper in the corners when stopped down, which is expected. Still, seeing a zoom lens perform almost on the level of a prime lens is very impressive!"
I would suggest, as with all lenses, that every lens is a compromise and that it is field dependant. From my own experience with the 14-24 f2.8G and now the 14-24 f2.8S, the new Z mount lens is a much better lens in all departments and a modern day "classic" and certainly worth being labelled as part of the "Holy Trinity".
Just noticed this:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1664173/5
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.
Not according to Photography Life, the 14-24 f2.8S seems to measure better and my own experience with both lenses tends to agree with Photography Life:
Review of the Trinity Z lenses:
https://photographylife.com/nikon-z-lens-trinity
Review of the 14-24 f2.8G:
https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-14-24mm-f2-8g/2
Last line in the 14-24 f2.8S review:
"For now, I am just going to say that the Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S is the best ultra-wide-angle zoom lens I have ever tested."
When compared to the 20mm f1.8S, the review states:
"Those who own the Nikon Z 20mm f/1.8 S (which is another excellent lens, by the way) might be wondering how it compares to the Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S. As you can see from the above chart, the Z 14-24mm f/2.8 S actually managed to beat the lighter prime at the f/4-5.6 range in the center frame. However, the prime is still a bit sharper in the corners when stopped down, which is expected. Still, seeing a zoom lens perform almost on the level of a prime lens is very impressive!"
I would suggest, as with all lenses, that every lens is a compromise and that it is field dependant. From my own experience with the 14-24 f2.8G and now the 14-24 f2.8S, the new Z mount lens is a much better lens in all departments and a modern day "classic" and certainly worth being labelled as part of the "Holy Trinity".
Apr 14, 2021 at 05:11 PM
p.150 #3Nikon Z Images Thread
I think that one of the things I have seen with the 14-24s is that its field curvature very often makes it look as if the corners are not very good. I've tested it against a flat surface and found that it is indeed very sharp corner to corner. But in real world shooting field curvature does some nasty stuff to foreground corners. It's imperative to either get to know how this behaves and work with it, or stop down enough to try and avoid it.
The Photographylife review of the lens which you have provided the link to seems to contradict this.
I'm not exactly sure why, but if I photograph a flat surface, I see very little falloff in sharpness in the corners. However, if I photograph a landscape I see corners ranging from what I would call fair wide open to acceptable at F8 and pretty good at F11, but still discernible from the center of the frame. I'm not sure what those who say the corner sharpness on this lens is superb are looking at or shooting. There is always a noticeable difference in sharpness between the bottom center and bottom corners. If this is not due to field curvature, I don't know what accounts for it. No I don't expect any ultra wide to have perfect corners, but the praise I have seen for corners on this lens is something I just don't understand. I've done some decentering testing using Fred Miranda's technique and while not perfect (what ultra wide zoom is) I see no problematic evidence of decentering.
I don't know Photographylife but I do sometimes wonder if some reviews are based on published MTF curves and not on real hands on use. The MTF curves for the 14-24s are superb. Far better than what I am actually seeing in using the lens.
Most samples that I see from this lens (including your terrific images at Nikon Cafe) seem to be of landscapes which have either dark or non detailed foregrounds. I've been searching for examples which show a lot of detail in the near foreground areas, but they are few and far between. In another forum I asked anyone who owns this lens to take a few simple shots of something beyond 20 feet or so but also showing the foreground closer to the camera. I have yet to see a shot which shows real good edge to edge sharpness in that foreground unless shot at at least F8. However, as I said earlier, a brick wall test makes the lens look superb corner to corner.
If not field curvature, then what is accounting for this?
Edited on Apr 14, 2021 at 10:02 PM · View previous versions
The Photographylife review of the lens which you have provided the link to seems to contradict this.
I'm not exactly sure why, but if I photograph a flat surface, I see very little falloff in sharpness in the corners. However, if I photograph a landscape I see corners ranging from what I would call fair wide open to acceptable at F8 and pretty good at F11, but still discernible from the center of the frame. I'm not sure what those who say the corner sharpness on this lens is superb are looking at or shooting. There is always a noticeable difference in sharpness between the bottom center and bottom corners. If this is not due to field curvature, I don't know what accounts for it. No I don't expect any ultra wide to have perfect corners, but the praise I have seen for corners on this lens is something I just don't understand. I've done some decentering testing using Fred Miranda's technique and while not perfect (what ultra wide zoom is) I see no problematic evidence of decentering.
I don't know Photographylife but I do sometimes wonder if some reviews are based on published MTF curves and not on real hands on use. The MTF curves for the 14-24s are superb. Far better than what I am actually seeing in using the lens.
Most samples that I see from this lens (including your terrific images at Nikon Cafe) seem to be of landscapes which have either dark or non detailed foregrounds. I've been searching for examples which show a lot of detail in the near foreground areas, but they are few and far between. In another forum I asked anyone who owns this lens to take a few simple shots of something beyond 20 feet or so but also showing the foreground closer to the camera. I have yet to see a shot which shows real good edge to edge sharpness in that foreground unless shot at at least F8. However, as I said earlier, a brick wall test makes the lens look superb corner to corner.
If not field curvature, then what is accounting for this?
Edited on Apr 14, 2021 at 10:02 PM · View previous versions
Apr 14, 2021 at 06:40 PM
p.150 #4Nikon Z Images Thread
DSC_3400 by AnkuRinku Jhunjhunwala, on FlickrZ6 and 50S
Apr 14, 2021 at 07:35 PM
p.150 #5Nikon Z Images Thread
Jay968 wrote:
I think that one of the things I have seen with the 14-24s is that its field curvature very often makes it look as if the corners are not very good. I've tested it against a flat surface and found that it is indeed very sharp corner to corner. But in real world shooting field curvature does some nasty stuff to foreground corners. It's imperative to either get to know how this behaves and work with it, or stop down enough to try and avoid it.
The Photographylife review of the lens which you have provided the link to seems to...Show more →
Pardon me as I’m green on this subject but if flat surfaces are sharp corner to corner and you’re disappointed with foreground sharpness with landscapes, would that mean there is a lack of field curvature?
Post some examples.
Have you seen cameralab’s test shots? Corner sharpness seems to beat out the G version and stomp the 14-30. At least with their copy. Foreground looks to be a different story.
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-14-24mm-f2-8-s-review/2/
Apr 14, 2021 at 11:29 PM
p.150 #6Nikon Z Images Thread
Jay968 wrote:
I think that one of the things I have seen with the 14-24s is that its field curvature very often makes it look as if the corners are not very good. I've tested it against a flat surface and found that it is indeed very sharp corner to corner. But in real world shooting field curvature does some nasty stuff to foreground corners. It's imperative to either get to know how this behaves and work with it, or stop down enough to try and avoid it.
The Photographylife review of the lens which you have provided the link to seems to...Show more →
Thank you for your kind comments on my images at Nikon Cafe.
I have been advised that the published MTF charts fom Nikon are calculated, not measured. I do not know how you are judging these MTF's and what you are "seeing" in the results as not being indicitave of it's performance. As far as I can tell, the MTF charts reflect the lens's performance quite well as do the resultant test results from Photography life and elsewhere. This is a super sharp lens and indicated by the test results at Photography Life and yes Photography Life actually tests the lenses on a test bench. They also use the lenses in the field.
Field curvature should not be an issue if you are focusing in the correct plane fror the lens. This is why it is important to get to know your lens. If we consider DOF - at 14mm and f5.6 and focusing at 2mts (6ft), DOF runs from 740mm (3ft) to infinity! At 24mm f5.6 and focusing at 3.5mts, DOF runs from 1.73mts to infinity. In other words, if you are standing to take an image, pretty much everything will be in focus from your feet to infinity at f5.6. Use f8 and it will be even better.
If the 14-24 f2.8S is considered a fairly flat field curvature lens, then focusing nearer to the front of the image should give you sharpness edge to edge and well to infinity. So, if you have focused at these distances and the field curvature is reasonably flat as like a test chart, then you would have good sharpness into the corners and edges. If you are focusing deep into the scene, then you may expect that the edges to not be quite as sharp if the lens has low field curvature. If it has high field curvature, then it may be better to focus deeper into the scene and then the edges will some into better focus.
I don't as a rule, "test" lenses. I take photos and judge for myself the results using my seat of the pants judgement and years of using lenses and knowing what to expect. I leave the real testing to the experts. The issue is that unless the test is controlled and repeatable, then it is not a real test and may put the lens in a good or bad light depending on how the test was done. I just take photos in real world environments, conditions, and use and judge the results against what I know and feel. As stated above, getting the focus perfectly right for the field curvature of the lens is critical for critical work and testing, whereas my real world shots are not critically focused to get full perfect DOF. However, I have a pretty good idea where abouts it needs to be for a given lens for it to be excellent in most situations, IMO.
You can see my 14-24 f2.8S images on my Pbase photo hosting site in my 14-24 f2.8S gallery here:
https://pbase.com/lance_b/1424_f28s
There are a few that have detail near the edges of the frame say like these? These are focused more to the front of the frame rather than the rear as I know the 14-24 f2.8S has a relatively flat field.
The detail in the wood to the right is there, clear and sharp:
As is the sandstone pillar on the right
The paving at my feet are pferfectly sharp edge to edge corner to corner. I mean, how good does it have to be??
I think that one of the things I have seen with the 14-24s is that its field curvature very often makes it look as if the corners are not very good. I've tested it against a flat surface and found that it is indeed very sharp corner to corner. But in real world shooting field curvature does some nasty stuff to foreground corners. It's imperative to either get to know how this behaves and work with it, or stop down enough to try and avoid it.
The Photographylife review of the lens which you have provided the link to seems to...Show more →
Thank you for your kind comments on my images at Nikon Cafe.
I have been advised that the published MTF charts fom Nikon are calculated, not measured. I do not know how you are judging these MTF's and what you are "seeing" in the results as not being indicitave of it's performance. As far as I can tell, the MTF charts reflect the lens's performance quite well as do the resultant test results from Photography life and elsewhere. This is a super sharp lens and indicated by the test results at Photography Life and yes Photography Life actually tests the lenses on a test bench. They also use the lenses in the field.
Field curvature should not be an issue if you are focusing in the correct plane fror the lens. This is why it is important to get to know your lens. If we consider DOF - at 14mm and f5.6 and focusing at 2mts (6ft), DOF runs from 740mm (3ft) to infinity! At 24mm f5.6 and focusing at 3.5mts, DOF runs from 1.73mts to infinity. In other words, if you are standing to take an image, pretty much everything will be in focus from your feet to infinity at f5.6. Use f8 and it will be even better.
If the 14-24 f2.8S is considered a fairly flat field curvature lens, then focusing nearer to the front of the image should give you sharpness edge to edge and well to infinity. So, if you have focused at these distances and the field curvature is reasonably flat as like a test chart, then you would have good sharpness into the corners and edges. If you are focusing deep into the scene, then you may expect that the edges to not be quite as sharp if the lens has low field curvature. If it has high field curvature, then it may be better to focus deeper into the scene and then the edges will some into better focus.
I don't as a rule, "test" lenses. I take photos and judge for myself the results using my seat of the pants judgement and years of using lenses and knowing what to expect. I leave the real testing to the experts. The issue is that unless the test is controlled and repeatable, then it is not a real test and may put the lens in a good or bad light depending on how the test was done. I just take photos in real world environments, conditions, and use and judge the results against what I know and feel. As stated above, getting the focus perfectly right for the field curvature of the lens is critical for critical work and testing, whereas my real world shots are not critically focused to get full perfect DOF. However, I have a pretty good idea where abouts it needs to be for a given lens for it to be excellent in most situations, IMO.
You can see my 14-24 f2.8S images on my Pbase photo hosting site in my 14-24 f2.8S gallery here:
https://pbase.com/lance_b/1424_f28s
There are a few that have detail near the edges of the frame say like these? These are focused more to the front of the frame rather than the rear as I know the 14-24 f2.8S has a relatively flat field.
The detail in the wood to the right is there, clear and sharp:
As is the sandstone pillar on the right
The paving at my feet are pferfectly sharp edge to edge corner to corner. I mean, how good does it have to be??
Apr 15, 2021 at 01:43 AM
p.150 #7Nikon Z Images Thread
Buckeye2604 wrote:
The Photographylife review of the lens which you have provided the link to seems to contradict this.
I'm not exactly sure why, but if I photograph a flat surface, I see very little falloff in sharpness in the corners. However, if I photograph a landscape I see corners ranging from what I would call fair wide open to acceptable at F8 and pretty good at F11, but still discernible from the center of the frame. I'm not sure what those who say the corner sharpness on this lens is superb are looking at or shooting. There is always a noticeable difference in sharpness between the bottom center and bottom corners. If this is not due to field curvature, I don't know what accounts for it. No I don't expect any ultra wide to have perfect corners, but the praise I have seen for corners on this lens is something I just don't understand. I've done some decentering testing using Fred Miranda's technique and while not perfect (what ultra wide zoom is) I see no problematic evidence of decentering.
I don't know Photographylife but I do sometimes wonder if some reviews are based on published MTF curves and not on real hands on use. The MTF curves for the 14-24s are superb. Far better than what I am actually seeing in using the lens.
Most samples that I see from this lens (including your terrific images at Nikon Cafe) seem to be of landscapes which have either dark or non detailed foregrounds. I've been searching for examples which show a lot of detail in the near foreground areas, but they are few and far between. In another forum I asked anyone who owns this lens to take a few simple shots of something beyond 20 feet or so but also showing the foreground closer to the camera. I have yet to see a shot which shows real good edge to edge sharpness in that foreground unless shot at at least F8. However, as I said earlier, a brick wall test makes the lens look superb corner to corner.
If not field curvature, then what is accounting for this?Pardon me as I’m green on this subject but if flat surfaces are sharp corner to corner and you’re disappointed with foreground sharpness with landscapes, would that mean there is a lack of field curvature?
Post some examples.
Have you seen cameralab’s test shots? Corner sharpness seems to beat out the G version and stomp the 14-30. At least with their copy. Foreground looks to be a different story.
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-14-24mm-f2-8-s-review/2/
https://petapixel.com/2016/12/21/field-curvature-tricky-problem-photography/
https://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/5/field-curvature---a-practical-guide
The above links show how field curvature can indeed lead to unsharp corners.
Testing using a test chart does not take field curvature into account as it is a flat surface. Nor does focusing on and including objects only at infinity.
Edited on Apr 15, 2021 at 04:18 AM · View previous versions
Jay968 wrote
I think that one of the things I have seen with the 14-24s is that its field curvature very often makes it look as if the corners are not very good. I've tested it against a flat surface and found that it is indeed very sharp corner to corner. But in real world shooting field curvature does some nasty stuff to foreground corners. It's imperative to either get to know how this behaves and work with it, or stop down enough to try and avoid it.The Photographylife review of the lens which you have provided the link to seems to contradict this.
I'm not exactly sure why, but if I photograph a flat surface, I see very little falloff in sharpness in the corners. However, if I photograph a landscape I see corners ranging from what I would call fair wide open to acceptable at F8 and pretty good at F11, but still discernible from the center of the frame. I'm not sure what those who say the corner sharpness on this lens is superb are looking at or shooting. There is always a noticeable difference in sharpness between the bottom center and bottom corners. If this is not due to field curvature, I don't know what accounts for it. No I don't expect any ultra wide to have perfect corners, but the praise I have seen for corners on this lens is something I just don't understand. I've done some decentering testing using Fred Miranda's technique and while not perfect (what ultra wide zoom is) I see no problematic evidence of decentering.
I don't know Photographylife but I do sometimes wonder if some reviews are based on published MTF curves and not on real hands on use. The MTF curves for the 14-24s are superb. Far better than what I am actually seeing in using the lens.
Most samples that I see from this lens (including your terrific images at Nikon Cafe) seem to be of landscapes which have either dark or non detailed foregrounds. I've been searching for examples which show a lot of detail in the near foreground areas, but they are few and far between. In another forum I asked anyone who owns this lens to take a few simple shots of something beyond 20 feet or so but also showing the foreground closer to the camera. I have yet to see a shot which shows real good edge to edge sharpness in that foreground unless shot at at least F8. However, as I said earlier, a brick wall test makes the lens look superb corner to corner.
If not field curvature, then what is accounting for this?
Post some examples.
Have you seen cameralab’s test shots? Corner sharpness seems to beat out the G version and stomp the 14-30. At least with their copy. Foreground looks to be a different story.
https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-14-24mm-f2-8-s-review/2/
https://petapixel.com/2016/12/21/field-curvature-tricky-problem-photography/
https://tashley1.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/5/field-curvature---a-practical-guide
The above links show how field curvature can indeed lead to unsharp corners.
Testing using a test chart does not take field curvature into account as it is a flat surface. Nor does focusing on and including objects only at infinity.
Edited on Apr 15, 2021 at 04:18 AM · View previous versions
Apr 15, 2021 at 03:58 AM
p.150 #8Nikon Z Images Thread
Lance, thank you for the link to your pbase photos and for the wonderful photographs.
However, there is only one photograph in that entire pbase group with a detailed foreground that wasn't shot at F8 or higher (LBZ_9524.jpg), and that one's got unsharp foreground corners. I must say though that your photos at F8 and F11 do indeed illustrate how good the corners can look at those apertures. My own copy doesn't do so that well and this is why I have been testing the lens wondering whether or not it may have a decentered element.
Take a look at this thread:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/thoughts-on-the-14-24s.327335/
However, there is only one photograph in that entire pbase group with a detailed foreground that wasn't shot at F8 or higher (LBZ_9524.jpg), and that one's got unsharp foreground corners. I must say though that your photos at F8 and F11 do indeed illustrate how good the corners can look at those apertures. My own copy doesn't do so that well and this is why I have been testing the lens wondering whether or not it may have a decentered element.
Take a look at this thread:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/thoughts-on-the-14-24s.327335/
Apr 15, 2021 at 04:04 AM
p.150 #9Nikon Z Images Thread
Jay968 wrote:
Lance, thank you for the link to your pbase photos and for the wonderful photographs.
However, there is only one photograph in that entire pbase group with a detailed foreground that wasn't shot at F8 or higher (LBZ_9524.jpg), and that one's got unsharp foreground corners. I must say though that your photos at F8 and F11 do indeed illustrate how good the corners can look at those apertures. My own copy doesn't do so that well and this is why I have been testing the lens wondering whether or not it may have a decentered element.
Take a look at this thread:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/thoughts-on-the-14-24s.327335/
Thank you again for your kind comment on my images.
The photo you have suggested that has softer edges was shot wide open at f2.8. I would be very surprised if it *didn't* I have softer edges. 🙂
Apr 15, 2021 at 05:46 AM
p.150 #10Nikon Z Images Thread
Lance B wrote:
However, there is only one photograph in that entire pbase group with a detailed foreground that wasn't shot at F8 or higher (LBZ_9524.jpg), and that one's got unsharp foreground corners. I must say though that your photos at F8 and F11 do indeed illustrate how good the corners can look at those apertures. My own copy doesn't do so that well and this is why I have been testing the lens wondering whether or not it may have a decentered element.
Take a look at this thread:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/thoughts-on-the-14-24s.327335/Thank you again for your kind comment on my images.
The photo you have suggested that has softer edges was shot wide open at f2.8. I would be very surprised if it *didn't* I have softer edges. 🙂
Yes, I know. I'm just commenting that your F8 or F11 shots don't show any problems. I haven't disputed the fact that the lens is capable of sharp corners at those apertures. Too many reviews that I've seen boast about how good it is at wider apertures as well.
Lance if I may ask, which body do you use?
Jay968 wrote
Lance, thank you for the link to your pbase photos and for the wonderful photographs.However, there is only one photograph in that entire pbase group with a detailed foreground that wasn't shot at F8 or higher (LBZ_9524.jpg), and that one's got unsharp foreground corners. I must say though that your photos at F8 and F11 do indeed illustrate how good the corners can look at those apertures. My own copy doesn't do so that well and this is why I have been testing the lens wondering whether or not it may have a decentered element.
Take a look at this thread:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/thoughts-on-the-14-24s.327335/
The photo you have suggested that has softer edges was shot wide open at f2.8. I would be very surprised if it *didn't* I have softer edges. 🙂
Yes, I know. I'm just commenting that your F8 or F11 shots don't show any problems. I haven't disputed the fact that the lens is capable of sharp corners at those apertures. Too many reviews that I've seen boast about how good it is at wider apertures as well.
Lance if I may ask, which body do you use?
Apr 15, 2021 at 07:57 AM
|
p.150 #11Nikon Z Images Thread
Jay968 wrote:
Lance B wrote
Jay968 wrote
Lance, thank you for the link to your pbase photos and for the wonderful photographs.However, there is only one photograph in that entire pbase group with a detailed foreground that wasn't shot at F8 or higher (LBZ_9524.jpg), and that one's got unsharp foreground corners. I must say though that your photos at F8 and F11 do indeed illustrate how good the corners can look at those apertures. My own copy doesn't do so that well and this is why I have been testing the lens wondering whether or not it may have a decentered element.
Take a look at this thread:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/thoughts-on-the-14-24s.327335/
The photo you have suggested that has softer edges was shot wide open at f2.8. I would be very surprised if it *didn't* I have softer edges. 🙂
Lance if I may ask, which body do you use?
I was using the Z7, now the Z7II.
Apr 15, 2021 at 02:56 PM
p.150 #12Nikon Z Images Thread
Lance B wrote:
However, there is only one photograph in that entire pbase group with a detailed foreground that wasn't shot at F8 or higher (LBZ_9524.jpg), and that one's got unsharp foreground corners. I must say though that your photos at F8 and F11 do indeed illustrate how good the corners can look at those apertures. My own copy doesn't do so that well and this is why I have been testing the lens wondering whether or not it may have a decentered element.
Take a look at this thread:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/thoughts-on-the-14-24s.327335/Thank you again for your kind comment on my images.
The photo you have suggested that has softer edges was shot wide open at f2.8. I would be very surprised if it *didn't* I have softer edges. 🙂Yes, I know. I'm just commenting that your F8 or F11 shots don't show any problems. I haven't disputed the fact that the lens is capable of sharp corners at those apertures. Too many reviews that I've seen boast about how good it is at wider apertures as well.
Lance if I may ask, which body do you use?I was using the Z7, now the Z7II.
Thanks for that. I actually did take another look at your pbase photos and brought up the EXIF info which shows the Z7. That's what I'm using as well.
I did some shots today taking your advice on shooting at 14mm and manually focusing 6 feet in front of me. The results are superb and I thank you for bringing that technique to my attention. I guess it's a logical way to work with this lens when I think about it. I also did some corner shots which I have posted in the Nikon Cafe thread that I mentioned yesterday. There IS a very slight degradation in sharpness at the lower left corner but I am really not sure if it's enough to worry about. I can exchange the lens if I want but have not yet decided if I should bother as who knows, I may end up with an even worse one.
Jay968 wrote
Lance B wrote
Jay968 wrote
Lance, thank you for the link to your pbase photos and for the wonderful photographs.However, there is only one photograph in that entire pbase group with a detailed foreground that wasn't shot at F8 or higher (LBZ_9524.jpg), and that one's got unsharp foreground corners. I must say though that your photos at F8 and F11 do indeed illustrate how good the corners can look at those apertures. My own copy doesn't do so that well and this is why I have been testing the lens wondering whether or not it may have a decentered element.
Take a look at this thread:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/thoughts-on-the-14-24s.327335/
The photo you have suggested that has softer edges was shot wide open at f2.8. I would be very surprised if it *didn't* I have softer edges. 🙂
Lance if I may ask, which body do you use?
Thanks for that. I actually did take another look at your pbase photos and brought up the EXIF info which shows the Z7. That's what I'm using as well.
I did some shots today taking your advice on shooting at 14mm and manually focusing 6 feet in front of me. The results are superb and I thank you for bringing that technique to my attention. I guess it's a logical way to work with this lens when I think about it. I also did some corner shots which I have posted in the Nikon Cafe thread that I mentioned yesterday. There IS a very slight degradation in sharpness at the lower left corner but I am really not sure if it's enough to worry about. I can exchange the lens if I want but have not yet decided if I should bother as who knows, I may end up with an even worse one.
Apr 15, 2021 at 03:28 PM
p.150 #13Nikon Z Images Thread
Jay968 wrote:
However, there is only one photograph in that entire pbase group with a detailed foreground that wasn't shot at F8 or higher (LBZ_9524.jpg), and that one's got unsharp foreground corners. I must say though that your photos at F8 and F11 do indeed illustrate how good the corners can look at those apertures. My own copy doesn't do so that well and this is why I have been testing the lens wondering whether or not it may have a decentered element.
Take a look at this thread:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/thoughts-on-the-14-24s.327335/Thank you again for your kind comment on my images.
The photo you have suggested that has softer edges was shot wide open at f2.8. I would be very surprised if it *didn't* I have softer edges. 🙂Yes, I know. I'm just commenting that your F8 or F11 shots don't show any problems. I haven't disputed the fact that the lens is capable of sharp corners at those apertures. Too many reviews that I've seen boast about how good it is at wider apertures as well.
Lance if I may ask, which body do you use?I was using the Z7, now the Z7II.Thanks for that. I actually did take another look at your pbase photos and brought up the EXIF info which shows the Z7. That's what I'm using as well.
I did some shots today taking your advice on shooting at 14mm and manually focusing 6 feet in front of me. The results are superb and I thank you for bringing that technique to my attention. I guess it's a logical way to work with this lens when I think about it. I also did some corner shots which I have posted in the Nikon Cafe thread that I mentioned yesterday. There...Show more →
I am glad it turned out better, but I still use AF, just move the focus point nearer to the foreground.
Lance B wrote
Jay968 wrote
Lance B wrote
Jay968 wrote
Lance, thank you for the link to your pbase photos and for the wonderful photographs.However, there is only one photograph in that entire pbase group with a detailed foreground that wasn't shot at F8 or higher (LBZ_9524.jpg), and that one's got unsharp foreground corners. I must say though that your photos at F8 and F11 do indeed illustrate how good the corners can look at those apertures. My own copy doesn't do so that well and this is why I have been testing the lens wondering whether or not it may have a decentered element.
Take a look at this thread:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/thoughts-on-the-14-24s.327335/
The photo you have suggested that has softer edges was shot wide open at f2.8. I would be very surprised if it *didn't* I have softer edges. 🙂
Lance if I may ask, which body do you use?
I did some shots today taking your advice on shooting at 14mm and manually focusing 6 feet in front of me. The results are superb and I thank you for bringing that technique to my attention. I guess it's a logical way to work with this lens when I think about it. I also did some corner shots which I have posted in the Nikon Cafe thread that I mentioned yesterday. There...Show more →
I am glad it turned out better, but I still use AF, just move the focus point nearer to the foreground.
Apr 15, 2021 at 04:51 PM
p.150 #14Nikon Z Images Thread
A snowy day at the Shrine.
C
Edited on Apr 19, 2021 at 01:31 PM · View previous versions
C
Edited on Apr 19, 2021 at 01:31 PM · View previous versions
Apr 16, 2021 at 02:31 PM
p.150 #15Nikon Z Images Thread
The 90 by Adam Maas, on Flickr
Z5, 35/2 AI
The more I shoot with the 35/2 AI, the more I'm disappointed with it. Like the 50/1.4's, I find it just exceptionally average compared to the slower equivalents. It's a decent copy (I've owned the AI previously as well as the AI-S, performance is pretty much the same across all three). Lots of dehaze on this shot to get past the loss of contrast at f2
Looks like I need to go find a ZF.2 35/2 or bite the bullet and get a 35/1.8 S (I still shoot film, so the ZF is my first choice, I don't like the 35/2 AI any better on HP5+)
Apr 16, 2021 at 06:20 PM
p.150 #17Nikon Z Images Thread
Z62_5638 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_5716 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_5764 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_6460 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_5558 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_5854 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_5526 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_5532 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_6041 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_6188 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_6288 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_6370 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_6392 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_6394 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrApr 17, 2021 at 10:48 PM
p.150 #18Nikon Z Images Thread
Z62_7391 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_6586 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_7060 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_7106 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_7193 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_7218 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_7249 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_7256 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_6761 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_6937 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_7436 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_6569 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Z62_7322 by Marcus Beasley, on FlickrApr 18, 2021 at 09:10 PM
p.150 #19Nikon Z Images Thread
Known as "The Loneliest Road In America" US-50 in Nevada sure delivers up some beautiful scenery.
Apr 19, 2021 at 10:03 AM
p.150 #20Nikon Z Images Thread
Bathurst Trio by Adam Maas, on Flickr
Z5, Z 24-50 3 shot pano with no correction
Apr 20, 2021 at 06:55 PM