Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nikon lens 14mm or 14-24m  (Read 18366 times)
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2009, 07:53:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Guys, honestly, you are quarreling about the Kaiser's bart. I don't believe David meant that the 14-24 becomes a fisheye at 14mm. Sure, the correct term is not "not rectilinear" but "rectilinear with strong/perceivable/untolerable geometric distortion" (barrel, pincussion).

So, in effect you are arguing about if that distortion is acceptable or not. For whom, for what purpose?
Logged

Gabor
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2009, 11:18:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ddk
Since I haven't seen anyone else testing these lenses next to one another so I don't see how I'm contradicting everyone? and there's really nothing extraordinary about my comments.  

...according to my eyes, @14mm the 14-24 has linear distortion, and as far as I know pz never conducted side by side tests of these lenses, so I don't understand what you're referring to.

It's really quite simple, Photozone tested both lenses using the same methodology and measured barrel distortion on the 14/2.8 at 2.6% while they measured 1.4% barrel distortion on 14-24/2.8 at 14mm.

No review of these lenses anywhere will indicate that the 14-24/2.8 has more of a problem with its barrel distortion and than the 14/2.8 has with its barrel distortion -- you are the only person reporting that, so in that regard your comments are extraordinary and to be taken seriously should be accompanied by some proof.  Now I've provided proof from Photozone that you choose to reject, so let me offer some more proof to challenge what you are claiming.

Here's what Moose Peterson says about this:
"What about distortion? Shooting wide at 14mm, you might be worried about barrel or edge distortion. At its minimum focusing distance to infinity, I pushed photos with straight elements at the edge of the frame. It was total fun seeing these images in the viewfinder with straight lines. After about two weeks of pushing the 14-24AFS to the extreme in this regard and it proving itself, I never hesitated to use the lens to its extreme. Compared to the older 14mm, the 14-24AFS has the same if not better performance in regards to distortion. Don't confuse the leaning in of straight lines when you point the lens up or down as distortion. That's just perspective."

From:  http://www.moosepeterson.com/D3/new_lenses.html

Here's what Thom Hogan says about this:
"14mm – The 12-24mm f/4G DX lens on the APS-sensor cameras, the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G on the FX bodies. Optically, the 14-24mm is the better choice and has fewer optical problems, but the 12-24mm allows the use of (very thin) filters and is a reasonably close second (but it doesn’t cover the FX frame at 14mm). The 14mm f/2.8D has more distortion, more chromatic aberration, plus more edge effects when used wide open, so it is a distant third choice on any camera."

From:  http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm

Now it's your turn, bring back a review or a test result that supports your claim and contradicts what everyone else I'm aware of says about theses two lenses.

I will accept this, you like the Nikkor 14/2.8 more than the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 -- there's nothing wrong with that.  You have some reasons that may or may not have validity to them, such as not liking the greater contrast delivered by the zoom -- that's your prerogative and I say great for you.  However, don't mislead people because you did some tests with unknown and uncheckable methodology that lead you to believe that the 14-24/2.8 was not rectilinear or that it suffered greater linear distortion than the 14/2.8; as far as that's concerned you don't have any proof and you can't find anyone that will substantiate your observation.
Logged
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 07, 2009, 05:18:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quite astonishing that a question about a SUITABLE lens for shooting VRs degenerates into a completely different set of issues centred on lenses that are UNSUITABLE!.

You need a FISHEYE lens for this purpose - end of story. UNLESS you need absurdly high resolution in the final product.

A 14 mm "regular" lens (whether truly rectilinear or not) will require TWO ROWS, at minimum (12 shots), to produce a VR panorama on an FF body. I've tried it, and it works(obviously) but it's a total PITA. The automatic control point generation (in PTGui at least, which is what I know) tend to "cross-stitch" diagonally related shots (don't know a better way of putting this) and a lot of manual intervention's needed. PITA...

It's noticeable that the OP has been driven away by all the "angels on a pinhead" squabbling. I believe he may now be posting a different question under a different id - I don't blame him.

Roy
Logged
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 07, 2009, 05:59:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: OldRoy
Quite astonishing that a question about a SUITABLE lens for shooting VRs degenerates into a completely different set of issues centred on lenses that are UNSUITABLE!.

You need a FISHEYE lens for this purpose - end of story. UNLESS you need absurdly high resolution in the final product.

A 14 mm "regular" lens (whether truly rectilinear or not) will require TWO ROWS, at minimum (12 shots), to produce a VR panorama on an FF body. I've tried it, and it works(obviously) but it's a total PITA. The automatic control point generation (in PTGui at least, which is what I know) tend to "cross-stitch" diagonally related shots (don't know a better way of putting this) and a lot of manual intervention's needed. PITA...

It's noticeable that the OP has been driven away by all the "angels on a pinhead" squabbling. I believe he may now be posting a different question under a different id - I don't blame him.

Roy

You have a point Roy, apologies to OP!
Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2009, 04:08:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ddk
You have a point Roy, apologies to OP!
Ok ddk - it's not a war! This thread drift is so common as to be scarcely worth noting (guilty, m'lud). Seems to have frightened off the OP though...
Roy
Logged
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2009, 02:53:49 PM »
ReplyReply

*****
« Last Edit: April 08, 2009, 03:59:59 PM by ddk » Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2009, 11:45:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
....but again that is at odds with Photozone's tests of these lenses at their borders and extreme corners.

To my understanding, photozone does not do testing with Full-frame cameras, unless he has changed his approach recently.  

Thus testing Full-frame lenses on APS-C cameras are meaningless, to gauge how a FF lens performs on a FF body.
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2009, 11:48:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
"14mm – The 12-24mm f/4G DX lens on the APS-sensor cameras, the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G on the FX bodies. Optically, the 14-24mm is the better choice and has fewer optical problems, but the 12-24mm allows the use of (very thin) filters and is a reasonably close second (but it doesn’t cover the FX frame at 14mm). The 14mm f/2.8D has more distortion, more chromatic aberration, plus more edge effects when used wide open, so it is a distant third choice on any camera."


Note that he is talking about the Full-frame Sigma 12-24, which is the widest rectilinear FF lens currently available, and not the Nikon 12-24 which is a crop lens.  These are 2 entirely different animals.
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2009, 06:19:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: aaykay
Note that he is talking about the Full-frame Sigma 12-24, which is the widest rectilinear FF lens currently available, and not the Nikon 12-24 which is a crop lens.  These are 2 entirely different animals.
Actuallyl he's quite clearly referring to the Nikon 12-24DX, and the recommendations in the paragraph you quoted are about usage on a DX camera.
Logged

aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2009, 03:44:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
Actuallyl he's quite clearly referring to the Nikon 12-24DX, and the recommendations in the paragraph you quoted are about usage on a DX camera.

I am sorry, but I was referring to Post# 7 on this thread (referring to Sigma 12-24 and not the Nikon 12-24), quoted below:

---------------
There's another option which I prefer for shooting interiors over both Nikkors and its the Sigma 12-24; its a true rectilinear design and is wider than both. It has less distortion @12mm than even the 14/2.8! Its a slower lens but in this case shouldn't make a difference since you wont be shooting wide open anyway. Sharpness is on a par or very close to the 14-24, but its more compact, lighter and easier to handle.

---------------
Logged
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 14, 2009, 03:55:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JeffKohn
Actuallyl he's quite clearly referring to the Nikon 12-24DX, and the recommendations in the paragraph you quoted are about usage on a DX camera.


I was talking about the Sigma 12-24 if you were talking about my posts and never the Nikon 12-24.
Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4208



« Reply #31 on: April 14, 2009, 04:21:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I used to shoot panos with a Coolpix and fisheye extender, 3 shots at most!
I have a nagging suspicion this type of extender has disappeared precisely because the cheap and fast solution cost the manufacturers too much money.
Maybe an full auto solution like roundshot or gigapan will make the OP happier, as an SLR is really overkill for panos, if only because of the increased DOF you get with the P&S.

Edmund

Logged
pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 673


« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2009, 11:29:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I rented the D700 with the nikon 14 - 24  I plan to test shooting vertical. I will let you know how it goes.

John

Logged
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2009, 10:15:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pixjohn
I rented the D700 with the nikon 14 - 24  I plan to test shooting vertical. I will let you know how it goes.

John
I for one certainly look forward to hearing how you get on; what panhead and software are you going to use? To repeat myself (and why I'm bothering I don't really know,) after shooting >100 VR panos with the 10.5 FE on a DX body and subsequently also owning precisely the hardware you're testing, I feel absolutely certain that, unless you have some overriding requirement for huge resolution, this is absolutely the wrong choice for VR panos. VR panos call for fisheye lenses! Of course that's a matter of opinion, but it's an opinion that I'd hazard a guess that >90% of people who have experience of VR panos would share. You'd be far better off soliciting opinions on the panoguide forums - as I dimly recall having suggested - as very few people on LL are particularly interested in this muddy backwater of photography.
Roy
Logged
pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 673


« Reply #34 on: April 19, 2009, 05:15:03 AM »
ReplyReply

This is just my first impression. The 14 - 24 is great for outdoor 360 shots, but is just ok for interiors. The 12 mm might be another lens to try, or the fisheye.  When I have a pic ready, I will post it. My back ground is shooting high end projects, this is something a little different.


Quote from: OldRoy
I for one certainly look forward to hearing how you get on; what panhead and software are you going to use? To repeat myself (and why I'm bothering I don't really know,) after shooting >100 VR panos with the 10.5 FE on a DX body and subsequently also owning precisely the hardware you're testing, I feel absolutely certain that, unless you have some overriding requirement for huge resolution, this is absolutely the wrong choice for VR panos. VR panos call for fisheye lenses! Of course that's a matter of opinion, but it's an opinion that I'd hazard a guess that >90% of people who have experience of VR panos would share. You'd be far better off soliciting opinions on the panoguide forums - as I dimly recall having suggested - as very few people on LL are particularly interested in this muddy backwater of photography.
Roy
« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 05:15:48 AM by pixjohn » Logged
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 19, 2009, 06:51:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pixjohn
This is just my first impression. The 14 - 24 is great for outdoor 360 shots, but is just ok for interiors. The 12 mm might be another lens to try, or the fisheye.  When I have a pic ready, I will post it. My back ground is shooting high end projects, this is something a little different.


I'm not sure what you're after, the Sigma 12-24 will certainly give you better results than the Nikon 14-24 at the wide end but if you're after a high end look here you're not going to get it from either lens. For a high end finish you have to either use one of the new Zeiss ZF lenses or mount a Hassy with an adaptor. Unfortunately they don't have anything that wide but all it means is more shots, but it shouldn't matter since this isn't something that you do normally.
Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
kers
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 786


WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 19, 2009, 04:26:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pixjohn
This is just my first impression. The 14 - 24 is great for outdoor 360 shots, but is just ok for interiors. The 12 mm might be another lens to try, or the fisheye.  When I have a pic ready, I will post it. My back ground is shooting high end projects, this is something a little different.


I just happen to have  made a pano 360 with a nikon d3 and the 14-24mm lens at 14.

you need 6 shots at least and can make a 12000 x4200 pixel perfect pano with it ( or the d700)

I used ptmac software and the pano elements solution by Really right stuff

PK
« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 04:27:35 PM by kers » Logged

Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 20, 2009, 05:33:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kers
I just happen to have  made a pano 360 with a nikon d3 and the 14-24mm lens at 14.

you need 6 shots at least and can make a 12000 x4200 pixel perfect pano with it ( or the d700)

I used ptmac software and the pano elements solution by Really right stuff

PK
Curious to know what "6 shots at least" means in this context. On my D700 @ 14mm I need two rows of 6 shots (@60 deg yaw)+ zenith + nadir(s) to get a full 180 x 360. I suppose that it would work without the zenith shot if the top row were pitched up a bit more. But 6 shots? Please enlighten.
Roy
Logged
pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 673


« Reply #38 on: May 11, 2009, 10:51:48 PM »
ReplyReply

This was my first test at doing a 360

360 Mov

Shot with Nikon D700 + 14 - 24 on a manfrotto 360 pano head.

I used one bounce light and shot 2 rows. The client was very happy and now commissioned 31 more projects.

Since I rented the set up I now need to make a purchase. I was thinking about the nikon 10.5 lens, but  think its a dx lens and not the best solution for the D700? I plan to buy a RRS pano head

I am not sure if the D700 is over kill for this type of project? I need to make a decision asap to get everything by my first shoot date.
Logged
pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 673


« Reply #39 on: August 05, 2009, 01:37:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I got no responses to my test image?

I just purchased a

Nikon D700
RRS Ultimate-Pro Omni-Pivot Package

and still need to see what lens works. I posted a test with the 14-24

sample 360
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad