Thoughts on the 14-24S?

[Palouse]

I'd send it back for a new one.

 

[Valret]

^ I’m of the same opinion if you bothers you that much but pixel peeping into the corners isn’t a healthy pastime.

 

[ahinesdesign]

^ I’m of the same opinion if you bothers you that much but pixel peeping into the corners isn’t a healthy pastime.

Pixel peeping has never done me any favors...

When spending so much on a lens as hyped as the 14-24 S it stings a little when it seems to fall short. As Roger Cicala says, “unreasonable expectations are a down payment on disappointment.” I learned that the hard way over the years...

 

[Valret]

Trust me I have been there and done that many a time myself.

 

[acnomad]

Anyone using this lens?
I purchased one yesterday and am not sure what to think yet. Corner sharpness seems unimpressive and generally not even as good as the 14-30.

I am very satisfied with mine. After shooting with it for about four months, I sold my 14-24mm f/2.8G. Some sample images are in this thread:

https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/nikon-z-14-24-f-2-8-s.325732/

 

[Pa]

BTW, if I take a brick wall shot, I do not see this problem, so yes it does have something to do with foreground which is closer to the frame than the background

The foreground (in post #10) is out of the frame of sharpest focus and shouldn't be expected to be sharp. The field curvature just accentuates this.

I don't think you've tested it adequately.

 

[Palouse]

If you haven't already done so, check out this: https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/nikon-z-14-24-f-2-8-s.325732/

 

[jay968]

The foreground (in post #10) is out of the frame of sharpest focus and shouldn't be expected to be sharp. The field curvature just accentuates this.

I don't think you've tested it adequately.

Yes I realize this.

So what you are saying is that since the flowerbed isn't sharp to begin with, the field curvature on top of that is just making it look worse?

I actually HAVE tested by shooting only a flat surface and looking at both the center and the edges. The results are pretty good.

What I am still not understanding is why a $2400 lens behaves like this when one half its price (the 14-30) doesn't, or at least deals with it much better. Is the extra glass in the 2.8 lens contributing to making this a difficult task for a lens?

 

[Palouse]

Yes I realize this.

So what you are saying is that since the flowerbed isn't sharp to begin with, the field curvature on top of that is just making it look worse?

I actually HAVE tested by shooting only a flat surface and looking at both the center and the edges. The results are pretty good.

What I am still not understanding is why a $2400 lens behaves like this when one half its price (the 14-30) doesn't, or at least deals with it much better. Is the extra glass in the 2.8 lens contributing to making this a difficult task for a lens?

Have you looked at the link I shared? Above . . .

 

[jay968]

If you haven't already done so, check out this: https://www.nikoncafe.com/threads/nikon-z-14-24-f-2-8-s.325732/

Yes I have checked this thread out but most of the corners in these photos are either very dark, or water and therefore difficult to evaluate. Plus, I cannot see the EXIF info, so I don't know what apertures were used. I have been seeing that using at least F8 or F11 does a good job at cleaning the smearing up.

 

[jay968]

I'd really appreciate it if someone who owns this lens can do a very simple test. Just point the lens out towards a building or something with a good deal of foreground between you and the building. Set the focal length anywhere below 20mm and set the aperture to f5.6 or wider. Bring the JPG up on your computer screen and enlarge the image between about 3x and 5x, then look at the corners.

Yes I know I am pixel peeping a bit too much, but I just wonder if what I am seeing is normal for this lens or do I have a defective one.

 

[Butlerkid]

It is possible that the lens is de-centered. I'd return it for another copy and see how the new one performs.........

 

[acnomad]

I did a quick backyard series of test images. Two scenes at three aperture settings. Apologies to all for exceeding the normal upload limit...

First Scene. Focus target is the tree in the center, which was approximately five feet away. The grass at the bottom of the frame was approximately 2 feet away.

1. f/2.8 (entire frame)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

1a. f/2.8 (100% crop of lower left corner)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

2. f/5.6

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

2a. f/5.6 100% crop

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

3. f/11

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

3a. f/11 100%

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Second Scene. Focus target is the orchid at top left, located on a plane approximately 18 inches in front of the camera. Corner crops are of the top right corner.

4. f/2.8

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

4a f/2.8 100%

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

5. f/5.6

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

5a f/5.6 100% crop

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

6. f/11

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

6a. f/11 100%

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[jay968]

Thank you so much Andy. It's a little hard to tell how well the lower center is doing in the first scene due to the shadows, but the corners seem to be exactly what I am experiencing. They sharpen up quite a bit by F11.
Have you noticed this before, and are you ok with this performance?

Here is a shot straight out of the camera that I just shot at F10. Note the wall in the lower left corner is still a little blurry but not bad at all. It's also consistent with the rest of the wall at that edge (in other words, the corner is no worse than the entire edge) which seems to be falling just outside of the depth-of-field.

View attachment 1682150 at F10.

 

[acnomad]

They sharpen up quite a bit by F11.
Have you noticed this before, and are you ok with this performance?

Yes, I've noticed it, and I am satisfied. I have never used the 14-30mm f/4S, though, and I know that is a very well-regarded lens.

Perhaps I am underthinking all of this. That is uncharacteristic, as I'm usually at the other end of the spectrum, well into the "paralysis by analysis" region. But when the 14-24mm f/2.8S was announced, I held off buying the 14-30 and pre-ordered the faster lens exercising a NPS priority delivery request. I had my copy in hand before the first review was published and started enjoying the results right away. I quickly determined that it is equal to or better than the G version, both optically and user-friendliness (lighter weight, smaller size, hood and filter acceptance) - so I was and continue to be very happy with it. I sold my copy of the G and won't be giving it a second thought.

It's also consistent with the rest of the wall at that edge which seems to be falling just outside the depth-of-field.

As you noted, the issue is not present when shooting a brick wall - only when there are OOF foreground elements. For me, this seems perfectly reasonable. Even if it were to be shown that the 14-30mm f/4S shot wide open is optically better than the 14-24mm f/2.8S stopped down to f/4, I would not regret my choice to wait for and pay a premium for the faster glass, because I do find f/2.8 valuable in my use case. And, of course, it still stops down to f/11 and sharpens up the entire frame when I need that kind of performance.

 

[jay968]

Thanks for the comments. I did try the 14-30 when it first came out. I probably had one of the very first ones.
I never quite bonded with it. It was reasonably sharp, had well behaved corners, but at least my copy was not at all sharp at 14mm, and the overall rendering was kind've lacking in contrast and vibrance, unlike the 24-70 F4 which I think is an incredible lens especially for its price in the kit.

The 14-24 is a wonderful lens to handle. Compared to the G version it is very light, easy to carry and easy to fit into a camera bag. I think that as long as I can live with shooting at F8 or F11 when doing things such as landscapes (which I should do anyway), I will be ok with it. I seriously doubt at this point that I have a bad copy, especially now that I've seen your samples. Thanks again.

 

[jay968]

After doing some more shooting, I have come to the realization that if I stop down to at least F8 and manually focus a bit closer to the foreground, I can come up with superbly sharp images including the corners.

However, I did a quick test shooting all 4 corners at 20mm, F4, and enlarging 100%. I manually focused on the house with it in the center of the frame, then put the house into the corners without refocusing.
Here are two of those shots, first the lower left corner, then the lower right. The top corners look very much like the lower right one.
Since the lens is only 3 days old, I do have the opportunity to exchange it. To my eyes, the lower right shot appears a bit sharper. The 2 top corner shots look identical in sharpness to the lower right.

Am I being too critical and should I just live with this lens or should I take advantage of being able to do the exchange. My fear is that another one may be no better and possibly even worse.

Lower left corner 20mm F4

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Lower right corner 20mm F4

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[acnomad]

Am I being too critical and should I just live with this lens or should I take advantage of being able to do the exchange. My fear is that another one may be no better and possibly even worse.

I don't think you are being to critical - that's your prerogative as the buyer. But I wonder: if one tested the 14-24mm f/2.8G with such rigor, would the results be the same, better or worse?

 

[jay968]

My wife owns the 14-24G and a D850. I may at some point do the test with that combo just to satisfy my (and your) curiosity. Using that lens with the FTZ adapter though is not an option for me. The G version is just too bulky and heavy for me and that adapter makes for an even bigger, heavier lens.

 

[acnomad]

My wife owns the 14-24G and a D850. I may at some point do the test with that combo just to satisfy my (and your) curiosity. Using that lens with the FTZ adapter though is not an option for me. The G version is just too bulky and heavy for me and that adapter makes for an even bigger, heavier lens.

During the time I had both, my testing was not rigorous - just enough to convince myself that the S was optically equivalent or better. Like you, I am drawn to the smaller form factor. FWIW one optical quality that the S improves over the G is coma, which is quite noticeable in night sky images.