DSLRUsers.com

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14 ... 4mm_a.html

looks like the 14-24 wins by a LONG margin.. incredible.

"So what we appear to have, at first glance, is a Zeiss 15mm + Canon 24 L in one lens for a bargain $1800. In overlapping focal lengths, it's better than the Nikon 17-35mm, Canon 17-40mm, 16-35mm II, and even, I suspect, the Contax N 17-35mm f2.8 zooms. More than that, it looks like it might better than every prime in that range: you can forget the Tamron 14mm, Sigma 14mm, Canon 14mm Mark I, Zeiss, Nikon and Leica 15mm f3.5, Tokina 17mm, Olympus 18mm, Zeiss 18mm, Nikon 20mm and Olympus 21mm variants. "
__________________

You've got the 14-24 right?

Very impressive review!

Kind of glad that I didn't shell out for the 17-35 now.... Oh the lust

Ouch that smarts!
Methd, I have just resolved within myself to migrate to the darkside, despite the new nikon/nikkor releases... This is heavily salting my wounds.

By all available data that looks like a great lens, those comparison shots are amazing.

Dan

adam wrote:You've got the 14-24 right?

sure do! but i bought it just to complete the trio.. i cant really see myself using a wide lens like this that often

methd wrote:

adam wrote:You've got the 14-24 right?

sure do! but i bought it just to complete the trio.. i cant really see myself using a wide lens like this that often

Nice nice nice
Are you just teasing us? buying the 14-24 which the article praises and then saying that you can't see yourself using the ultrawide that often? hehe... I'm sure it'll open up some interesting perspectives previously unthought of
Hope you enjoy it and show us some shots from it

Someone sent me a link to one of your images, then I thought it looked familiar and realised it was you :):)

have you had any issues with lens flare ? i know these wideys are more prone to it but this seems exessive.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readf ... 14+24&qf=m

Rooz wrote:have you had any issues with lens flare ? i know these wideys are more prone to it but this seems exessive.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readf ... 14+24&qf=m

What is described i n that thread comes back to the usual suspects: user error, and expected outcome.

The OP is trying to compare the lens withe the Tokina 12-24, and is suggesting a problem with the Nikkor when he is shooting with the light sources within the FoV of the lens.

Even when the light sources may be beyond the coverage of the image circle of the D300, they may still be well within the FV covered by the lens - it's an FX, as against the Tokina 12-24 and thus any such comparisons lose much validity unless those differences are taken into account, which they are not within that thread.

So, with those light sources positioned well within the FoV, this comes down to technique. And some of the sample images also include the legs of the tripod upon which the camera was mounted. Great technique, eh?

Yes, this is wide angle lens - very wide angle - and you need to learn how to use it, and you need to learn, as a photographer, to examine what you see in the viewfinder before you press the shutter release, regardless of the glass that's mounted on the camera's front.

I see no evidence of this last point in that thread.

I also note that that OP was also complaining about the D300's AWB in that thread.

And he uses the term "should of" instead of "should have" several times.

Hmmmm .....

C
r
e
d
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
.

Am I reading this correctly, you can't put filters on this lens? What's the benefit of that?

`S

Scott, the reason you can't (I believe) is the front element is bulbous, which makes mounting filters challenging but not impossible. But to avoid heavy vignetting or encroaching on the field of view, the filter mount may have to be pretty big (is my guess).

(That was a really bad explanation sorry).

(That was a really bad explanation sorry).

Nah, that makes sense.. I saw a picture of the lens kinda from the side and it's clear the glass really protrudes out.

I'd just be nervous about scratching my $1800 glass bubble.. so you can't put filters on fish eye lenses either? Can't a hood hold the filter off and away from the contour of the glass?

`S

scottvd wrote:Am I reading this correctly, you can't put filters on this lens? What's the benefit of that?

Hi Scott.

Craig's answer gave you the reason for being unable to mount a filer on the front, but not the benefits.

The benefits ... hmmmm ...

You cannot put inferior glass on the front of the lens, and thus you cannot risk degrading your image quality as a consequence of that. (I need no help in degrading my images, btw.)

But it's basically a design constraint, and if you're in the habit of having your lenses wearing, say, a skylight for protection, then that's a habit that will suffer with this lens, and with many other modern lenses too, I might add.

I've not checked the specs for this lens, but often with Nikkor glass there's an internal filter holder for holding filters should you need one for, say, special effects. My 300mm has such a filter holder, and the lens comes with a skylight installed, which forms a part of the optical path. If I wanted to use, say, a Y2 filter, I simply use a 39mm in place of the internal one.

scottvd wrote:I'd just be nervous about scratching my $1800 glass bubble.. so you can't put filters on fish eye lenses either? Can't a hood hold the filter off and away from the contour of the glass?

`S

Typically, fish-eyes and some UWA lenses don't accomodate filters, often because of the front element protruding too much, and also the vignetting effect. If you consider the new lens is supposed to have something of a 114' FOV, your filter would need to be something like 50cm in diameter (ok, I haven't and won't work out what the actual diameter would be, but it would be pretty bloody big).

I used a Cokin A filter holder on a 20mm lens (on a full frame camera) and lost about 10% or more as a result of heavy vignetting.

I am surpised that they don't allow for the smaller filters like long telephotos. There is probably a good reason.

scottvd wrote:so you can't put filters on fish eye lenses either? Can't a hood hold the filter off and away from the contour of the glass?

Never could on fisheyes, and any lenshood would intrude into the FoV of the lens. Remember that a typical fisheye might have a FoV of around 160 degrees or more. That's a very wide FoV.

Thanks Gary, Patrick, and Craig for the education. Sounds like this lens is just too cool for a filter.. (:

If I bought the 14-24, I'd invest in a klutz insurance policy!

`S

Instead of starting a new thread...

I tried the 14-24 on the f90x today (at Foto Reisel) and, at 14mm on full-frame is simply awesome. Unfortunately, it doesn't have an aperture ring which means it would only work on the F5 or 6 film cameras (plus a couple of digitals).

Reschsmooth wrote:Unfortunately, it doesn't have an aperture ring which means it would only work on the F5 or 6 film cameras (plus a couple of digitals).

Actually, it will probably work on most film Nikons from the late 80s. As long as the body can control the aperture setting (the F801 does, for instance) then it should work.

My f4 can use a G type lens in shutter priority mode.

gstark wrote:

scottvd wrote:so you can't put filters on fish eye lenses either? Can't a hood hold the filter off and away from the contour of the glass?

Never could on fisheyes, and any lenshood would intrude into the FoV of the lens. Remember that a typical fisheye might have a FoV of around 160 degrees or more. That's a very wide FoV.

Actually you can, my Nikkor 16mm f/2.8 has rear-mounted bayonet filters. I vaguely recall it came with a red, orange and yellow in addition to the LIBc clear filter thats been the only one I have ever used in it. If my memory serves me correctly, you have to have one there for correct focus.

Gordon

Now I can upgrade from my Sigma 12-24.

gstark wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:Unfortunately, it doesn't have an aperture ring which means it would only work on the F5 or 6 film cameras (plus a couple of digitals).

Actually, it will probably work on most film Nikons from the late 80s. As long as the body can control the aperture setting (the F801 does, for instance) then it should work.

I didn't think about that, not that I am in a position to buy the lens.