Well, TS is specifically asking if the lens is a waste when used on a DX body. Not on the lens on its own only.
Nikon 14-24mm on a DX?
- Thread starter Lingkang
- Start date
Well, TS is specifically asking if the lens is a waste when used on a DX body. Not on the lens on its own only.
Going by that logic, since the 14-24 can be mounted on a DX camera and (sharp) photos can be taken with this combo, it is definitely not a waste.
Even if the lens is not functioning, it can still be used as a paperweight since it is so heavy, so not a waste either
If you look at TS's first statement - he is really into landscape and NOT moving to Fx anytime soon....
Given that, I'd say 14-24 is almost a complete waste for his needs.... Firstly, 21mm just isn't an UWA... EVEN if you are forced to accept the weight and highly reduced image circle (from 14 to 21mm), you'd still be left with VERY little and VERY expensive option for filters... Those of us who shoots landscapes and totally do not use filters should know that is just plain "suicidal", brimming on illogical in terms of this genre of photography.
Given that, I'd say 14-24 is almost a complete waste for his needs.... Firstly, 21mm just isn't an UWA... EVEN if you are forced to accept the weight and highly reduced image circle (from 14 to 21mm), you'd still be left with VERY little and VERY expensive option for filters... Those of us who shoots landscapes and totally do not use filters should know that is just plain "suicidal", brimming on illogical in terms of this genre of photography.
Last edited:
kriegsketten said:
There are always digital filter warriors
But I gave up too and bought a set of square filters
There are always digital filter warriors
But I gave up too and bought a set of square filters
Try exposing the darker lower part of the landscape nicely... with the upper portion super glaring back at you... can save that digitally or not?
Yeah, warriors have suicidal tendencies... :bsmilie:kriegsketten said:Try exposing the darker lower part of the landscape nicely... with the upper portion super glaring back at you... can save that digitally or not?
Can! The trick is the expose at mid tone level. Or simply, find the mid range betw. the brightest and the darkest region in the frame. Then use digital brighten filter and darken filter to brighten the bottom half and darken the top half.
Note: if the difference is more than 4 stops, then my method will not work. Either underexposed cannot recover, or overexposed portion totally or partially blown out le. And also, this is just how I do and I share my experiences, if there's anything wrong, please correct me.
and my answer will still be its not a waste. on its own on a DX crop body, its still a pretty awesome lens.
Going by that logic, since the 14-24 can be mounted on a DX camera and (sharp) photos can be taken with this combo, it is definitely not a waste.
Even if the lens is not functioning, it can still be used as a paperweight since it is so heavy, so not a waste either
and yes, its not a waste. as for the second part of your post, please don't twist my words into something else entirely.
the previous page has images by a D90 with the 14-24. I don't get why an ultra wide lens is a prerequisite for landscapes. I've shot numerous landscapes at 200mm. Even times when I've forgotten my wide angled lens, I've found that 24mm on FX wide enough for most shots.
Like I've mentioned previously, I'll concede that there are better lenses for OP's needs. However, I still strongly maintain that even on a DX crop, the 14-24 is not a waste at all and in the hands of a capable photographer, can make top notch photographs.
Below are two links with numerous photographers who have experience with the 14-24mm on a dx crop body.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=31691607&changemode=1
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?message=31100904&forum=1039
This will be my last post within this thread with regards to this topic. Feel free to PM me if you wish to continue the discussion.
It is precisely the conditions you have described that warrants the need of filtering assistance. The idea is to gain more leverage in the under exposed portion, and not to wholely depend on digital salvation alone. Oh and I'm not saying we can completely do away with digital manipulation. In fact, both digital and non digital complements each other often.
I agree that UWA is not a prerequisite for landscape photos and I've never said so. In fact I've shot a few at 400mm even.
However, since TS is SPECIFICALLY looking for an UWA for LANDSCAPE, he ought to know that 14-24 will not be wide enough as compared to his 12-24 (which he is already accustomed to) - not by a mere 2mm, but 3mm actually (from 18mm to 21mm). For an UWA, 1mm discrepancy is actually a world of difference. Furthermore, you're going to pay a princely sum (though not as high as a new piece), and to be burdened by weight, AND very limited and pricely filter support...
Frankly, I'm not even sure how many on Fx that love shooting landscapes would even consider 14-24 for Ultra wideness, given that they must consider the filter options. Plus for those who are meticulous on keeping their equipments well protected, there is no way you can fit a clear protector... (again I stress that these are meant for those who insists on protecting the front element during shoots).
As for the landscape shot with D90. Firstly, why the first statement is a lament hinting that it isn't wide enough?
Since TS will be on Dx on a long time, a versatile lens (though not the zoom length) would be Tokina 11-16 given that it is also a good low light lens like the 14-24. Lighter and way much cheaper!
However, since TS is SPECIFICALLY looking for an UWA for LANDSCAPE, he ought to know that 14-24 will not be wide enough as compared to his 12-24 (which he is already accustomed to) - not by a mere 2mm, but 3mm actually (from 18mm to 21mm). For an UWA, 1mm discrepancy is actually a world of difference. Furthermore, you're going to pay a princely sum (though not as high as a new piece), and to be burdened by weight, AND very limited and pricely filter support...
Frankly, I'm not even sure how many on Fx that love shooting landscapes would even consider 14-24 for Ultra wideness, given that they must consider the filter options. Plus for those who are meticulous on keeping their equipments well protected, there is no way you can fit a clear protector... (again I stress that these are meant for those who insists on protecting the front element during shoots).
As for the landscape shot with D90. Firstly, why the first statement is a lament hinting that it isn't wide enough?
Since TS will be on Dx on a long time, a versatile lens (though not the zoom length) would be Tokina 11-16 given that it is also a good low light lens like the 14-24. Lighter and way much cheaper!
Last edited:
The 14-24 shooting at its widest.
On a crop body like the D90 it has a 90° field of view while on a full frame body it is 114°
comparing with the 10-24 lens that has a maximum field of view at 109°.
A difference of 19° can mean a lot in the landscape shooting between these 2 lenses. The choice of composition and whether you can "shoe horn" every building into a single photo nicely.
There is nothing wrong getting the 14-24 to use on the D90 but don't you think it is kinda overkill?
On a crop body like the D90 it has a 90° field of view while on a full frame body it is 114°
comparing with the 10-24 lens that has a maximum field of view at 109°.
A difference of 19° can mean a lot in the landscape shooting between these 2 lenses. The choice of composition and whether you can "shoe horn" every building into a single photo nicely.
There is nothing wrong getting the 14-24 to use on the D90 but don't you think it is kinda overkill?
I didn't say there are no filter options... just VERY limited and expensive. But what about glass protector, if you wish to install one during shoot? Buy the SW150 and put a 150x150 clear glass in front of it?
Last edited:
Imho, what camera ts using? If not using fx and no plans for fx, yyes tokina 11-16 f2.8 probably make a much more sensible choice. Else needtheless to mention, go for nikkor 14-24mm. In anyway, imho, fx seem to fetch higher resale value and demand
kriegsketten said:
My advice is only a couple hundreds saving and for those who prefers lesser hassle. Being a filter user myself, I totally agree with you. But learning digital techniques helps me beautify some old shots.
I'd say this is an exotic lens. Good once a while but not for everyday use. I'd hesitate to buy for even FX. You give up a lot of things like filters, weight, price for extreme sharpness which most hobbyist don't need. Architecture photography may benefit from it. I don't trying the lens though
strikeback4 said:
Personally, I feel 10-24mm is a bit overpriced compared to third party UWA lenses. I know many would not agree with me, but judging by the image output, build and practicality, I could find a reason to pay additional 50~100% extra for this lens...
but dun forget tokina 11 - 16 = 16.5 - 24
while nikon 10 - 24 = 15 - 36
or else u may also consider sigma 10 - 22?
while nikon 10 - 24 = 15 - 36
or else u may also consider sigma 10 - 22?
Similar threads
