Some technical junk:
- White Balance: Auto
- ISO: 200
- EXIF information is preserved in the images
- Lens was mounted on Nikon D3s FX Camera and Gitzo tripod
- Focusing was performed through Live-View Contrast Detect. After each successful focus acquisition, focus was switched to manual to prevent camera refocusing
- Mirror Lock-Up mode with Exposure Delay set to “On” and remote cable release to completely eliminate camera shake
- Long exposure NR: Off
- Image Format: RAW & JPEG
- Lightroom settings: Default settings, but exposure had to be slightly adjusted for some images
- Lightroom export: sRGB JPEG Quality 80
- Testing was performed at f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6 and f/8.0 apertures
- Nothing was moved during testing
10) Sharpness Test – Nikon 14-24mm @ 14mm Center Frame
Either hover your mouse or click on each image to see the aperture settings. Top left: f/2.8, Top right: f/4.0, Bottom left: f/5.6, Bottom right: f/8.0.
Do you see a difference between any of the above images? Because I don’t – the center sharpness at 14mm is incredible at all apertures. The corners @ 14mm look identical to 16mm (see below).
11) Sharpness Test – Nikon 14-24mm @ 16mm Center Frame
At 16mm focal length, the situation does not change and center remains incredibly sharp.
12) Sharpness Test – Nikon 14-24mm @ 16mm Corner Frame
This is the most important part of the sharpness test, because you get to witness the incredible corner performance of the 14-24mm f/2.8G lens. I skipped the 14mm corner shots, because they looked identical in terms of sharpness as the 16mm shots. At f/2.8, there is a slight sharpness problem in the extreme corners, getting stellar by f/4.0 and beyond. There is also a visible amount of vignetting in the f/2.8 shot.
13) Sharpness Test – Nikon 14-24mm @ 24mm Center Frame
Once again, the center crop looks extremely good at 24mm for all apertures and the sharpness is simply outstanding.
14) Sharpness Test – Nikon 14-24mm @ 24mm Corner Frame
At 24mm, f/2.8 corners look a little softer than the 16mm corners. The situation gets much better at f/4.0 and superb at f/5.6 and f/8.0 – that’s if I am really picky!
As you can see from the above examples, the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G produces incredibly sharp images at all apertures in the center and almost as good in the corners.
About Nasim Mansurov
Wow, very detailed review Nasim – I can see why people love this lens.
For me, the exposed lens (I’d be terrified to get a scratch on it) and weight were the reason I opted for the more compact 16-35; but it remains a “dream” lens.
Thank you Pasquier! I also consider the 16-35mm to be a more practical lens for every day use, but the 14-24mm is just a killer lens when it comes to sharpness and contrast…never seen anything like this in a zoom lens before.
My pleasure Nasim – it really is an outstanding review – the 14-24mm Nikkor is destined to become a legend – it is sharper than many fixed prime lenses.
Maybe one day….
In the interim I hope Nikon bring out a decent 24-105mm f4.0 AFS VR lens – ideal “tourist” lens for the D700. The 24-70mm is just too short at times.
Best, P :)
Pasquier, I agree, a good 24-105mm is definitely needed – the Canon version is excellent…
Hi, Nasim
I am going to Europe, UK and Italy. For touring and photographing, is 16-35 also more practical than 14-24? I am still using Fuji S5pro(D200)
the other manual focus lens I am going to take with me is ZF28
Thanks,
Nasim, one of the best reviews out there, you did a great job on this article, thanks! I’m now doubly convinced this is my dream architecture lens (since a 14mm tilt/shift doesn’t exist yet!). I’m still saving my pennies… :-)
Thank you for your kind words Aaron :) I’m sure you will love this lens for your architecture needs. The only problem is the expensive filter solution, but might still be worth it for your business…
Great review Nasim..
Thanks!
SM, thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it :)
Спасибо за обзор. Он очень полноценный. А я пока никак не могу привыкнуть к такому широкому углу.
Алексей, спасибо! Да, 16мм уже очень широко…а тут 14 :)
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for the review, after so many other reviews and tests that I’ve seen already, it was obvious to me that you would also be impressed by this lens.
Your examples show pretty good the difference in sharpness between 14-24 and new 16-35 but the last one is still my choice because of the filters. It s a must for my landscape photography.
Alisher, you are most welcome! I’m with you on that – I would also prefer the 16-35mm for my work, because it is a much more practical lens than the 14-24mm. Not being able to use filters is a huge problem for landscape photography and buying expensive filters that occupy so much space is also not ideal for traveling.
Another thing to note, is that at the end of the day, the corners look very good in 16-35mm at f/8.0+, which is what I use 95% of the time…the excellent performance of the 14-24mm at maximum apertures makes it a good candidate for portraiture and other type of photography where the speed is important. For landscapes, the Nikon 16-35mm or my other favorite 24-70mm are much more practical, in my opinion.
Filters are also a must-have for my landscape photography.
I can’t agree with you any more. I was struggling with these two lens but ended up with the idea: no lens is ideal for very situation. Your reviews really help us make wise decisions. Thx.
Hi Nasim,
Many thanks for a great review.
I’m a very experienced photographer (Nikon & Hasselblad have used my stuff for marketing)…but it’s still great to see a well conducted evaluation by a pro photographer when deciding about a new lens purchase.
Largely due to your test, I just bought a 14-24mm. Comparing it with my Nikkor 14mm 2.8 prime, I’m amazed that the 14-24mm is indeed significantly sharper in the corners and renders overall color slightly better!
Cheers from Downunder.
Dr George, I apologize for a late response…my schedule has been hectic lately.
Thank you for your feedback, I am glad that my article helped in your purchasing decision and I am even happier to see that you are loving it :)
Keep in touch and have a wonderful week!
dear sir
Thank you so much for responding to my last questionas I am new to DSLR. My d3000 kit came with a an 18-55 all purpose lens (I call it)today I looked thru a ($249 wal-mart) 55-200lens and it was so dark I could barely see thru it. is this common for this price range lens.? if so, what do you recomend as my first (2nd )lens. your input would so mean alot .I read everything I can that you write. your knowledge and the ability to teach is unsurpassed. thank you in advance. David Mc
What you see it is not what you get! Usually you get better results if you know to work with your camera!
Gabriel, in this case, there was no battery inside the camera :)
David, the reason why it was so dark when you looked through the 55-200mm lens, was because there was no battery on the camera. When Nikon DSLRs have no batteries in them, the viewfinder gets very dim – sort of a warning that the camera has no power.
What type of photography do you do and what exactly are you looking for? I would make recommendations based on your needs…
Thanks for all you provide via your website, Nasim. I would disagree that weight and “lack” of standard filters equal grave weaknesses for this lens. Unless you’re shooting film, the use of filters becoming virtually pointless, except for “protection”. Yes, we have the Lee solution, too, for filtration diehards. Most of us turn to Lightroom for such solutions. Polarizers with super-wide angles usually a bad idea, anyway. On weight: That’s even more subjective.
Perhaps Nikon themselves agree/disagree, and have hence released the 16-35 VR, which “solves” both issues. I can only say that my 14-24 appears – somewhat shockingly – to be the sharpest lens I’ve ever mounted on a dslr, surpassing my 400 2.8, and that’s saying something. The difficulty in assembling such an exotic zoom (apparently) fosters superior quality control. Perhaps fallacy of my induction, but this lens consistently provides the quality its MTF illustrates. Also, it’s one of the best-balancing “heavy” lenses I can recall. Through in the well-behaved distortion, useful 20-35 DX view, lightening-quick af, gorgeous color/contrast, true pro build, and this lens still roars winner.
Hello Nasim,
I am a Nikon enthusiast possessing a D700. I am just an amateur photographer. Wanted to buy a wide angle lens and hence bought the Nikon 14-24mm few days ago. I took a snap on my living room and was pleased with the amount of coverage this lens has at 14mm. However, I observed that the side of the image is elongated. For ex. my wall unit is rectangular in shape but it appears pulled at the wider end and looks more like a parallelogram on the wider end. Is this normal for wide angle lenses or some setting of mine or a defect in the lens ? Please advise. Thanks.
After reading such great reviews I went for the lens and didn’t expect this to happen from it. Would appreciate your reply at the earliest. Its just the 5th day so I am still within the 14 days return policy in case if this lens is defective. Kindly advise. Thank you.
This is normal for an ultrawide rectilinear lens (not a fisheye). I run into it a lot with interior real estate photography. In order not to bow the straight lines, something has to give when you take a normally curved perspective and lay it flat, resulting in a stretched view at the edges of the frame. The wider you go, the more pronounced the effect. You won’t notice it much with nature and outdoor shots unless you have a lot of straight lines right to the edge of the frame (like fences or brick walls), or people in the edges of the frame (not flattering!). Indoors it will be dramatically noticeable. I tend not to go wider than 18mm indoors to cut down the effect a little unless it’s a bare wall or a larger room that I absolutely must be wider to take in. I’m also very careful to include only two walls instead of three (shooting into or out of a corner when possible) to avoid a “tunnel” effect on the room, and I keep the camera perfectly level and usually centered from floor to ceiling to avoid any leaning or twisting of the walls. This won’t remove the effect, but it will look a little more natural to the viewer. Just a few degrees off bubble will create dramatic shifting and tilting, and can be a useful artistic tool under the right circumstances! You can see some photos I took here to see what I mean: http://galleries.aaronpriestphoto.com/Architecture/2010-04-29/
Here’s an interesting discussion on the topic, and a few photos someone took to explain it a bit better:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=26412860&changemode=1
Try using the lens outdoors with some nature and landscape shots, particularly for close subjects like a rock or tree with a dramatic background like a mountain, lake, or clouds. I think you’ll really love your lens once you get used to the crazy field of view and depth of field. Indoors just takes a bit more careful planning. :-)
Hello Aaron,
Thanks for the detailed explanation. I take your advise. Nice to get it from you on this one as you seem to be an experienced interior real estate photographer. I will surely try your suggestion. Will be interesting to check it outdoors shooting some nature shots.
Its a shame I am unable to see your photo gallery right now as my office N/W blocks access to certain sites. However, I will go home and check it out.
Had never used lenses wider than 24mm before this one so am a novice to wide angle photography but then after using D700, in my heart, I knew that Nikon can’t go wrong especially with its professional range of lenses. THANKS a ton for your reply and that too so promptly. Appreciate it. Sincere wishes..
Hi Aaron,
Just checked your photo gallery. Thanks for sharing it. Your pictures are absolutely stunning :) Excellent piece of work :)
The D700 was MADE for an ultrawide lens!!! :-P
Yes completely agree, it being a full frame format camera so no crop factor.
Ah! makes me feel a lot better now with my purchase of this lens, ha ha..thanks a ton for your feedback….Cheers
hi there, hope you are well. i am originally from colorado and live in puerto rico now. i just had to reach out when i saw photos of san juan on your blog. were you just on vacation? or were you working here?
i started photography in november and just jumped in head first, learning everything online and am already doing weddings and quinces. i am researching the wide angle fixed and zoom lenses. already have a 85mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8. but i’d like to have something wider for for working in tight spaces- a lot of houses here are quite small, so it would be for some portrait work by sheer necessity plus it might be helpful for groups or inside of churches. finally, i dream of that wide angle photo that gets “it all in” when i get lucky enough to photograph an event in one of the more panoramic locations here. would be nice to have the opinion of some pros from back home. i’m leaning towards the 24-70 zoom because it’s most flexible for my smaller collection, but do you think it will meet my goals? should i put another lens on my wish list? finally, my camera is d700- could i realistically work with a dx format for backup or am i better off just spending the money on another fx? i’m kind of groaning about shelling out for another body when there are so many other things i want, but i know i need the insurance.
come see me next time you’re in PR!!
Laura, I was on vacation and loved PR! So beautiful there!
As for the lens, I would say the 24-70mm would be a great lens for tighter angles – I love mine and use it more that any other lens I have. You will love it for groups and wide angles. If you are thinking about a backup body, you might want to wait a little till D800 comes out. After FX, any DX camera will look like a downgrade and you won’t get the same field of view on lenses due to crop factor.
thank you for your quick reply, Nasim. Sounds like a good plan!
Hi Nasim,
Will you be writing review for 17-35 f2.8? I’m hoping to get a wide angle lens and considering between 17-35 and 14-24. I read a couple of reviews and know that 17-35 is soft at the edge at 17, however sharp at 19 onwards. I prefer to use polarizer and lee filters (square) for landscape for long exposure. We know 14-24 is a beast for sharpness but I prefer filters and reckon 3 degree difference is not significant (I have yet to try out)? I’m not looking at 16-35, tried and don’t like it. Any opinion?
Dennis
Dennis, don’t buy the 17-35mm f/2.8 – the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR is sharper, as I have demonstrated in my Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR Review. Why didn’t you like the 16-35mm? Perhaps you had a bad sample? If you didn’t like the 16-35mm, you won’t like the 17-35mm either.
The 14-24mm is awesome, but buying a filter kit with filters will be too expensive…
Nasim, I haven’t get the 17-35mm. Yea, I have read your reviews. I once tried the 16-35 but the amount of distortion doesn’t please me. I can learning to get it fixed via post-processing and still learning. I find it cumbersome, maybe I haven’t master it.
I have lee filter foundation kit but not for 14-24. Like you have mentioned, the price for 14-24 filter kit just turn me off. Unreasonable if you ask me. I’m still looking out a wide-angle lens, but not much options. I can’t do what I want for 14-24 regardless the awesome optics.
It is funny… I’ve bought this lens and sold it because I didn’t use it. A couple weeks later, after checking some of my files, I bought it back again. No, I didn’t take any more than a handful of keepers with it, but whenever I take it out I’m amazed at the quality of the files. Color rendition and contrast are unbelievable (I also shoot with the 24-70/70-200/50) and I just can’t believe how colors pop out of the screen and prints. Sadly, though, I’m not an ultra wide angle guy and most of my work is done in the 35-105mm range. Owning this lens is like having U$2k sitting on my cabinet, but those dollars bill shine so bright… I’ll eventually sell it and buy it back again. That is, until my other lenses can match that POP! This lens is really one of a kind.
Luiz, I agree, the 14-24mm is unbelievable. That’s why it is so big and expensive…
Do you guys also own any lenses just because they are oh so fantastic, even though their range is something totally useless for you?
Luiz, I do have a couple of lenses that don’t get used as much and sit on a shelf, but then I remember that I have them and use them again :) Then I say to myself that it is a good thing I kept them!
Hi Nasim,
I am an architecture student in germany, I love photography and I am right now getting into the architecture photography business in order to have a (at least for me :)) pleasant student job. I am still using a d90 and looking to upgrade to a used d700 once the d800 comes out. I bought a used 14-24 some weeks ago and I must say I am very disappointed by the outcome I get. My sample somehow seems to lack the incredible sharpness it is supposed to deliver given its weight and price. Also close focus shots (like flowers etc) seem not so great. I don’t think it’s my sloppy technique since I shot it side by side with my DX AF-S 35 1.8 which delivered much crispier and sharper images in exactly the same location and time. I have also allready used lenses like the AF-S 24-70 2.8 and 24 PC-E on a loaned d700 and always got amazing results.
Is it normal that the 14-24 is outperformed by a 200$ lens? Do you think you coud take a look on two samples I would send you and tell me what you think? Ofcourse the pictures won’t be of borring brick walls, I would send you images of the beautyfull german mountains :)
Anyway thank you very much for your amazing website, it is the most helpfull I got to know so far for lens reviews!
Kind regards
Andreas
This is absolutely NOT normal, not even under extreme circumstances (say, f/2.8 or f/16). Your results should be at least on par with the 24-70 and 24 PC (in fact, my 14-24 files have more punch than the 24-70/70-200 images).
I agree with Luiz, your 14-24mm seems to be damaged. When I compared the 14-24mm sample I was testing, there was no other lens in this range, including prime lenses, that performed as well as the 14-24mm – it is that sharp!
Hello Nasim,
Your reviews and work is just awesome. I’m sorta new to photography (7 months) but I already feel like a strong serious amateur. I have good command on flash and how to use it creatively (thanks to Joe McNally’s books….I read and practice alot). I’ve done 2 small weddings and quinces, family portraits, etc…brings $ for the toys. But my real attraction to photography and passion is no pressure random shooting…..landscapes, street, etc. Photography will always be my serious hobby only. I can’t envision leaving my job for it. Ok I’m rambling…but I have a dilema now on what lens to target next. The 14-24 or the 24-70…I recently bought the 70-200f2.8 VR II…WOW all I can say….I do not own an FX yet. Shooting with a D7K and my work horse and walkaround lens is my 18-200 vr2 dx lens. I also own the 50 mm f1.4G. I’ve saved up for an FX body but the price of D4 just shocks me and Im not really thrilled with 36mp of D800 (that’s a whole new dilema for me). My goal is to own and use all three trinity lens. If you were in my boat, which one of the two would you add next?