nikkor 14 - 24 or 17 - 35??

[carla_d]

i want to get a wide angle zoom. i've been using a nikkor 20mm f/2.8 prime on my d300 but haven't been happy with the results. it doesn't seem to perform as well as the other primes i have (35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.5). it just doesn't seem to be as sharp...

so i'm wanting to hear from people who have used either the 14 - 24 or the 17 - 35. i often shoot in low-light situations, so performance wide-open is important. what do people recommend?

also, i'm seriously considering a body upgrade to FX, so am interested in performance in both formats.

cheers

[gstark]

Carla,

First of all, in what way is the 20mm disappointing you? What are the issues that you're seeing with that lens? Have you, for instance, tried calibrating it to the body?

Regarding the two lenses, I would probably be inclined to go the Nikon suggested routing, and take the 14-24, leading towards the full FX kit - 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200.

[ozboyerp]

Good evening Carla,

I have the 12-24 4 witch is a bit different, the 17-35 2.8

I looked to sell both and get the 14-24

After review on the net and been to my favorite photo shop in Melbourne...

The sales person did not recommend much the 14-24, witch is (Big) and the lens cannot be protected with a neutral filter

Great lens but not practical.

As a result I am selling the 12-24 and keep the 17-35, witch is a Fantastic lens...

Just my little experience.

Cheers

[Bob G]

I have owned all three lenses and would rank them in terms of quality wide open as follows:-

14-24 Exceptional lens - clearly the best of the three (but won't take filters)

17-35 Extremely good lens - not up to the quality of the 14-24 (but it will take filters)

12-24 Good lens - but not in the same class as the other two


Whilst this is my opinion it is in accord with most reviews I have seen.

Hope this helps.

[gstark]

The sales person did not recommend much the 14-24, witch is (Big) and the lens cannot be protected with a neutral filter

How much use of this lens had this salesperson had?

I'm talking actual use, in the field, on a camera,

Let me a little bit bold here and ask how much use of any lens, on any camera, had this salesperson had? I hate to be cynical (no I don't) but very few salespeople have any credibility whatsoever.

[Matt. K]

An unsharp Nikkor 20mm F2.8!!!! These lenses have a wonderful reputation for being critically sharp so I'm guessing yours has been damaged or knocked in some way....or you have a lemon. Can I suggest you lend it to someone to try out and see if they come to the same conclusion? You may be getting rid of a real gem.

[carla_d]

Thanks for your input guys. It may be how I'm using the lens, I'm not sure. Things seem to fall off a lot around the edges, regardless of my aperture setting.

Carla,

Have you, for instance, tried calibrating it to the body?

How do I do that? With the AF fine tune function?

[gstark]

Thanks for your input guys. It may be how I'm using the lens, I'm not sure. Things seem to fall off a lot around the edges, regardless of my aperture setting.

Could you please post a couple of examples?

Carla,

Have you, for instance, tried calibrating it to the body?

How do I do that? With the AF fine tune function?

Yep: exactly.

[Reschsmooth]

I can only vouch for the 17-35. It is a great lens, excellent sharpness, very little distortion, but reasonably heavy. I believe the 14-24 is quite large and heavy as well - I have only used one for about 30 seconds. I am not that fast on my feet, you see.

[carla_d]

some examples (i've posted them at 1000px i hope that's not too large..)

20mm f13 1/30sec 640 iso. I was expecting the f-stop to increase dof but... things in the foreground seem kinda soft


the focus point on the following was her eyes - perhaps it's the high iso setting, i don't know, but it doesn't have the same sharpness as the following image shot with my 35mm lens (focal point was the eyes for both). is it just that there was more light in the second shot?

20mm f4 1/2000sec 2500 iso


35mm f5.6 1/125 1600 iso



and here's a night shot

20mm f5.6 1/30 800 iso

[gstark]

some examples (i've posted them at 1000px i hope that's not too large..)

It actually is. No more than 800px on the largest side, please. Also, it's a good idea to dumb down the actual file size as your preparing to post images. I just looked at the first one, and it was nearly 1MB. We need to consider that not all of our members are on broadband, and this sort of image can become quite a burden in terms of their download capabilities. Probably something we also need to consider now with the iPhone available, and the piss poor data allowances provided by the carriers. This one post would blow an entire month's data allowance on the base Hel$tra plan!

While we're housekeeping, please also, could you put a meaningful location into your profile? "Sydney" doesn't cut it. Please look at the FAQ and the New Members message on the Portal Page for more details about what is acceptable. Thanx for your future cooperation on these matters.

20mm f13 1/30sec 640 iso. I was expecting the f-stop to increase dof but... things in the foreground seem kinda soft

A couple of points here. Yes, a higher f-stop value will increase the DoF, but that applies depending upon where your actual point of focus might be. DoF is a range around that point of focus within which the image will be within acceptable focus, and that will be a little bit in front of the point of focus, and a little behind that same point of focus. It doesn't apply, globally, across the whole image.

In this instance you don't tell us where the point of focus is. I'm seeing that the word "King" in "Burger King" appears to be in quite sharp focus, and thus I'm going to suggest that this might be where your plane of focus might lie. If that's the case, then I think it's reasonable that the display stand in the foreground is out of focus, because I would not expect this to be within any extended DoF range for that focus point.

I note too that this was shot at 1/30; this may also be a contributing factor; it's about the minimum shutter speed you should be using handheld with this lens; camera shake does start to factor in to images and perhaps this may have been an issue here as well?

One final point on this image ... f/13 is probably beyond the sweet spot for this lens; I generally see the best performance of a Nikkor at around f/5-6 through f/9. It may be an idea to just shoot some test images at a range of aperture settings, compensating shutter speed to match, and comparing those results.

the focus point on the following was her eyes - perhaps it's the high iso setting, i don't know, but it doesn't have the same sharpness as the following image shot with my 35mm lens (focal point was the eyes for both). is it just that there was more light in the second shot?

No. This looks to be slightly front-focused to me. Very slightly, but at f/4 it's enough to soften the subject.

Look at the hat the lady is wearing: the leading edge of the brim, where it's folded up. Moreso, look beyond that point, at the nearside of the body of the hat, which seems to be in very sharp focus. That's really the side of her head/face, rather than her eye. At f/4, even a slight movement on the model's part is enough to cause this sort of issue, but equally, it's enough to suggest that calibrating the lens might be a worthwhile option.

What do the areas of the image that I've highlighted here look like when you pixel peep? Does that help further refine the problem?

and here's a night shot

Yep. That's definitely a night shot.

Looks basically fine to me, although my earlier comments about shutter speed might be applicable here. As you approach the lower limits of the acceptable range of shutter speeds, technique comes into play, and you need to start to pay closer attention to the finer details about how you are making your exposure.

[chrisk]

firstly, i dont think there is too much wrong with the shots. but here are my observations...

i think that the main reason for any softenss here is the iso. its far too high so NR kicks in, (i dont think you can even turn it off at some of the higher iso's from memory).
the foreground in the burger king shot off the the left foreground is in the corner and the 20mm is not a great performer edge to edge relying more on its centre sharpness.

having used the 20mm for a few weeks i agree with you that it is not as sharp as my 50/1.4 and certianly not as sharp as the 35/2 which i find to be unbelievabley sharp even wide open. i have not used the 14-24, or the 17-35 but a few others here have first hand experience. after borrowing the 20mm i decided not to buy it for alot of the reasons you are pointing out right now. its simply not good enough imo...although you also have to consider the price of the lens compared to the 17-35/ 14/24. its a bit tough to compare them at such significantly different price points.

mattK, would be interested to hear where/ who thinks this lens is critically sharp cos i have found from my very limited use of it that its not quite as good as that. i used it on my d300 but the guy i borrowed it off has a d2x and neither of us think its as sharp as we would like. i wonder if you're confusing it with the 14/2.8 which is bitingly sharp in the centre.

[carla_d]

some examples (i've posted them at 1000px i hope that's not too large..)

It actually is. No more than 800px on the largest side, please.

apologies. i've reduced the size.

While we're housekeeping, please also, could you put a meaningful location into your profile? "Sydney" doesn't cut it. Please look at the FAQ and the New Members message on the Portal Page for more details about what is acceptable.

Is Pymble better? I looked and looked for the New Members message on the portal page. And through the FAQs. I couldn't actually see anything about what made a location meaningful. Please let me know if my current entry isn't adequate. [/quote]

One final point on this image ... f/13 is probably beyond the sweet spot for this lens; I generally see the best performance of a Nikkor at around f/5-6 through f/9. It may be an idea to just shoot some test images at a range of aperture settings, compensating shutter speed to match, and comparing those results.

This looks to be slightly front-focused to me. Very slightly, but at f/4 it's enough to soften the subject... it's enough to suggest that calibrating the lens might be a worthwhile option.

Thanks for this gstark, your time and comments much appreciated

mattK, would be interested to hear where/ who thinks this lens is critically sharp cos i have found from my very limited use of it that its not quite as good as that. i used it on my d300 but the guy i borrowed it off has a d2x and neither of us think its as sharp as we would like.

i read somewhere online that it's amazing on film, but not digi... (wish i'd read it before i bought it...)

[Matt. K]

Rooz
I have been using a Nikkor F2.8 20mm AF D lens for many years and have always been satisfied with its performance. It's a honey of a lens. I know there are some fairly ordinary reviews, (not to be slavishly believed), of the lens, but in real life and in the field mine is worth its weight in gold. Like all wide angle lenses you need to take care with just where you are focussing.....indeed, it's often better to focus manually for fine control. Here is one example where it came through for me. I will post a couple of others as soon as time permits.
Cheers!

[Yi-P]

Silly question, but have you tried the camera+lens on tripod and manual focus??

[carla_d]

just wanted to update all who commented here.
i'm getting much better results with the lens now.
thanks for your help.