Nikon 14-24. Unimperssions

EphTwoEight

So after all sorts of rave reviews about this spendy little piece of glass, I'm wondering if its just me, or is it nearly impossible to keep straight lines within it?

I read a lot of comments on how great it is at keeping things straight. But I get really distorted corners, and I try to stand dead center of whatever I'm photographing, and still everything is skiwampus.

Thanks

babowc

An UWA lens usually doesn't keep things straight, but the 14-24 does a damn good job.
AND it's sharp all over, especially for a zoom.

If you're right in front at the subject, don't expect the lines to be straight.

Mind posting you problems (pictures)?
You seem to have many problems with your lenses...

EphTwoEight

Happy with focus now. Camera came back, and seems much improved. Just wonder if it me, and not slowing down, or just that lens. Every neat site is push and shove, then when I get to the front I have to have to wait for some idiot with a camera phone, taking 90 seconds to take one picture.

Yeah I'll post some here soon.

EphTwoEight

A dude around the corner was kind enough to wait. So I hurried, but seemed like I was center of that hall/entrance gate.



This one, starts off straight, then.. ~



Same here. I dont mind the distortion so much, just if it was more even.

rwells

EphTwoEight wrote: »

So after all sorts of rave reviews about this spendy little piece of glass, I'm wondering if its just me, or is it nearly impossible to keep straight lines within it?

I read a lot of comments on how great it is at keeping things straight. But I get really distorted corners, and I try to stand dead center of whatever I'm photographing, and still everything is skiwampus.

Thanks

Remember: You have to have the lens pointed parallel with the ground to keep vertical lines from key-stoning badly.

That's with all lenses (except tilt-shift), especially wide angle lenses!

EphTwoEight

Well, that middle one is pointing straight up. Is that as good as they get?

Qarik

Sorry, you just don't understand something here. You are talking about perspective distortion. This is property of being wide angle and has nothing to do with the property of the lens itself. Straight lines near the edges of the frame will be "bent" but this not a defect..it is the nature of wide angle! It can't be "corrected" by a better lens or more money. You have to be very careful with technique and composition to mimimize it's effects. What you think you are complaining about is distortion caused by lens ie pin cusion or barrrel or combination of both. The 14-24 is very good in both respect and rival Zeiss primes.

I notice you come to these forums and just drop bombs about your equipment on more than a few occasions and if you took some time and effort to understand the equipment you own, then you wouldn't need to do so.

Mitchell

Qarik wrote: »

Sorry, you just don't understand something here. You are talking about perspective distortion. This is property of being wide angle and has nothing to do with the property of the lens itself. Straight lines near the edges of the frame will be "bent" but this not a defect..it is the nature of wide angle! It can't be "corrected" by a better lens or more money. You have to be very careful with technique and composition to mimimize it's effects. What you think you are complaining about is distortion caused by lens ie pin cusion or barrrel or combination of both. The 14-24 is very good in both respect and rival Zeiss primes.

I notice you come to these forums and just drop bombs about your equipment on more than a few occasions and if you took some time and effort to understand the equipment you own, then you wouldn't need to do so.

Agreed. There is one common thread among all of these gripes about his equipment.

Tango

I think you would enjoy a fisheye lens..... I will trade you straight across....

ziggy53

The Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED is highly corrected for "Curvilinear Distortion", specifically "Barrel Distortion", which is typical in an ultra-wide-angle lens. However, it's not perfect in this regard. PhotoZone measured around 4 percent barrel distortion at 14mm and on an FX/FF body (which is still exceptional and exemplary.)

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1

I agree that what these images demonstrate is more of the "Perspective Distortion" one gets from, in this case, improper use of the lens "if" you expect minimal perspective distortion.

(I purposely emphasized that portion as a dramatic precursor to the explanation which follows. )

I often use an "intentional" perspective distortion in order to satisfy other requirements for an image. For instance, in the following image I was forced to use a very wide angle because of my proximity to the church, which was in turn forced by a wish to shoot very close to the building because of a fence I wished to avoid being in the scene.

This how I handled the problem:

Original image:


Snapping a reference line (to define vertical):


Correcting the perspective distortion:


Resulting image after all corrections:

---

Then again, there are times when it's OK to embrace perspective distortion:

ziggy53

EphTwoEight wrote: »

Well, that middle one is pointing straight up. Is that as good as they get?

It's likely that you were not "perfectly" centered, with respect to the ceiling. I think part of what you are seeing is how sensitive the imaging system is to your positioning of the camera/lens.

Part of a (practical) solution is to take several images from slightly different positions, choosing the best image in post.

Of course, you could also go through the process of measuring the building interior, setting up the camera/lens on a tripod, perfectly squaring the system at the building center, then taking the shot. That's pretty much what you "should" do if you are contracted to do a shot like this.

Zerodog

I think the pics you posted look great. On the other hand one of my favorite lenses is the Nikon 10.5 fishy. I think if you want straight lines right out of the camera you should get a tilt shift lens. And with that takes time to set up the shot. Or you will only make things worse.

Joves

EphTwoEight wrote: »

Just wonder if it me, and not slowing down

I have to have to wait for some idiot with a camera phone, taking 90 seconds.

You got it right on the first part. You are not slowing down, which I do not know might seem old fashioned. I am never in a hurry when I am shooting as a general rule, especially with static subjects.

The guy you had to wait for is doing it right. If you had been behind me you would have had to wait about that much, or maybe more.

Photography is easy, great photography is not.

Wayupthere

Great explanation Ziggy. With any new tool you have to push to find the limits, and then use the parts outside the limits to your advantage.
Sooo much easier now than when you had to find all this out with thousands of dollars of film and developing in the trash
You mentioned something about slowing down. That takes resolve and focus. I have shot many "events" That means huge crowds with everybody doing everything all at once . When you see the target your minds eye leads you to the correct spot and then you wait..like a sniper. :rutt
This lens is my next for sure.
Gary

Matthew Saville

Get centered, mind your angles, and listen to these guys. It's not the lens. The 14-24 is one of the best ultra-wides ever made, and with any of the off-the-shelf distortion correction tools such as those in Adobe's Lightroom / ACR, you can have perfectly straight horizons which are very hard to come by. But it doesn't even seem to me that you're concerned about horizon lines, it's the centering and perspective that is wonky.

=Matt=