The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikon 14-24 focus shift

I just started testing my new 14-24 refurb. Seems fine, although the focus shift issues are real. Most of the time this will be focussed in live view on a tripod, at working aperture, so it's not a big deal. But I'd like the option of using the thing hand held with AF.

How have owners of this lens calibrated the AF? Focus shift seems different at different focal lengths. I assume there's no perfect solution, but am all ears for a workable one.
 

robmac

Well-known member
No solution, but I had same issue using lens for an environmental shoot (D800e) in a small building. Eventually the shift (plus somewhat expected) veiling flare irritated me so much that I recently sold it. Think I'll be moving to the Zeiss 25/2 or less likely, the 21 for any similar shoots and then add a Rok/Sam 14 for the rare time I need to go that wide.
 
I played around a bit and ended up with AF fine-tune set to -10. This gives quite accurate focus at f5.6 and smaller, and is only fractionally off at some focal lengths wide open. I almost never do anything wide open so it's not a big deal.

So far this lens is monstrously sharp at all focal lengths. Just a hint of field curvature at 24mm, which is essentially gone at f8. And corners are soft wide open, but who cares.

It's in a different league from the 24-70 that I just sold. That lens always performed better at close distances than far. Not sure if that was a quirk with my copy. At any rate, it was frustrating that my ebay pics looked better than my real work.

I know to watch for flair with this lens. Interestingly, with the one I rented a couple of weeks ago, I had no issues with veiling flair or ghosts, even though I had some fairly strong backlighting. No direct sun in the frame or shining on the lens though.
 
Yeah, I use live view for most of what this lens is for. I just wondered if there were any good tips for the other times.

After some comparisons, this lens is even sharper than my Schneider, which in spite of some quirks and flaws had been my sharpest wide lens. Actual results from my shoot with the rented copy a couple of weeks ago told a different story. Pics with the nikon were a bit better in the corners, and may have shown slightly more resolution in some cases, but couldn't match the schneider's muscular, almost three dimentional contrast in the fine details. I don't know if this is sample variation or if the Schneider just does better at longer focal distances. My tests today have been a bookshelf from a few feet away.
 
Last edited:

johnnygoesdigital

New member
This is why I'd stick with primes such as the Nikon 24mm 1.4G, or the Zeiss Zf.2 21mm/Zf.2 18mm. These are really good lenses.. with the Zeiss edging out the Nikon for less CA wide open and nicer micro contrast.
 

AreBee

Member
Folks,

Why do you consider focussing the 14-24mm using Live View a fix for focus shift? How do you know you have not missed focus but the error is masked by depth of field at the aperture you stopped down to?
 
This is why I'd stick with primes such as the Nikon 24mm 1.4G, or the Zeiss Zf.2 21mm/Zf.2 18mm.
If Zeiss made an18 that was sharper in the corners it would probably be my first choice.

Folks,

Why do you consider focussing the 14-24mm using Live View a fix for focus shift? How do you know you have not missed focus but the error is masked by depth of field at the aperture you stopped down to?
Unless things are really dark or featureless, you can pretty eaisily get things into focus with LV at 100%. Even on the d800's noisy screen. I focus at f16 all day long.
 

AreBee

Member
Paul,

Unless things are really dark or featureless, you can pretty eaisily get things into focus with LV at 100%. Even on the d800's noisy screen. I focus at f16 all day long.
I think you missed my point. Regardless of the percentage magnification at which an image is reviewed, DOF at f/16 will return an image on the camera rear LCD in focus. That does not necessarily mean that the camera acquired focus correctly - DOF would mask an error. In such an event peak sharpness/contrast would not occur at the location intended by the photographer. Hence my question.
 
I understand your question. I find that the increased depth of field does not in fact hide the focal plane, even if it makes finding it more difficult.

However, if you really couldn't tell exactly what plane was in focus, because things closer and farther looked so sharp—then what's the trouble? If it looks focussed at 100% pixel view, it's going to look focussed in a print.

For most of my work I have to stop down quite a bit for depth of field anyway. Choosing a focal plane isn't so much about picking the most important object in the image as about finding best overall compromise.
 

Trevor Whitaker

New member
Paul,
I think you missed my point. Regardless of the percentage magnification at which an image is reviewed, DOF at f/16 will return an image on the camera rear LCD in focus. That does not necessarily mean that the camera acquired focus correctly - DOF would mask an error. In such an event peak sharpness/contrast would not occur at the location intended by the photographer. Hence my question.
Well couldn't you just focus using a wider aperture first and then stop down if you really wanted to be sure?
 

baudolino

Active member
The Leica 19 mm R lens (2nd version) is amazing - I used it on a Canon 1DMkIV some 3 years ago, with fabulous results, using an adapter (had to file down the protective collar; what a job...). What fascinates me is that in this age of ultra-sophisticated 36MP Nikon cameras, one still needs to resort to using 20-30 year old adapted Leica lenses, manually focused and with no automatic aperture, and brutalise the lenses with a file, in order to fully utilise the resolution of the sensor. I've been watching the Nikon section for some time and it almost amuses me, since this is all like a replay of what I did 3 years ago... Leica R lenses on a top end Canon body. I gave up eventually - focusing these lenses manually, using the AF focusing screen was not that easy - sold the lot and bought an S2 and never looked back. But I am wondering if Canon and Nikon (or Sigma) ever get to the stunning optical quality offered by these old Leica lenses, with autofocus and auto-aperture. If and when they do, I may become tempted again. But something tells me that in this age of mass scale production, plastic components and factories in Vietnam, this is not going to happen soon.
 
By amazing, are you talking about corner to corner sharpness, or out of focus rendering? I care about the former, not the latter. The lenses I have now look fine in the out of focus areas ... lenses that look better don't tempt me because that's not central to what I do.
 

baudolino

Active member
By amazing, are you talking about corner to corner sharpness, or out of focus rendering? I care about the former, not the latter. The lenses I have now look fine in the out of focus areas ... lenses that look better don't tempt me because that's not central to what I do.
Uniform sharpness, clean crisp colours, barely detectable distortion, strong resistance to flare. Can't comment on "corner to corner" from an FF perspective, since the Canon 1D MkIV that I was using the lens on was a 1.3x crop sensor machine (APS-H) and I was using this 19mm lens as the FF equivalent of a 24mm lens, which is my favourite focal length. But given the crop of my Canon, I wouldn't have been affected by any issues in the extreme corners of a full frame coverage, if there had been any.

 
Last edited:
The 14-24 is performing really well. For serious use it's all tripod/live view. For playing around I've made the focus shift unnoticeable by tweaking the af fine-tune. If I needed an ultrawide for walking around the leica or the zeiss would be tempting. But not so much for what I'm doing.
 

AreBee

Member
Trevor,

Well couldn't you just focus using a wider aperture first and then stop down if you really wanted to be sure?
Yes, but the act of stopping down shifts the plane of focus!

Paul,

For playing around I've made the focus shift unnoticeable by tweaking the af fine-tune.
Is the shift in focus from stopping down the same if you focus on a nearby feature compared to a feature at, say, infinity?
 
s the shift in focus from stopping down the same if you focus on a nearby feature compared to a feature at, say, infinity?
Good question. I just played with that a bit. Focusing close (around 1M) there's almost no focus shift. At infinity, there's a bit of shift at the wide end and none at the long end. Only the worst examples would be visible in a medium sized print. I need to spend a bit more time getting to know this thing.
 

Jan Brittenson

Senior Subscriber Member
The 14-24 is performing really well. For serious use it's all tripod/live view. For playing around I've made the focus shift unnoticeable by tweaking the af fine-tune. If I needed an ultrawide for walking around the leica or the zeiss would be tempting. But not so much for what I'm doing.
I have both a 14-24 and ZF.2 18. If carry gear around a non-trivial amount I'll take the Zeiss. If I'm not walking far or shoot out of the back of my car I'll bring the Nikon or both. I'm seriously considering the Fotodiox filter kit for NDs and a polarizer. And yes, polarizers are useful even on such wide lenses. If it's anything I'd wish it's that Nikon redesigns the 14-24 to have a filter slot...
 
Top