I have been getting several problems...never thought to have them sent to repair but wish I had because the warranty just ran out. Everyone told me my technique must be bad but then I tested a pro-quality 70-200 and images were not focused as they were in the viewfinder. 20 years of experience sports and other, and this is the results upon experimentation: Images are totally crisp, although rotated, when I put my old film lenses on the camera...however I must alter the focus slightly blurry to get them crisp in the recording. No matter which lens new or old, images are rotated slightly. I thought the distance to sensor had slightly wrong distance to sensor, which would make autofocus impossible and manual focus would require my compensating. Hard to explain to a client in the moment that I have to re-do shots! I didn't realize the gravity of the situation for a while. Now I'm finding other people having "alignment" issues...otherwise a great camera but needs repair to this quality control or design issue, or the garbage can. Honestly, I've been using this camera body for a year and I don't think it was ever accurate, now that I've been testing other brands & models to replace it with.

Suan said:
I have my d5100 that before this which function normally . Out of sudden, the images that I viewed in the viewfinder were not same as what I get after releasing my shutter..the images I got were all moved up lots, I mean its degree have been tilted up...what actually happen? Must send for repair? I am very annoying with this trouble which make me view Live...
.

HI; problem occurs with any lens used.

@dormant....Thanks, that was a nice review. And the Nikkor 24mm f/3.5 fouls on the body of any of the non pro body Nikons as well. And, as you pointed out, combining tilt and shift can get to no-man's land in a hurry. These PC lenses are a lot of fun, however and can be quite useful in tight situations where to do all the corrections in post is simply not possible.

Thanks for sharing your experience...

Thanks--that's brilliant.

I also enjoyed the article you had printed in When Saturday Comes on your site. As a Baggies supporter, the Roy Hodgson photoshops had different meaning entirely. (Ah well. Saturday's coming.)

At last, I'm playing with my Arax T&S. My conclusion is that it's a fun thing to waste some money on. If you need it for work, buy a Nikkor instead.

My full thoughts are here. I will add more images when I get some time. (I have another job, you know!)

Hi there,

Interesting issue. Have you tried to examine it with other nikon lenses? Is it the kit lens that you use?

You took the protective screw in front lens off those super telephotos didn't you... ;)

rortmanns said:
LOL, now if only it had windscreen wiper for the bulbous element out front. It's pretty useless in the rain, I won't take mine out in rain because I wouldn't want to clean the front element. It's even useless at the beach etc, anywhere with spray really.

I use mine near water frequently with no problem. Then again I use the underside of my shirt to clean my lens... Cleaning the front element is nothing, try a 300mm f/2.8 or a 600mm f/4.... That is a hassle to clean!

Gabbb said:
I wonder about the differences in weather sealing. I used the 16-35 in light rain already, I'm just curious, if the 14-24 is better in this aspect..

LOL, now if only it had windscreen wiper for the bulbous element out front. It's pretty useless in the rain, I won't take mine out in rain because I wouldn't want to clean the front element. It's even useless at the beach etc, anywhere with spray really.

Fargo911 said:
For those people that mentioned using the 24 or 45 pc-e lenses, do you think they are worth it? What percentage of your shots would you say you take with it? I have been lusting for the 24 pc-e, but it is hard to justify the price if I am only going to use it for a small percentage of shots. I do shoot mostly landscape and have been using the 16-35, and can think of a couple of times that I would have liked the tilt ability.

I do mainly landscape, if I can shoot it with the 24TS I do. The lens is brilliant, tilt lets you get everything in focus most of the time and shift gives you brilliant panos without the annoying sharpness loss when usually stitching. I will get the 45 TS soon, I like to shoot landscapes with standard perspective. I also have the 14-24 and I only use that in very tight spots eg some waterfalls. I often don't carry the 14-24 coz it weighs a ton and it's very special purpose for landscape. I will buy the 16-35 before my next major photo trip because I want 16mm and be able to use ND, CPL and grad filters.

If I could only take one lens with me it would be the 24TS.

Im glad my rambling was appreciated. :]

And its nice to hear of your experience with the Nikon PC-E lenses after your experience using the Canon set up. I must admit that I have distinct envy when it comes to the available options with the Canon T/S lenses, especially the 17mm, which Nikon has patented a version yet nothing has surfaced as of yet rumor wise.

SquamishPhoto said:
The funny thing about your statement is that, when you really think about it, you're actually the one limiting yourself with the lens. I use it for everything you listed, including landscapes, and Im sure they're even other ways neither of us have thought of to utilise the lens. In fact, for at least half of my large panoramas I'm using the 14-24mm @ 14mm to stitch 8 to 20+ images. But, like you, I also use other focal lengths to achieve different styles of landscape work, including the PC-E 45mm, the 85mm f1.4, the 200mm f2, the 300mm f2.8 & f4. Below are a variety of examples of landscape, sports and pets using all of the lenses listed thus far. Ill include a list at the bottom with lens and camera specifics so that people can make their own guesses first:

-All shots taken on a D700-

1. 300mm - pano
2. 14mm - pano
3. 14mm
4. 200mm
5. 45mm - pano - stack
6. 14mm - pano
7. 300mm - pano
8. 200mm - pano
9. 45mm - pano
10. 14mm - pano
11. 14mm - pano
12. 14mm
13. 300mm pano - stack
14. 14mm @ 23mm
15. 14mm
16. 14mm

My point is that the lens works great for plenty of jobs and telling others that they're using the lens wrong just makes you sound like a snob. And, worse than that, it makes you sound like Ken Rockwell. *shiver*

:]

I first want to thank the contributor or a great variety of shots. I can only guess at what else he/she has in their portfolio. Also I have recently added a D800 and a D800e to my lanscape equipment as I have been shooting Canon mostly Tilt-Shift 24 and 17. I do really like the pano and focus stacked shots and my shooting mostly resumbles your number 5 with forground and side plants and then a large distant background. Your way works and probably works better than my approach. If I need to use ND or polarizer on the lens I use 24 pce with or without shifting. The 16-35 doesn't seem as sharp but is handy for a walk around lens when I don't intend on using a tripod (which I always use the the 24 pce. I do really like my 14-24 and use it for all cramped spaces and where I want to really make the foreground stand out in the composition but where I don't need a polarizer. I still sometimes use the large glass grad ND filter by holding them somewhat close to the 14-24. I think the 14-24 is the sharpest of the combo at more of the focal lengths. I'm not really happy with the 24 pce because I have the Canon and I'm so in love with the double axis rotation so I can get both shift and tilt in the same plane. Plus both Canons seem much sharper than the 24 Nikon. Maybe I got a bad one. I'm just this close to sending it in for modification and possible repair to see if it is just a bad one (rotation goes just a little too far maybe).

In any case I can see a use for all three Nikon lenes but the 16-35 seems to stay in my bag most of the time. The 14-24 is my favorite of the three but I'm trying to like the 24 pce. Hope these comments are useful to someone.

I wonder about the differences in weather sealing. I used the 16-35 in light rain already, I'm just curious, if the 14-24 is better in this aspect..

As msmoto notes I think the 16-35 would make a better walk around lens, I love my 14-24 but find I am wanting a 35mm prime. For all of the reasons stated in favor of the 16-35 I will probably have to get one at some point (filters, VR), and the price is easier. With all that said it is hard to ignore 14mm and when needed is fantastic

Having both the 16-35 and the 24PC, you are correct on one thing about "are they worth it in terms of using it,etc. However, the PC can be used fro stitched panos by the shift of a total of 23mm from right to left and will give results ith minimum artifact. And if one goes with the idea that the only difference between a little girl and an old lady is the price of her toys....oh well, this is not working, ha, ha, ha....

I love the PC especially for walking around the city and doing buildings. If one does a lot of architectural stuff, the corrections with the PC are way beyond what can be achieved in post processing. And, with a virtual horizon in camera, handholding is possible. The 16-35 is my walk around lens quite often.. ..

For those people that mentioned using the 24 or 45 pc-e lenses, do you think they are worth it? What percentage of your shots would you say you take with it? I have been lusting for the 24 pc-e, but it is hard to justify the price if I am only going to use it for a small percentage of shots. I do shoot mostly landscape and have been using the 16-35, and can think of a couple of times that I would have liked the tilt ability.

I chose the 16-35 over the 14-24 for two situations that are important in my photography. The 16-35 has VR. While 98% of my landscape images are from a tripod, VR is useful for images from boats, canoes, etc where a tripod is not useful. The other plus of the 16-35 is filter threads. I rely on the Vari-N-Duo for long exposure stream images. It's a major area of emphasis for me. The filter threads are somewhat helpful for using grad filters, but I could live with hand holding the filter if necessary.

The 14-24 has superb image quality - better than the 16-35. The 16-35 is pretty good - better than the 17-35.

SquamishPhoto said:
The funny thing about your statement is that, when you really think about it, you're actually the one limiting yourself with the lens. I use it for everything you listed, including landscapes, and Im sure they're even other ways neither of us have thought of to utilise the lens. In fact, for at least half of my large panoramas I'm using the 14-24mm @ 14mm to stitch 8 to 20+ images. But, like you, I also use other focal lengths to achieve different styles of landscape work, including the PC-E 45mm, the 85mm f1.4, the 200mm f2, the 300mm f2.8 & f4. Below are a variety of examples of landscape, sports and pets using all of the lenses listed thus far. Ill include a list at the bottom with lens and camera specifics so that people can make their own guesses first:

My point is that the lens works great for plenty of jobs and telling others that they're using the lens wrong just makes you sound like a snob. And, worse than that, it makes you sound like Ken Rockwell. *shiver*

:]

Ill agree with you on that :) I guess I wasn't trying to say he used the wrong tool for the job as muck as he was thinking about focal lengths in a limited way. One can choose to fill/not fill the frame with any focal length as it is more about why you are using the focal length to achieve your vision. I do admit I was wrong in saying that the 14-24mm is wrong for the job as it is a great landscape lens. I just have learned that it is a nightmare to stitch a pan produced by a 14-24mm (The one below is about 35-38 images)

Below are a variety of examples of landscape, sports and pets using all of the lenses listed thus far.

Beautiful images Squamish. You may have just cost me $2,000. :) I've been thinking in reading this thread that the 17-35 is plenty wide enough.

My suspicion is, the quality of the person behind the lens is far more important than the lens. While my choice was the 16-35mm VR, I might have rethought this and may still rethink this in the days to come and get the 14-24 in addition. Or at least a wide prime. I do have the 10.5 which as some know I have modified to use on the FX format. And it is good, but is not distortion free. And the 24mm PC, when used with the stitching techniques, also can be useful.

So, I do not see either as having an "advantage" over the other, but simply a different use.

An other thing to note, the 16-35 is focusing much closer, very useful if you ask me.

kyoshinikon said:
I shoot Sports, photojournalisn, cars, and even some portraits with my 14-24mm. It is not made to shoot landscapes, the 24mm Tilt Shift is more suited for that. I personally prefer to use a 50mm or my 80-200mm for landscapes as it flattens out the perspective distortion (not like a 4x5 but closer)... A wideangle is so that you can get close to your subject, not so that you can stuff more scene into a shot. You are limiting yourself by using it in the wrong situation...

The funny thing about your statement is that, when you really think about it, you're actually the one limiting yourself with the lens. I use it for everything you listed, including landscapes, and Im sure they're even other ways neither of us have thought of to utilise the lens. In fact, for at least half of my large panoramas I'm using the 14-24mm @ 14mm to stitch 8 to 20+ images. But, like you, I also use other focal lengths to achieve different styles of landscape work, including the PC-E 45mm, the 85mm f1.4, the 200mm f2, the 300mm f2.8 & f4. Below are a variety of examples of landscape, sports and pets using all of the lenses listed thus far. Ill include a list at the bottom with lens and camera specifics so that people can make their own guesses first:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-All shots taken on a D700-

1. 300mm - pano
2. 14mm - pano
3. 14mm
4. 200mm
5. 45mm - pano - stack
6. 14mm - pano
7. 300mm - pano
8. 200mm - pano
9. 45mm - pano
10. 14mm - pano
11. 14mm - pano
12. 14mm
13. 300mm pano - stack
14. 14mm @ 23mm
15. 14mm
16. 14mm

My point is that the lens works great for plenty of jobs and telling others that they're using the lens wrong just makes you sound like a snob. And, worse than that, it makes you sound like Ken Rockwell. *shiver*

:]

^^ Those photos above are examples of why I'd like the 14-24mm. I won't hesitate to get on my knees or belly to get a cool shot with that lens. Next to a Fisheye I think that 14-15mm focal length is fun. I've even seen some pretty radical model portraits shot with that lens.

Here's what's interesting. I was in a local camera shop a few months ago and tested their only copy of the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR and it was not very sharp either. Seems that same thing keeps popping up in various threads.

MaxiVisVires said:
My question is, should the 16-35 suitably replace the 14-24 for what I use it for? Am I just being too narrow minded on my views of the capabilities of the 14-24 as it has more uses than just for landscapes?

My response to your first question is a big: NO!. The to your second question is: YES!

Here are some proof I found on flickr: