Nikon 14-24 - Bad Images

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by frederick, Apr 4, 2008.

  1. frederick

    frederick Guest

    How come, with arguably the best ultra-wide lens ever made (zoom or
    prime, any format), nearly all of the "sample photos" posted in forums
    are total schlock?
    Are no-hopers lining up to buy this fantastic thing for bragging rights?
    It seems much worse than when the Nikkor 12-24 and third-party uwa zoom
    lenses made UWA digital shooting possible for po' folks like me - at
    least then a reasonable proportion of samples posted were pretty good
    aesthetically.
    What's happened? I could be just getting much more critical, but I
    don't think that's it.
    Yeah - someone will post a link to some *great* shots taken with this
    lens - they certainly exist and I've seen some beauties. It's the
    dropping "average" that seems to be the problem.
     
    frederick, Apr 4, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements



  2. Most photographers ARE average!
     
    Mike Hamilton, Apr 4, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. frederick

    Paul Furman Guest

    Some more shots with that lens:
    http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/af_s_14_24_28g_ed
    Random Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Samples from 479 available Photos
    OK most are as you describe:
    http://www.pbase.com/image/92961525

    here's a few with some spark though:
    flare:
    http://www.pbase.com/image/93893687
    depth of field:
    http://www.pbase.com/image/93432098
    not depth of field:
    http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/image/91443035

    This shows how it works trying to use such a wide angle to document a town:
    http://www.pbase.com/dierk/los_llanos
    -too many to sort out but probably some good stuff.
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 4, 2008
    #3
  4. Let's face it:
    those water reflection artifacts in the foreground of
    D3A_4710_06_07_08_09_tonemappedCapitol1.jpg
    are HORRID.

    It looks like someone put a match to a film slide and burned holes
    through it.

    Is that your equipment? Or the photographer? Or both? Or
    post-processing? Whatever it is, lose it.

    Lg
     
    Lawrence Glickman, Apr 4, 2008
    #4
  5. WOW! Seems like pbase is loaded with a lot of people that don't know how to
    use a lens/camera. I can only hope they quickly get disgusted with the
    14-24/2.8 and start listing them on eBay for insanely low prices.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 4, 2008
    #5
  6. We've discussed this before. You're forgetting most of the pictures you see
    are from diehard Canon shooters that just switched to Nikon. Nikon has
    incorporated a "Canon Intermediate" mode into all their new dLRs that allow
    them to make the transition from Canon to Nikon as smoothly as possible
    without the trauma of sensory overload caused by looking at crisp and clear
    images. When the Canon shooter's mind gets acclimated to Nikon's incredible
    images they can switch this feature off and start enjoying razor sharp
    distortion free images that don't have that "plastic" look.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 4, 2008
    #6
  7. frederick

    C J Campbell Guest

    Most of the bad shots seem to lack a foreground element, or they are
    simply devoid of an interesting subject, or they are shot in bad light,
    or they try to make the lens shoot a wide landscape with a mountain in
    the background and the mountain looks like a pimple or the sun looks
    like a pinhole.

    I have believed for a long time that snapshooters do not really need a
    wide angle lens. The wide angle lens encourages snapshooters to make
    the same mistakes they made when snapshooters ran around with Kodak
    Brownies and Instamatics -- a complete inability to choose a subject
    because of an overwhelming desire to include everything, combined with
    a complete lack of understanding of perspective.
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 4, 2008
    #7
  8. frederick

    Tony Polson Guest


    Eloquently - and accurately - put. Thank you.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 4, 2008
    #8
  9. frederick

    Steve Guest

    I've used my wide angle lens to take "snapshots" when the subject was
    too big to fit in otherwise. Even though the example shots below
    aren't particularly creative, they are "snapshots" that illustrate
    what I mean. These are shots where my movement was constricted (i.e.,
    I couldn't back up any further) but still wanted to get most of the
    subject in the frame. Here's some shots at 12mm (the limit) where it
    would have been nice to be able to go even wider because I just
    couldn't quite get it all in:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293875266/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293088303/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293873146/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293887000/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293888102/sizes/o/

    I never would have been able to get snapshots of those subjects
    without a wide angle lens.

    But then here's a couple at 24mm (the other limit) with the same lens:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293878214/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293093065/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293103771/sizes/o/

    And a some "in betweens" with the same wide angle zoom lens:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293090441/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293873568/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293092273/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293884938/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293100495/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2293885668/sizes/o/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sss_udvar_hazy/2387604882/sizes/o/

    There's plenty more "snapshots" with that lens on that flickr page.
    Sure, none of them will make any "best of" pages for the Nikon 12-24mm
    DX zoom lens. But then, I wouldn't have been able to capture the
    essence of the subjects without a wide angle.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Apr 4, 2008
    #9
  10. frederick

    Woollyzone Guest

    You don't half post some utter shite. I vaguely remember you contributing
    something semi-worthwhile once... what went wrong?
     
    Woollyzone, Apr 4, 2008
    #10
  11. You are, literally. Nikon isn't.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 4, 2008
    #11
  12. frederick

    Pboud Guest

    Actually, Nikon is an *outstanding* name in photography, both for
    quality and reliability. So's Canon, of course, but this seems to be
    something the holy war can't seem to accept as a reasonable statement.

    :)

    P.
     
    Pboud, Apr 4, 2008
    #12
  13. frederick

    RichA Guest

    Because most photographers have no eye. The dog, the kid, a flower, a
    "street scene."
    Ho f------ hum.
     
    RichA, Apr 4, 2008
    #13
  14. frederick

    Alienjones Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    C J Campbell wrote:
    | On 2008-04-03 18:21:09 -0700, frederick <> said:
    |
    |> How come, with arguably the best ultra-wide lens ever made (zoom or
    |> prime, any format), nearly all of the "sample photos" posted in forums
    |> are total schlock?
    |> Are no-hopers lining up to buy this fantastic thing for bragging rights?
    |> It seems much worse than when the Nikkor 12-24 and third-party uwa
    |> zoom lenses made UWA digital shooting possible for po' folks like me -
    |> at least then a reasonable proportion of samples posted were pretty
    |> good aesthetically.
    |> What's happened? I could be just getting much more critical, but I
    |> don't think that's it.
    |> Yeah - someone will post a link to some *great* shots taken with this
    |> lens - they certainly exist and I've seen some beauties. It's the
    |> dropping "average" that seems to be the problem.
    |
    | Most of the bad shots seem to lack a foreground element, or they are
    | simply devoid of an interesting subject, or they are shot in bad light,
    | or they try to make the lens shoot a wide landscape with a mountain in
    | the background and the mountain looks like a pimple or the sun looks
    | like a pinhole.
    |
    | I have believed for a long time that snapshooters do not really need a
    | wide angle lens. The wide angle lens encourages snapshooters to make the
    | same mistakes they made when snapshooters ran around with Kodak Brownies
    | and Instamatics -- a complete inability to choose a subject because of
    | an overwhelming desire to include everything, combined with a complete
    | lack of understanding of perspective.
    |

    A curious by-product of using wide angle lenses is the magnification of
    poor composition.

    - --

    from Douglas,
    If my PGP key is missing, the
    post is a forgery. Ignore it.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)

    iD8DBQFH9o7ehuxzk5D6V14RAiSSAJ9G0H6JK77AcvXC2UNE+DW20XEp3wCfc5iq
    vjxdW1JPe/N07WKAPS98b2c=
    =Stas
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Alienjones, Apr 4, 2008
    #14
  15. frederick

    frederick Guest

    Yes. I agree with that generally. My opinion is that the very best
    (Ultra) wide angle images have relatively simple composition - they have
    a very "uncluttered" look, but perhaps still "thirds" composition,
    sometime not.
    That's not easy when the lens "takes in" so much. I think that explains
    something else about the lens. There was a lot of bleating in forums
    about the lack of f2.8 UWA zooms for APS-c. Now there is a really good
    one for full-frame (and Tokina have one even for crop-sensor), and a lot
    of poor photographers have gone out and bought the nikkor. They didn't
    understand that while f2.8 might have some good advantages, subject
    isolation at ~15mm by using wide apertures for shallow DOF really
    doesn't work compositionally. At best they end up with a photo that
    looks like of a nice piece of salami on a dropped pizza - but the piece
    of salami has to be truly outstanding for the photo to work. There's
    probably also a tendency for these "photographers" to want to include
    detail on the edges of deep DOF shots, just to show how good the edge
    performance of the lens is. I don't think my observation about falling
    average standards of composition, despite the best equipment ever now
    being available is coincidence.
    As Rita said:
    "WOW! Seems like pbase is loaded with a lot of people that don't know
    how to use a lens/camera. I can only hope they quickly get disgusted
    with the 14-24/2.8 and start listing them on eBay for insanely low prices."
    I hope so too, but I think unfortunately that there are plenty of
    photographers who make good images with much lesser equipment, who could
    use a 14-24 properly, and would love the opportunity to upgrade at less
    than the new price, that demand for any used 14-24 will keep prices
    quite high for a long time yet.
     
    frederick, Apr 4, 2008
    #15
  16. frederick

    C J Campbell Guest

    Well, I got a chance to use the 14-24 at WPPI. It is not that
    impressive on a D300, of course. But I also tried it out on a D3
    (though I am so physically weak these days that I can barely lift the
    thing). This is a good lens, reasonably balanced enough so that even I
    could probably handle it. And you gotta love the view through that D3
    viewfinder...

    Speaking of the 12-24mm lens, I have always rather liked this picture:

    http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/photo866091.htm
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 5, 2008
    #16
  17. How are you managing with the 400/2.8? As for the 14-24/2.8 on the D300, it
    probably performs about the same as the 17-35/2.8 on DX, not that impressive
    field of view, but still able to produce awesome images. Just another
    reason not to buy DX lenses.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 5, 2008
    #17
  18. frederick

    Tony Polson Guest


    Beautiful composition, perfectly suits an ultra-wide.

    Also perfectly illustrates your point.
     
    Tony Polson, Apr 5, 2008
    #18
  19. frederick

    Steve Guest

    Steve, Apr 5, 2008
    #19
  20. And in addition, Nikon is credible.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Apr 5, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.