Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Thanks!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Found this comparison. 24/20 wouldn't warrant me getting another lens.
Plus, no matter how wide, it could almost always be a scosh wider.....

https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/20mm-vs-24mm-vs-28mm-vs-35mm.jpg

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I have the 14-24 and the 24-70. I consider the 14-24 a good lens but you're right. It's bulky. I don't mind the looks, but the bulk and the limited need for it pretty much keep it out of my bag.

As far as landscapes are concerned, 24 works for me most of the time. When it doesn't and the foot zoom is not an option, I stitch. Landscapes are static so I don't have any problems doing that.

I have done stitching even when I am trying to capture a large active group inside a building where I can't back through a wall. Active groups are a challenge because stitching sometimes produces ghosts because of people who moved between frames. For that reason I generally do 3-4 shot series and try to pick the one that works best. Sometimes when the ghosts are too persistent, I can do some manual editing in Photoshop to remove them. I use Photoshop to do the stitching because then I have access to the individual frames making up the panorama and I can edit the masks to remove the ghosts.

As far as distortion is concerned, the 14-24 does quite well in my opinion although there's a slight barrel distortion but LR can mitigate with a lens profile. But the lens doesn't do anything with perspective distortion when you're too close to someone.

User ID

Can never go wrong with a 20/2.8.
They should be issued to everyrone
at birth. That would eliminate huge
amounts of pointless speculation.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I like the idea of the Sigma 20 or 24mm f1.4's PRIME lenses for serious work - but the 20 is difficult to use with filters. The Nikon 20 is pretty good too.
.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I have both the 14-24mm f2.8 and an older 16-35mm variable aperture zoom. I've also looked at others, and I have at least a couple of friends who use the new 10-20mm zoom on their DX cameras. Here are some comments from my experience:

--I bought my 14-24 with specific applications in mind. Learned to use it and do so quite often. It is a great lens.
--There is a significant difference in the field of view at 14mm vs. 16mm. Whether that difference matters, you have to decide, but it is real.
--The biggest difference between the 14-24 and every every other super wide angle I have used is in the corners...sharpness, distortion, and vignetting.
--I have never used or felt the need for a filter of any kind on any super wide angle lens.
--Despite using my 14-24mm lens often, I rarely use it for general landscapes. Features get too small too quickly to be interesting.
--I generally find stitched panoramas more successful for vistas that require a wide field of view than a super wide angle lens.
--I do use my 14-24mm zoom for landscapes with objects of interest in the foreground or near midground.

I suggest not buying any super wide angle lens until you have identified specifically how you are going to use it and how you can get fairly decent results. Rent first. There are tons of these lenses of all descriptions available for sale used on multiple sites. Most from people who didn't think it all the way through first.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Learn how to do stitched panoramas. I have a 14-24 that I rarely use. I won't give it up because when I need 14mm there is no substitute. But that only happens 2-3 times a year.

Here are some pano examples when I needed wider than what I had in my bag, or was going after something else.

As you can see, there is no reason to buy anything wider than a 24 for landscape. You just have to consider panoramas. You don't even need a tripod to shoot them, unless the shutter speeds are low.

24mm, three panels (24-70)

(Download)

60mm, on DX, three panels (18-200)

(Download)

80mm on FX, 5 panels (80-200)

(Download)

85mm on FX, 2x7 dual row pano 14 panels in all

(Download)

45mm FX, 5 panels

(Download)

45mm FX, 2 panels

(Download)

100mm on FX, 6 panels (100-300)

(Download)

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

One advantage of stitching is that you can generate a higher resolution image. Since you use several frames, you're not packing all the image into one. The final result will have significantly more pixels.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Exactly!

But for me it's not about more pixels as much as it is avoiding weird distortion - volume anamorphosis - that stretches round objects into egg shapes.

Golden Rule Loc: Washington State

Wow! Okay, I guess I have new research material about stitching panos. I've taken one pano of the Palace of Fine Arts Building in San Francisco at twilight. But your shots are superb!

Cmbtvet Loc: Elmira, NY

Beautiful images

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks!

Just don't do what many others do and shoot in landscape orientation. All of my panos are done with the camera in portrait orientation.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

For landscapes I use the Nikon 16-35 f4 because I have found it as sharp as my 14-24 without the need to add an expensive filter kit. I also use NISI filters and after using the 16-35 I sold my 14-24.
I also own the Nikon 24-120 and also use it for landscapes because both lenses share the same filter size.
Below is a sample of the 16-35 on my D850 of a water fall in Vermont. I have found that the zoom allows me more options for composition once I set up my tripod for long exposures.

queencitysanta Loc: Charlotte, North Carolina

I have a 20-35 2.8 Nikon that does very well for me.