14-24mm background rendering with close up subjects

<p>I picked up a copy of the 14-24mm and after some testing on my D810 I have been rather surprised at how radically different the backgrounds are rendered by the lens in distant versus close subject exposures.</p>

<p>I purchased the 14-24mm with the intention of shooting subject matter very close up for dramatic perspective appearance exposures, but am rather taken aback with what I perceive to be very ugly and radically out of focus backgrounds. </p>

<p>When shooting distant subjects ie) the focus point is set at several meters or more in front of the lens, the 14-24mm makes very nice clean shots for me, however, when the subject is nice and close ie) less than a metre away from the front of the lens, the subject is in crisp clear focus but the backgrounds are all rendered very ordinary - this occurs at variable focal lengths and at various aperture settings.</p>

<p>I realise if I stop down too hard I will get some image quality loss through diffraction but this is something more than that I believe. I have dialed out a little back focusing and am now happy with the focusing points. As a reference I have used a 17-35mm for several years and can produce nice clean close up images in side by side comparisons (albeit not at a glorious 14mm wide)</p>

<p>My questions is - do I have a defective copy of this lens or is this how this particular lens performs when shooting very close up?</p>

<p>The link below is to a simple test image. Captured on a tripod, 14mm @ f/9 shoes are 28cm in front of the lens, focus is set on the first shoelace loop on the closest shoe. Shoes are nice and crisp but the background leaves a lot to be desired IMHO.<br>

<a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18179035-lg.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18179035-lg.jpg</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 14-24 is not that good at close-up distances. The best performing wide angle I've used for close-ups is the 24/1.4 Nikkor, which produces excellent sharpness and very smooth out of focus rendering for close-ups. The difference in image quality between the 14-24 and 24/1.4 is very obvious. At longer distances the 14-24 is true to its reputation and an excellent performer though there isn't much bokeh to speak of and if you do get some it may not be as pleasant as with some primes prime. The 20/1.8 Nikkor is much less expensive than the 24/1.4 but it doesn't share the 24's beautiful out of focus rendering IMO.</p>

<p>It is just unreal requirements.</p>

<p>DOF calculator, http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html</p>

<p>FX sensor, 14 mm, f/9, 28cm focus</p>

<p>Depth of field is 20 cm in front, 44 cm behind. </p>

<p>Your trees are greatly more than 44 cm distance. Use f/16, and learn about hyperfocal distance (shown at DOF link). </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Matthew, can you share any of your 17-35 shots so we know more about what you are trying to achieve?</p>

<p>The background in the sample image is "very ordinary". What was the lens supposed to do with it? If you what more blur, open the lens up.</p>

<p>Matthew, it would help if you could show an example of the effect you were hoping to get. It's not clear whether you were expecting more depth-of-field or less, or better bokeh. But surely nobody buys a fairly slow 14mm-24mm zoom expecting to throw backgrounds dreamily out of focus?</p>

<p>The 14-24mm Zoom Nikkor does have some foibles, but as a landscape, architectural, street or event lens it's superb and unique. No other ultrawide can equal its corner to corner sharpness, and not many can even offer the 14mm angle of view. Compared to something like the 14mm manual focus Samyang its IQ and rendering are miles better.</p>

<p>FWIW, I don't think your example shot would have shown any wideangle lens off to good effect. The bright sky positioned directly above the shoes draws the eye and attracts attention to the, admittedly ugly, fuzzy outline of the hedge and poplar tree. Had the viewpoint been changed to only include the grass or lower part of the hedge then there would be nothing objectionable about the image. I see far too many pictures with OOF bright blobs or the like needlessly drawing the eye to the background, and presumably purely in the name of showing off a lens's bokeh. Busy backgrounds should be avoided IMHO, not shown off!</p>

<p>Ok, Thanks to all who replied. i don't mean to sound whiney or overly complaining, just surprised at what a different job two similar lenses might do. I'm trying to work out here if I indeed have a 14-24mm lens that requires servicing and/or if I keep both lenses or sell one and which one.</p>

<p>I know what aperture and a depth of field calculator does - maybe I could have been clearer in my question. I'm not looking for perfectly in focus backgrounds at any given distance behind the focal point, nor I do not expect the creamy bokeh the likes of the 85/1.4 or even the 70-200/2.8 and others can produce. What I was shocked about was how messy the backgrounds look on the 14-24 lens when focusing close.</p>

<p>It seems Ilkka is correct and the 14-24mm does not perform so well when the subject is relatively close to the lens.</p>

<p>As I stated before, the 14-24mm produces lovely images when the foreground ie) focal point is well away from the lens, the corners are better than the 17-35 and maybe there is slightly better clarity but it's at least the match if not better than the 17-35 in these situations with longer distance views.</p>

<p>My primary interest is why the 14-24 backgrounds looks subjectively ugly to me when compared to the 17-35 which I am well accustomed to. I can't post any 'pretty/arty' examples but I have made up another mock shoot today with the 14-24mm up against the 17-35mm. This time the subject is 32cm from the front of the lens and I'm shooting at 20mm. No wind, all so the background was perfectly still, light did not change perceptively in the 15 seconds it took to switch lenses and shoot.</p>

<p>Aside from the slightly cooler temp on the 14-24, what I want to know from those with experience of the 14-24 is indeed, whether this sort of background rendition is standard fare for a 14-24 lens? I am still very surprised at how much difference the two lenses render the background given as equal conditions as I can provide.<br /> <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18179530-lg.jpg">14-24mm @ f/16</a></p>

<p><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18179529-lg.jpg">17-35mm @f/16</a></p>

<p>and a pair open wide at f/2.8 where I see less difference.........</p>

<p><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18179547-lg.jpg">14-24mm @f/2.8</a></p>

<p><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18179548-lg.jpg">17-35mm @f/2.8</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Two different lenses render the background differently. No news here. Especially with wide angle lenses, and extra especially with wide angle zoom lenses.<br>

You stated that the 14-24 backgrounds look "ugly" to you. I think you'll need to undertake a search for another wide lens that has background rendition more pleasing to your eye.</p>

 

<p>Sincerely, I don`t see much difference in ugliness between the 14-24 and the 17-35. To me, are splitting hairs. Bot seem equally ugly, and depending on the scene, maybe the higher blur on the 14-24 could be even a benefit. And I`d say, this kind of bokeh is common amongst Nikon sharp lenses. In fact, I always think the sharper the lens the worst bokeh... although I know there are exceptions.<br /> I use to shoot at close distances with the 14-24 (mostly people than close-ups), and I use to found the images satisfying, but sincerely, I think I don`t pay too much attention to the backgrounds... or maybe I always try to avoid this backlighted, high contrast images where this kind of highlighted ring are unavoidable. And I use to pay extra attention to not underexpose, to avoid emphasizing some udesiderable effects.<br /> I didn`t posted before because I`m not at home, so I don`t have samples to show right now.<br /> Bokeh depends on many parameters, and as usual, I think there always a trade in lens design. Lens correction could be done in one or another way, depending on the kind of lens the designer is looking for... if you want a nice bokeh, it could be at the expense of a high focus shift, wide open softness or whatever.<br /> Anyway, I think this could be one of the worst bokeh scenarios... super sharp lens, wide open, close focus and distant background.</p>

<p>Thanks Keith, I appreciate your take on my take on the 14-24...... if you get my meaning. </p>

<p>I may be expecting too much of the 14-24 or it simply may be a case of me simply being too used to gazing at images taken with my 17-35 and with some more time and experience I will become accustomed and accept the 14-24 for what it is instead of any pre-conceived idea that I probably have carried into this venture. </p>

<p>I don't need to sell either lens in a mad rush, infact if I can live with both then maybe I'll keep both as the 14-24 is clearly better for tight interiors and architechture. I also have an Ai 20mmf/3.5 which I find quite good at close ups.</p>

<p>I always found the 17-35 to be "my" perfect focal length lens, with a wide usable range and f2.8. Sadly there is not an update on this one. This is the only reason I`d keep it. Other than this, I like more the 14-24.<br /> And BTW, from your f2.8 pics, the 14-24 image look better to my taste. At the f16 shot I see some corner softness (I understand the lenses were set at 20mm, so the 17-35 was at a "comfortable middle point", while the 14-24 was towards the end of its range).</p>

<p>Jose, many thanks too - I posted a reply to keith just after you had posted.</p>

<p>Looking at the 30 or so test shots I have taken I take your point about harsh backlit scenes - it is high summer here and all my shots are taken with harsh overhead sun positioning. </p>

<p>I have probably focused my attentions on a couple of the worst examples and become obsessed with minutia. I am fortunate enough to have both lenses to try out side by side if necessary and it's becoming apparent to me that I cannot use the 14-24 as a straight up substitute for the 17-35.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And BTW, from your f2.8 pics, the 14-24 image look better to my taste.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with this, while f16 sample is better looking with 17-35.<br>

Just a suggestion: test with axial CA removal and how it could make the corners look better when aperture is small with 14-24 lens - as strange as it may sound. I have 20 mm prime in this focal length area and I have seen visual improvement in similar cases when applying the correction. (bokeh is more the quality of it to me, not the quantity.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sincerely, I don`t see much difference in ugliness between the 14-24 and the 17-35 ... splitting hairs ... equally ugly</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same impression here. Am a bit surprised at the difference in color - the 17-35 images are a lot "warmer" than the 14-24 ones. The corners of the f/2.8 17-35 image look really bad - and the shell doesn't seem to be in focus.</p>

<p>The colour shift between the two lenses is more disturbing to me than the bokeh. Does the same thing happen with AWB overridden?<br>

I also think the 14-24mm bokeh at f/2.8 is far better than the 17-35mm in those example shots. However things might be different if the angle to the background changes. The two lenses most likely have some curvature of field, and if the curvature of one lens is concave while the other is convex, then there'll naturally be quite a difference in the way that oblique and OOF planes are rendered.</p>

<p>Anyway, your sample of 14-24mm lens looks pretty normal to me and shows nothing I wouldn't expect from this lens. Check it out on some boring flat plane subject like a brick-wall if you're concerned - because that's how lenses are designed - to only focus a single plane as sharply as possible to the image plane. Bokeh is rarely a high priority in the lens designer's computations. And when it is people moan about how unsharp the results are, or about the cost!</p>

<p>The 14-24mm RAW files have to be lifted typically 300 to 350 degrees K in Photoshop 6 converter to match the 17-35mm temp. on my monitor - that is shooting same subject seconds apart with auto WB. I have not tried a custom WB back to back yet. <br /> First hand held shots with the 14-24mm and some decent light and subject matter to shoot with.... <br /> <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18180248-lg.jpg"> I'm happy with this paticular result.</a> The subject is not too close to the lens @14mm and f/9 seems to be enough DOF. Sky was nice and blue yesterday.</p>

<p>@ Matthew Brennan. This shot looks amazing to me. I mean the fact that both cat and house are in focus. One day I will have to buy 14-24 definitely. Have fun with your setup. Stefan </p>