Experiences with flare using AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

[roman_thorn1]

Hey all! I'm just going to put this out. Anyway, I finaly got my hands on the 14 - 24 2.8. Yes it's sharp and yes, it has

very little distortion. However, if you are going to use this lens for landscapes or Interiors as I did, be careful...the lens

has serious flare issues. Forget shooting sunsets and Interiors will be challenging. I had a job this past weekend. I

was shooting a house and even the pot lights gave me serious problems. I realy sugest renting this beast, I did.

Conclusion: I will pass, save $2000 and look elsewhere...maybe the 17 - 35?

[lex_jenkins]

Roman, I'm going to suggest that you think of a more appropriate title for this thread. The original title, "14 - 24 WARNING!" is unnecessarily alarmist and implies a serious product defect. This is unfair to Nikon and to those who will see that thread title via Google. This is the sort of thread title that foments ill-informed rumors on the web.

[lex_jenkins]

Also, you should provide evidence to support your assertions. Do you have any sample photos to demonstrate the problem you saw? That would be helpful to others who wish to make an informed decision.

[paul hart]

All the reputable reviews I have read are in accord with my own experience as a user of this lens: it handles flare

extremely well indeed. You can point it straight at the sun, and it shrugs it off...<p>

 

<a href=" title="DSC_0046 by Hart from Golborne, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/2989319286_546c162abc.jpg" width="500" height="249" alt="DSC_0046" /></a><p>

 

<a href=" title="Look - no flare by Hart from Golborne, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2970545258_2442d7c324.jpg" width="500" height="500" alt="Look -

no flare" /></a>

[paul hart]

I should add that I had the 17-35 before the 14-24 but returned it due to a squeak on the focussing mechanism. However, I

had it for long enough to discover that excellent though the 17-35 is, the 14-24 has it well beaten in the corners.

 

I think the 17-35 should be seen as a completely different lens rather than a straight alternative. I happen to like very wide

angles so the 14-24 was a natural choice. Others' needs may differ.

[lex_jenkins]

Okay, folks, this thread was temporarily locked for a few minutes while I edited the title, which also involved changing the title on each reply (the photo.net interface for admin chores is a bit of a kludge).

 

In future, let's please choose appropriate, informative titles for these types of discussions and provide some evidence or substantiation, such as sample photos, citations of credible sources, links to sites with credible information, etc. Otherwise we're little more than another tedious internet rumor mill.

[roman_thorn1]

Hey all! I'm not sure how one person can get such different results. Also, it's not like I was shooting @ 2.8 into bright light either. All of my shot were between F9 and F11. I deleted most of the bad images but I will see what else I have to support my conclusion. No joke, I had realy high hopes for this lens. Maybe I just had a bad sample...somehow I doubt it.

[ShunCheung]

Roman, when I had the 14-24 and a D3 on loan from Nikon USA early this year, I tested its flare resistence with the sun inside the frame.

While we cannot expect such a super wide to be perfect if the sun is inside the frame, I recall it wasn't that bad. In particular, the whole idea with the new nano coating is to reduce flare.

<P>

I still have those test images and of course I now have my own 14-24. I'll be happy to post some samples if that is necessary. The 17-35 has its share of flare issues, but the one lens that is really bad with flare is the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX.

<P>

The following image was captured with the 14-24 at 14mm on a D700.

<center>

<IMG SRC="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7924132-md.jpg">

</center>

[commtrd]

My 14-24 has absolutely no problem with flare. I have shot directly into the sun with it and got practically zero flare with it. I think it is a great lens.

[lex_jenkins]

Here's an example of what I'd consider troublesome lens flare. If you're not seeing these problems with the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED, you're probably getting what most photographers would consider to be at least acceptable performance considering it's complex, fast zoom. And based on the high resolution sample photos I've seen on the web taken with this lens, I'd call it an exceptional performer considering the challenges involved in designing such a beast.

 

The top photo was taken with a 19mm f/3.8 Vivitar, probably an '80s vintage. Not bad for that era and cost, tho' it suffered from veiling flare in adverse lighting, and coma at edges and corners.

 

The bottom was taken with a Tamron Adaptall 24mm f/2.5. Also not a bad lens, but aiming directly into the sun reveals serious issues with veiling and ghosting flare. The bottom of the photo (which I've cropped out due to the distasteful subject matter, a roadkill deer), was actually very sharp and contrasty, but the overall effect is poor due to the flare seen diagonally across the photo.<div></div>

[roman_thorn1]

Bottom pic is exactly what I was experiencing with the 14 - 24. I called the rental shop and they said they would have a closer look at it. By the way, I'm not trying to stir up anything....just telling you what i experienced.

[lex_jenkins]

It would help if you can provide some sample photos and exposure data or the EXIF data. Even if the photos were deleted from your media card or hard drive they may be recoverable.

 

I don't doubt that it's possible for any lens to flare under certain conditions. But without knowing the specifics this is all speculation. And since you've explained that this was a rental lens, there's another variable: the unknown condition of the lens.

[mars790]

Roman, I shoot interiors every week, and mostly with the 14-24mm. I usually place my hand above and just out of the

frame to protect against flare, but that goes for any wide angle lens I've used. As said above, try another sample before passing judgement

on the whole line.

[jfz]

Here are two consecutive shots with the identical setting (F 8.0, 1/200 s, ISO 500). Since I was shooting hand-held, the second shot (right) had a different shooting angle from the first shot (left). You can clearly see the flare (lower left corner) in the first shot, but not in the second. In this case, the sun was never in the picture. So, this beast can produce flares at certain shooting angles. But, overall, I really like this lens.

 

jf<div></div>

[fullmetalphotograper]

I can say I have shot this lens in many nasty lighting conditions and lens has never had any extreme lens flair issues for

me. My view is simple on this one bad experience with a rental, has no meaning on the quality of the lens. The lens could

have been dirty, drop or used as a hockey puck we have no way of knowing. As far as I can tell the sky is still not falling.

[ShunCheung]

Here is my test shot with a loaner 14-24mm/f2.8 on a D3, shot at 14mm, f5.6 and this is the entire frame. In other words, this is a different sample of the 14-24 from my own lens, which was used to shoot the interior shot above, posted at 5:44pm yesterday.

 

This is a very extreme case with the sun inside the top right corner of the fame at 14mm. Sure enough, there is flare in the lower left side of the frame, but I think Nikon did an excellent job for flare control in such an extreme situation. The flare is limited to only one corner; there isn't a "chain" of flare as Lex demonstrated with a different lens.

 

If you would like to see how bad flare can be, check out my test shot with the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX, post to the following thread on 11th October, 2004 at 1:12am:

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/009jVw

 

Roman, you made some very serious complaints in your original post with an original title "14-24 WARNING!" But we have yet to see a single image sample from you. Could you post a couple to show your point? (Lex has since updated the thread title to a more descriptive subject line.)

 

I can see that one sample of a lens may have some elements slightly out of alignment so that one sample can be a bit sharper than another sample, but I see absolutely no reason why one sample may have a far more serious problem with flare than another unless that sample is totally defective. I have tested four samples of the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and they are all very consistent with one another; that is why I tend not to believe in those "sample variation" complaints.<div></div>

[russell_b]

I have the lens too, and think it's fantastic. That said, I have had some flare as well - but it was in situations I would expect flare. I will try to post some examples.<div></div>

[russell_b]

Here is a second...<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

I think the key here is that the light sources need to be concentrated (a chandelier which has multiple very small light sources would be

perfect) and the environment needs to be dark to maximize the effect. If the room has dark walls and other surfaces, the ghosting is more

likely to be noticeable than in a room with light surfaces.

 

(Not a user of the 14-24, just analyzing.)

[ShunCheung]

I happen to have this image captured last week in Mexico.

The 14-24mm/f2.8 at 19mm, f8, shutter speed 0.8 second on a D700, tripod, of course.<div></div>

[photo5]

I just love these people who post on the Nikon forum about a particular image problem, yet never post an example. Methinks they are spammers.

[ShunCheung]

I had an opportunity to discuss with Roman about this outside of this thread, since he made a very strong claim in his opening post. But since Roman claims that he has deleted all of the bad images from the 14-24mm/f2.8 he used, I'll take his words for it this time, as I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 

However, if any person starts making many claims without facts and images to back up those claims, I would say that will become a problem.

[lex_jenkins]

Roman's question appeared sincere, if a bit alarmist in phrasing. However it has resulted in a constructive discussion and several examples of how the 14-24/2.8 performs in adverse lighting.

 

While it's unfortunate that he'd deleted his test photos that alone doesn't disqualify the basic concern. I've deleted many test photos taken with lenses I either decided not to buy or no longer have. My main concern was the melodramatic nature of the original thread title. The only reason to associate the word "Warning!" with a lens is if it has a tendency to explode when used to photograph kittens.

 

(FWIW, Dave, spamming and trolling are very different things. This thread was neither. However, spam appears to have been redefined to mean "Anything someone doesn't want to see, read, hear or know about.")

[ilkka_nissila]

I think the situation should be well characterized by the above example images. If the contrast is low thanks to multiple

light sources (including three crowns, multiple roof windows), there is no ghosting that can be discerned by eye. If the

contrast is high as in Russell B's last (7:10 a.m.) post, there is ghosting. As Shun's example demonstrates, by the skillful

use of light, problems can be avoided. Shun, I don't suppose you have any images taken of the same room after dark,

without the roof window lights?

[ShunCheung]

Frankly, flare and ghosting was not even in my mind when I shot the above image in that dining room.

Therefore, I made absolutely no deliberate attempt to avoid them. That location is in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, a few thousand miles from me now. But since I own the 14-24mm lens, I can easily make more test shots under any reasonably achievable conditions.

 

However, instead of wasting more time on this issue, I am very confident to say that Nikon has done an excellent job on flare control on the 14-24mm/f2.8. If you place the sun inside the frame, just about any lens is going to give you ghosting, but even so, clearly the 14-24 is far superior than, e.g. the 17-55.

 

The 14-24 has a lot of limitations, and I always pull no punches to point those out. However, flare and ghosting control is not one of its weaknesses; in fact, it is one of its strengths. That was why I found the original post totally contradicts the facts I know.