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

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Well said, Cano, thanks.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Justin: As others have already pointed out most of your flare could have been avoided by keeping the lens perpindicular to the ground. That would have kept all your buildings straight up and down too. The two or three images that have little circles of light in the centre of the frame could easily have been fixed by positioning your free hand over the top of the lens. In these instances the sun was just outside the edge of the frame and shone obliquely across the front element. Your hand would block the stray sunlight and yet not appear in the image.</p>

<p>You must have patience! </p>

[justinweiss]

<p>Thanks to lots of you for the good advice. The photo examples by Arash and Lex are especially helpful. I'm looking forward to getting better with this lens. I have gotten some shots I really like with it, and I'm sure my "keeper" ratio will go up with these tips.</p>

<p>Cano, you wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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 ?".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course this is exactly what I asked. And of course, it's better to have a lot of skill than to have a lot of gear you can't use well. I've shot simple point-and-shoot cameras for decades. But last year I decided to step up to DSLR's after I felt like the camera was limiting my results.</p>

<p>After doing some research, I decided I wanted to go with Nikon, and with FX instead of DX, because investing money in DX lenses seemed like a waste if I would only move up to FX eventually. So started with a D700 and a basic 50mm "walk-around" lens, which is pretty much the cheapest FX setup possible. Later on, I added a 105mm portrait/macro lens. Both gave very encouraging results.</p>

<p>Finally, I added a wide lens to get the kind of shots I couldn't get with the 50mm. It's quite possible the 17-35mm would have been a better (i.e., easier to use) choice for my first wide lens, but I liked the crazy perspective of the 14-24mm shots I've seen on the web, so sue me. As Lex said, "Nobody was born knowing all this stuff". And as far as I can see, it's pretty damned hard to get good at something without actually trying it and using it.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>[it's quite possible the 17-35mm would have been a better (i.e., easier to use) choice for my first wide lens, but I liked the crazy perspective of the 14-24mm shots I've seen on the web, so sue me.]</p>

<p>Exactly why, even if it's harder to tame, I suspect you bought the right lens for you...</p>

[cano_maga_a]

<p> Hey, don't get so jumpy man, it seems like U got it personal. I also said</p>

<blockquote>

<p> "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." </p>

</blockquote>

<p> So I guess the point is, Congrats for your new baby. YOU GOT IT, NOW LEARN HOW TO GET THE BEST RESULTS WITH IT. and that takes practice...</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Regardless of the gear, this quote applies: an amateur practices til he gets it right, a pro til he never gets it wrong. </p>

[commtrd]

<p><img src="http://commtrd.smugmug.com/photos/457330537_2jnZj-L-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>