Just Wondering About The Nikkor 14-24mm F2.8

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Err... these might be dumb questions:<br /><br /><br />1) In terms of curvature - or anything else I might not be aware of - is there any difference between this lens at 14mm and its 14mm prime sibling? How about this lens at 24mm and a 24mm prime?</p>

<p>2) Is it safe to assume that this fattie has the best overall image quality of any lens manufactured by Nikon?<br /><br /><br />Thanks,</p>

<p>Cal</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Looking at the extremely high resolution levels this lens show at its widest aperture, I`d not say that field curvature is an issue, otherwise looks like it could be almost negligible. The 14mm prime at f2.8 show a huge drop in performance at the borders and worst at the corners, probably dued to this problem. Compared to the 24mm prime, the zoom looks to have still a noticeable advantage, with more even performance and much lower CAs.<br /> In not an expert but I never saw such good testing charts on any other zoom lens.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Jose, do you mean the 14mm has border and corner problems that aren't experienced by the 14-24mm? I don't know all that much about either but it sounds peculiar that a prime would fall behind a zoom like this.</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>From all I have read on here and elsewhere, the Nikon 14-24 is one of the best lenses Nikon has made to date. I have also read several who confirm what Jose posted that the 14-24 is better than the primes (or, at least the equal of the primes.)</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>1) haven't tried the 14, but heard that it's not so satisfactory. Have owned the 24 and can say that for things further away than 6 feet there are definitely better lenses out there.</p>

<p>2) No, that would be a bold statement. As a rule of thumb wide angles are inferior compared to short and midrange teles. In terms of superwides, the 24 PC gives a pretty stiff competition.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Cannot compare super wide lens to normal or a tele...<br>

My copy of the 14-24 Nikkor is not the best, but flares less than the 20/2.8 mm Nikkor.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TTY2">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TTY2</a></p>

 

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks, Douglas.</p>

<p>Not sure I understand the engineering reason for a zoom being better than primes though.</p>

[doug_santo]

<p>I have the 14-24/2.8. I use it on a D700. I think the lens is excellent. It is sharp wide open at all focal lengths, but sharpness increases at the wide end and at ~f/5.6. Sharpness decreases a little above f/16. There is minor softening near the corners on a full frame camera. There is minor vignetting in the corners, but by minor I mean maybe a 1/4 to 1/2 stop. Chromatic aberrations are almost totally controlled by in-camera processing. There is barrel distortion on the wide end, I think it is about 1% at 14mm, f/2.8. This is easily corrected in post pocessing. Flare is well controlled for a wide lens. I don't use filters, except occasional CP's, so the lack of filter threads is not a problem for me. CP's on such a wide lens could cause problems with the sky at any rate. It is not a point and shoot lens. It is very wide. It takes practice to maximize the advantage of the wide end. For me, it was an excellent purchase. I highly recommend it. A good review can be found here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1122/cat/13">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1122/cat/13</a></p>

[oskar_ojala]

<blockquote>

<p>Cannot compare super wide lens to normal or a tele...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not? If the magnification ratio is fixed then it's pretty straightforward to compare distortion, resolution, MTF, CA... Of course that doesn't take viewing angle into account, but the question was about image quality, not about applicability.</p>

[mark_hanley1]

<p>I bought the 14-24 along with my D700 shortly after they were announced. Have been using high end Nikkors since 1982 and have bought and sold many, many lenses. Without a doubt, the 14-24 is the sharpest lens I've ever owned. It is an amazing lens but does demand disciplined technique to get the best out of it.<br>

A super wide lens is not for everyone but if you like the look, the 14-24 is hard to beat. Buy one, you won't regret it. If you don't like it, wait a year or two and just like the 28/1.4 or the 58/1.2 NOCT, this lens will be worth more than you paid for it new.<br>

There is a reason Canon shooters and buying the 14-24 and the adapter, it decimates all of Canon's superwide lenses. Read a comparison article a couple of weeks ago and the results were nothing short of shocking.<br>

Mark</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>I simply put fell in love with this lens from the first time I met it. Sounds insane I know..... But there's only been one lens ever I've not been able to get out of my mind. This is it. Once I'd tried it - - no matter how many other lenses I tested..... It simply would not leave my mind. I have it & it's not going anywhere. :-)<br>

JMHO<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>The 14-24 seem to me a very sharp lens, amongst the best I have owned. I`m not qualified to say more. I never used a 14mm prime, though I actually cannot compare with it... my opinion is based on the charts I like to read at photozone.de.</p>

<p>If you look at the resolution charts for the 14mm prime, you`ll find that <i>corner</i> sharpness is very very low, and about <i>borders</i>, although they say "good" I`d say low, and very good at the <i>center </i>at any aperture. To get a good border sharpness you need to close at least to f5.6, corner sharpness is simply low at its best.<br /> On the 14-24 @ 14mm, all <i>center, border and corner</i> sharpness are very high at any aperture, even wide open. Think that wide open, corner sharpness is just slightly below center sharpness in the 14mm prime.</p>

<p>Don`t ask me why, I suppose the huge front element on the zoom contributes for a flatter field, it also have more exotic glass and coatings than the prime. Think also that it is a very short-ranged zoom, it isn`t even a 2X zoom, the range stops moreless at 1.7X.</p>

<p>For those interested here are the links, photozone.de for the 14mm prime http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/208-nikkor-af-14mm-f28-d-ed-review--test-report<br /> and for the 14-24 zoom http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/361-nikkor-af-s-14-24mm-f28-g-ed-n-test-report--review .</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Oskar, would you mind explaining why wide angles are inferior in IQ generally?</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks, Doug.</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>The reason the 14-24 can be fairly claimed to be better than certain Nikon prime lenses: 1)Current or classic Nikon wide primes are often old or weakly performing designs, and 2) Gigantic computing power available to lens designers now that wasn't available 5, 10, 20 years ago.<br>

The reason [retrofocus]wide angles are often considered to be inferior to lenses with a narrower angle of view: because, traditionally, they were. They were inferior because the opto-physical problems are more difficult to solve than with narrow angle lenses. Try to find a copy of an old book from the 1980's called "Photographic Lenses" by C.B. Neblette. Excellent explanations for the interested photographer.</p>

[hawkman]

<p><strong><em>is there any difference between this lens at 14mm and its 14mm prime sibling</em></strong><br>

It is easier to mention the similarities rather than differences, the only similarity is that they are both 14mm and it ends there.</p>

<p><strong><em></em></strong></p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Hi there, I had both and have got rid of the 14 mm, The 14-24 is a newer generation of optic design and is superb. I use it on a D3, D700 and an old D100 that I have had converted for IR. It is pinsharp. I complement it with the AF-s 24-70 and the AF-s 70-200 f2.8 VR and they cover 99% of what I need. The older Nikkors were good but the newer ones are superb in my opinion and lessen the need to think about and carry and change many primes..</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks, Mark.</p>

<p>Indeed I wonder why Canon doesn't have any answers for the Nikkor 14-24mm.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I agree that Canon could use a good 14-24mm lens - I feel certain that there will be one fairly soon. They might have considered that the 16-35mm filled this area and that a 14-24 would not be of great interest.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks, Lil.</p>

<p>I'll get you and the 14-24mm a room. Heh.</p>

 

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks for the info, Jose.</p>

[peter_koralis]

<p>I dont think you will find (m)any owners of this lens that aren't satisfied with its performance and i'm pretty sure everyone agrees that its one of the best zooms available currently from any manufacturer.<br>

But optical performance alone shouldn't be your criteria for buying it. Too many buy this lens and then don't seem to use it - you've been warned.<br>

Peter</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Calvin, wide-angle lenses on SLRs are all retrofocus designs, which is to overcome the fact that in a symmetrical lens the optical center is around the center of the lens, but it is not possible to do with an SLR wide angle due to the mirror box. The trouble with this is that it is hard to maintain flat field, geometry distortions are unavoidable, chromatic aberration is hard to correct and performance tends to be very distance dependent (all modern wideangles have floating elements to make the performance better at different distances, but that requires more complex optical and mechanical designs). The center sharpness can usually be made high, whereas it is hard to keep good edge sharpness. I should dig up a more technical description of why this is so, but in general symmetric and tele lenses of different designs are much easier to correct.<br>

Of course in practice, we only have a limited number of focal lengths to do a job and then choose one lens that has the right focal length and whose other performance aspects are good enough.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>I see your point, peter. Although I suppose at 24mm the lens is less extreme and closer to a standard focal length that's quite usable.</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks for that detailed summary, Oskar.</p>