Jump to content

Flare and ghosts with Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. Any tips on using this lens?


justinweiss

Recommended Posts

<p>This was a study of contrast and shadow. It was taken in bright sunlight at about 12:00. I oriented the camera so the sun was a little behind my shoulder. Portions of the cactus were within a few inches of the lens. I was literally hugging the cactus. Taken at 14mm.</p><div>00TBQX-128731584.jpg.d3604945664a12bc20bf051e21053385.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Ah, to be starting out with an ultrawide. My first ultra was a Sigma 14mm f3.5, about 12 years ago, pre-digital, on film. I had a 12mm Voigtlander for a while. Previous to that, I'd gotten quite used to the "very wide" perspective, having done lots of shooting with the Nikon 20mm f2.8 lenses for near 30 years.</p>

<p>1) You're not used to ultrawide composition. One of the best ways of dealing with that "humdrum everyday environment" is to get close to it: don't just get close to the subject, get close to the background. That's a radical thought, how can it be a "back" ground if it's "close"? But it's why your indoor stuff is "working". You're on the street, be closer to buildings than you'd normally do. Shoot at angles, so on one side of the picture there's building even closer to you than the subject, and on the other side, you've stretched hundreds of feet away. You only have to find good "far background" for the "far side", simplifying the daylights out of things.</p>

<p>2) John is wise. There's a technique that was second nature in the manual focus days, but is sort of a lost art in the autofocus era: using the hyperfocal distance. When you have a "time to think" situation, it works great. For the 14mm setting, just set your lens manually like this...</p>

<ul>

<li>f8 - 2.73 ft or 0.83m (sharp from 1.4 ft or 0.32m to infinity)</li>

<li>f11 - 1.94 ft or 0.56m (sharp from 1 ft or 0.28m to infinity)</li>

<li>f16 - 1.39 ft or 0.42m (sharp from 8 in or 0.21m to infinity)</li>

<li>f22 - 1.00 ft or 0.30m (sharp from 6 in or 0.15m to infinity)</li>

</ul>

<p>Those hyperfocal distances are from the DOFmaster program. A good approximation at f11 or f16 is simply focus on that near subject, then manually focus back to infinity, paying very close attention to how far you turn the ring, then turn it half that distance back towards "near". You would be amazed at how well this works, and how easy it is to do without taking your eye from the viewfinder, in the "S" autofocus mode, or in manual focus.</p>

<p>3-4) Were pretty well covered.</p>

<p>5) In 12 years, I put one small chip on the old 14mm f3.5 that does not affect the image. I shoot most lenses without "protection" filters most of the time, including the 300mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8, 14-24mm f2.8, 85mm f1.4, 200mm f4 micro-Nikkor, 135mm f2.0 DC (that's 7 "over $1000" lenses).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>See, the difference, to me, is that seeing these sample photos from experienced photographers? I've never seen such *good* flare resistance in an ultra-wide of such an exotic design.</p>

<p>Seriously, find me another ultra wide, especially in a zoom configuration, designed for an SLR (no cheating, no designs for rangefinders here, not a comparable situation), that can match or beat this performance consistently.</p>

<p>So, sure, I can understand Bela's comments, and the skepticism many of us have for these claims. I can show you far, far worse flare from my own lenses yet I still consider them very good lenses when used correctly within their sweet spots.</p>

<p>And since several experienced photographers who own this lens have put up photos in this and the previous related thread showing real world performance, we'll probably remain skeptical until we see something demonstrating some evidence to support claims that this lens is unacceptably prone to flare.</p>

<p>However, this doesn't seem to be Justin's primary concern. I suspect most of it will be resolved with more experience and getting comfortable with using such an exotic lens.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think that frequent contributor -- and, I believe, moderator -- here, Shun Cheung, made a good point about the 14 -24mm awhile back (although I've forgotten which post I read it in, and am too lazy to do an extensive google search):</p>

<p>If you need this lens, you probably know it. If you don't, you're probably better off with the 17-35.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I have the 14 - 24 and just love it, limitations and all.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bela - I'm going to give you the very best advice you're ever going to get in your whole life. This may save your teeth, your nose, your arms, legs, ribs, or internal organs. It may save your life, itself. The next time read, hear, or observe something that leaves you "speechless"...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>DON'T SPEAK!</strong> </em></p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I recently switched from film to digital, I sold my F5 and my manual bodies and lenses to purchase a D700, 14-24 and a 50mm AFS G. I find the 14-24 superb. My main uses are for social documentary work, street photography and architectural interiors. I'm new to photo.net and dont know haw to post images in a discussion. I've only two images in my portfolio but both where taken at 14mm, one's a landscape shot and the other is part of a social documentary project the I have ongoing at the moment.</p>

<p>Bottom line is that the 14 24 is a great lens, maybe just not for everyone.</p>

<p>Some of my other shots taken with my 14 24 can be seen here -<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26256960@N08/</p>

<p>Love the community spirit of Photo.net and cant wait to get more involved!</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Justin,<br>

The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 G has the sharpest corners of any wide angle zoom I have had the pleasure of using, it is indeed perfect for grand canyon, if you suggest otherwise can you post your grand canyon pictures that did not come out well? I am interested to see what was wrong. A 24X16" print of a landscape taken with this lens is hanging on my wall with razor sharp corners<br>

From what you describe this lens is not for you, it is not a walk-around lens, the walk-around lens for D700 is the 24-70 f/2.8, However the 14-24 is the current gem of entire Nikon brand, of course if you know how to use it.</p>

<p> </p><div>00TBXL-128793684.thumb.jpg.6c6aa94bf78bc4a475f41fcb93feb16e.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To straighten out some misconception! The 14-24/2.8 and the 24-70/2.8 are special lenses, (the 17-35 as well) and never meant to be a walk around lenses. They are big and heave lenses for special fine works. The real walk around lenses is, a 16-85 VR, 18-200 VR, for DX or the 24-85/2.8-4 FX, 24-120 FX, or similar VR . . . . but. . . . the real walk around lens, . . . the lens . . . . you learn photography is,! . . . a 50 or 35mm prime. Lenses from 20mm and wider, people has to take a course, how to use them and for what subject/composition. One of the bigest mistake I see all the time, people using those wide and super wide lenses as a normal 50mm, eye level shooting. 20mm or more 17 and wider, you have to use those lenses low level or high level composition, and sometime pick a foreground anchor subject and get really close to it. 14mm has an exreem perspective distortion, and if you know how to use to your advantage, you can create a beautiful images with it, or you can create a nothind images with it.</p>

<p>Neven third image show only, and only, the advantage and beauty of the 14mm wide angle lens.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Okay, here are some unprocessed photos of mine with lens flare from the 14-24mm. Some things to bear in mind when viewing these photos:</p>

<p>(1) <strong>I know they are really bad photos.</strong> The point is the lens flare, not the quality of the photos.</p>

<p>(2) <strong>I like this lens</strong> and want to get better at using it. I am not saying it is a bad lens.</p>

<p>With that said, here we go:</p>

<p>1. Flare in lower right, on storefront<br /> <img src="http://manbou.smugmug.com/photos/522202569_JHBwo-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>2. Flare on woman's face and clothing<br /> <img src="http://manbou.smugmug.com/photos/522205198_mUiHA-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>3. Flare in upper half and lower right corner<br /> <img src="http://manbou.smugmug.com/photos/522209251_TUsjx-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>4. Flare on pavement at middle bottom<br /> <img src="http://manbou.smugmug.com/photos/522215085_mFdiA-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>5. Flare at middle bottom<br /> <img src="http://manbou.smugmug.com/photos/522216793_Bkf4e-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>6. Flare on tree branch pointing to 10 o'clock<br /> <img src="http://manbou.smugmug.com/photos/522211932_35Bzo-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>For more examples (and the ability to inspect the photos at the original size and see the metadata), you can check the gallery of lens flare horrors I created here:</p>

<p><a href="http://manbou.smugmug.com/gallery/8025673_TnHyw">http://manbou.smugmug.com/gallery/8025673_TnHyw</a></p>

<p>Again, I'm not blaming the lens, since it can obviously be used to get great photos (heck, even I got a few I like!). If you can see anything about these photos that suggests why I got so much flare in them, I'm all ears. Thanks.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think your photos are good. I like the second one. Sadly ghosts are ruining the pic.<br /> The issue here, like with most lenses is to avoid direct sunlight directly over the front element. Shooting backlight there is no way of avoiding this effects, I think. In all your pics the sun is at less than 45 degrees in front of you, I`m not an expert but I suspect that this is even worst than a light source closer to the lens axis.<br /> <br /> Anyway, contrast is surprisingly good. Yours is an impressive lens. Check how a 24/2.8Ai (@ f8!) manages flare under the same conditions: the loss of contrast <em>is huge...</em><br /> <br /> <img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00O/00OSW1-41788084.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <br /> <img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00O/00OSWK-41788384.jpg" alt="" /></p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks, Jose. I guess I am just used to the other Nikon lenses I have (50mm and 105mm), where it seems like it's almost impossible to take a bad photo. This one takes a little more work to get good results.</p>

<p>Upon further review, what seems to be occasional softness at the edges is not really a big issue. (For the record, <a href="http://manbou.smugmug.com/photos/522290964_ue8BM-X3.jpg">click this link</a> for an example of a photo I took where the center is sharp but the edges look soft to me. Maybe it's just the lighting.)</p>

<p>However, one other thing I noticed about the photos I get from this lens is that they are much more likely to show clipped blacks and blown highlights in Lightroom than photos from my other lenses are. Often I have extensive blown highlights and clipped blacks in the same photo, and the highlights are not completely recoverable. I don't know why this is, and it doesn't happen with my other lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow , Justn you manage to squeeze the whorst from this lens..., should be a prize for this. Like Jose pointed out, you have to avoid the direct sunlight fall over the front element. I know, this is a general rule, but it seems the lens with Nano Coating are not flare proof to. Tought, the 24-70/2,8G is quite workable in similar conditions. I think the three boulbous lenses from the front should plead guilty for this behaviuor.<div>00TBiz-128889584.jpg.6c45144e521c000517d2c3afc59d8f51.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Justin,<br>

The problem is you are pointing your camera upward at least in some of these photos, this will also exaggerate distortion as evident in your shots. ANY wide lens will have flare in such condition, avoid shallow angle between the sun and your lens by keeping your camera level with the horizon and you will not get so much flare even if you are directly shotting the sun like this example</p>

<p> </p><div>00TBky-128907684.thumb.jpg.8f18644df490b75db9b3880bc3fa7df1.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arash identified the main problem with Justin's photos: nearly every one was taken with an upward tilt. This will present a challenge with any wide or ultra wide angle lens.</p>

<p>It's a highly specialized and rather exotic lens that demands greater than normal care to get the best results. As Bela pointed out (and others as well in other discussions about this lens), it is not a "walk-around" lens for casual use. Similarly, while I *could* use my 28/3.5 PC-Nikkor as an ordinary walk-around lens, I wouldn't. While it's not particularly flare-prone, the relatively large front element and very shallow hood make it impractical for casual use (not to mention the preset aperture, which isn't a hindrance to me since I've used 'em for decades).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here's a demo I put together recently to help with these types of questions. It illustrates how a slight shift in position can minimize flare while still getting essentially the same composition.</p>

<p>All I did was crouch a bit to let a knobby bit of the bare tree to block the sun. This was done handheld so the composition isn't identical. With the aid of a tripod it's possible to finesse a composition with more subtlety to get a nearly identical composition while minimizing flare.</p>

<p>The lens is an older Tamron Adaptall 24mm f/2.5 manual focus wide angle on my D2H. It's a fairly good lens for the money (I think I paid a whopping $25), with pretty good multi-coating nearly comparable to an AI or AI-S Nikkor. The collapsible rubber lens shade on this Tamron wouldn't have made any difference in this photo since the sun is directly in the frame.</p><div>00TBnB-128925584.thumb.jpg.a04dca4099ea0e5b7b4ee55cec64c39b.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, I'm going to defend to original poster by saying that "discussion on the net" is frequently quite black and white in terms of what is good and what is not. The 14-24/2.8 has received a lot of hype but that of course needs to be put into perspective of how difficult it is to make such a lens and how good the alternatives are. But if one doesn't have the experience to put that into perspective then what remains is the image of a superlens, capable of tackling every situation. Flare and ghosting happens, some lenses are really good at handling it, some are not. From the samples I've seen, the 14-24/2.8 is good, but not perfect. There's always a compromise.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Justin,</p>

<p>I will try to give some general tips on use of an ultra-wide lens (or even just a wide lens). Many of the samples in this thread illustrate good technique.</p>

<p>The first inclination of using such a lens is to "get it all in one shot". As you note, that can make the subject look pretty small. The best pictoral use of a wide angle lens is to make use of exaggerated perspective to emphasize the foreground and minimize the background. Gary Payne's shot of the agave (?) plant against the old mission is a good example. The mall shot by Arash is an example of exaggerated perspective, which lends a sense of depth and/or spaciousness. The same exaggeration can be unflattering in the portrait of a person, or uninteresting if the total composition is not layered (the flowering tree, for example). Be prepared to get close to the ground!</p>

<p>Sometimes you need the wide angle to capture a city-scape in close quarters, as illustrated by Jens Frederiksen's street scene. Jens was careful to keep the camera level, thus avoiding excessive vertical convergence. If you must tilt the camera, keep the centerline vertical. That way you can correct the vertical convergence in post, if you wish, or at least keep the perspective symmetrical.</p>

<p>Any bright light that strikes the front element will cause flare, even if it is outside the field of view. Avoid it if you can, use it if you must. The sun may cause flare even if it is nearly overhead. I usually wear a hat, which is a handy way to shade the lens. You need to be careful to keep your hat or hand out of the field of view. If the light is coming right at you, move a little to see if something in the scene can block most or all of the direct light.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, i have been reading this thread for half the day, and now I think I got the whole issue, so I got some thoughts. I think that Bela got misunderstood and I have only a few things to say...<br>

1. As many of U pointed out, all lenses are prone to flare. The thing is that if all of them flare under some conditions we need to concentrate more in how to make my lenses work better (as Lex shows) and not trying to demonstrate that"my lens flares a lot".<br>

2 Most wideangles and ultrawide angles (I have a sigma 10-20 myself) are not walkaround lenses, because of the distortion, the angle (logical) and because some of them are too fancy and expensiveto be the usual workhorse (trying to keep a low profile too).<br>

3 It's better to try to learn how to use the toys than to have the nicest and most exotic toys. I mean, I can not start shooting with the most advanced and expensive gear without knowing how to use it !!! It seems like many of the questions here are like "what lens is better A or B ?" instead of " I have (or want) this lens... how can I get a better use of it, and what are the best advantages of it ?".<br>

4 No meaning to offend or start war, but I guess what makes us better photographers is the ability to have exceptional pictures with ordinary gear instead of the other way around... Sorry I have no pictures available to show with my sigma 10-20 but I'm at the office.<br>

Peace</p>

<p> Cano</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...