Jump to content

The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.


Knuckledragger

Recommended Posts

Neat.  What about something a little wider?

 

I use my 24mm prime a ZILION times more than I use the 14. Shooting the 14mm lens is hard. 

 

On that note, any time (except for the weekend of June22) you want to borrow my Rokinon 14mm for a week or so you are welcome to it.

Edited by nikongod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice shots, everyone.  Jeff, you are a fisheye animal.

 

Jon, tree looks great - hardly any flare at all.

 

Amos, grats on the D800, 14-24 and 28-300 - there's nothing you're not ready for with that combo.  You are keeping the 14-24, right?

 

The 14-24 is a loaner for a couple of months as it has been sitting unused and I'll be travelling. The 28-300 is a lazy choice, replacing the 18-200 "I can just grab the camera and take a photo" lens. I'll deifinitely get a wider prime once my wallet has recovered.

 

I use my 24mm prime a ZILION times more than I use the 14. Shooting the 14mm lens is hard. 

 

Being realistic, while it is possible to do crazy photos in impossible places, I'm more inclined to actually buy a 20 or 24mm prime (but they were all sold out here when I wanted one).  In the two pairs of similar shots in my last post, one was taken at 14mm and the other at 24mm. It seems to me there are only a few of situations where one could actually use it at 14mm when 24mm wouldn't work, such as grabbing the entire view of a room from one corner (especially in Japan where rooms are much smaller than in the US or Aus), events where you don't want to ask people to get out of the way when shooting stuff, or an entire object, such as a building -- basically where you can't step back at all easily and fudging it with a panorama series of shots is also hard or impossible. 

 

A prime is also a hell of a lot lighter than this crazy beast. The full kit with flash is unpleasantly heavy.  But heck it's fun! To me, the distortion with the 14-24 is often subtle enough it doesn't stand out immediately (though only in landscape, not portrait), instead giving depth to the picture, without bending everything. I like that. 

Edited by Currawong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ari, what do you find so hard about the 14?

 

EDIT: and many thanks for the offer.

 

In one sentence:

Unless you are very careful you wind up with a photo of "lots of nothing."

For example: half of the photo is a pretty uniformly bland sky or similarly uninteresting fore-ground. A whole lot of who cares with your subject way off in the distance. 

 

After that crop to what you would have gotten with a 20-24ish lens. So why not have moar megapixels, less weight, and moar-good-optics and just shoot the 20 or 24?

 

The really wide FOV makes it a bit harder than normal to keep crap from casually creeping into the corners/edges of the image but this usually manageable. 

 

The DOF is always "whoa a lot" so you can not rely on the background going out of focus to force attention back into your subject. 

 

These characteristics/problems/challenges are still there with the 20 or even 24, they are just not as difficult to deal with. 

 

When you shoot the 14mm lens "right" it is amazing. It does really well in confined spaces (Cubicles or other very small rooms, closets, cars, etc) or when you are outside just remember to fill the frame with your subject* which usually requires getting VERY close. In crowded cities this is actually a good thing - by the time you are far enough from the bull on wallstreet to get it all in with a 28mm a tourist grabs its balls... The weird perspective shifting the lens does is also a cool thing in the city. Making people look larger than buildings and whatnot. 

 

If you have not read it, read the Ken Rockwell article on ultrawide angle lenses. Take it with a pinch of salt, 'cause he is Ken Rockwell, but it is one of very few articles on how to shoot ultrawides. 

 

*yes, photography 101, I just find I need to make a very conscious effort of it with this lens. 

Edited by nikongod
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, seconded, thanks Ari. I need to re-read that article. It was interesting getting back home, looking at the shots and finding out what was bad as much as what was good. 

 

Edit: Re-read it. Now I've made the mistakes it makes much more sense than it did the first time. 

Edited by Currawong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will only give focus confirmation if those lenses happen to have the chip. That is not standard on these lenses they are additional price add ons. I see nothing on the Nikon lenses that say they have the chip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taken from the description for Nikon 35.

"Rokinon has also added a focusing scale to this lens which will help the user focus more accurately. The lens is available in the following mounts: Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax & Olympus 4/3. This version also features a built-in focus confirm chip for auto aperture and auto exposure."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.