Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 filter holder advice

its doable for DX with Cokin X Pro, but no chance on full frame, so forget it for your D700.
 
Hmmm, guess what I'm going to be doing this weekend, stiff plastic, scissors, super glue, sticky tape etc.

I know it may vignette at the wide end but I'm damnd if I can't get my Lee filter holder on there somehow :thinking:
 
dependin on what you want you could approach it from the other end - and try to rig some sort of gel filter holder - may work better

Hugh
 
treeman said:
Hmmm, guess what I'm going to be doing this weekend, stiff plastic, scissors, super glue, sticky tape etc.

I know it may vignette at the wide end but I'm damnd if I can't get my Lee filter holder on there somehow :thinking:
Click to expand...

You are wasting your time - you can't put anything over the lens on full frame. I have the Lee filter system and this lens.

Forget it.
 
treeman said:
Or I suppose you just don't use it for landscapes :shrug:
Click to expand...

If you bought it for landscapes, you really needed to buy the Nikon 17-35 instead, at least if you want to use Grads.

The filter issue is well known, and well documented and there are no workarounds. Anything clipped onto the hood will show on fullframe.
 
treeman said:
This may sound stupid, and maybe I need to change my thinking, but how do you get by without ND grad filters on landscapes, surely you must get blown skies all the time?

Or I suppose you just don't use it for landscapes :shrug:
Click to expand...

Just as what puddleduck said; if you want to use something this wide for landscape unfortunately you'll have to go with the 17-35.

There are so many thread all over the place about fitting filters to the 14-24; one even went so far as to suggest the use of a sponge :shrug:. Now, there is a great amount of enthusiasm there, and I admire the work done, but it is far from practical or ideal.

All that aside, there are some purist who'd frown upon the idea of using filters. Hence, this lens comes in perfect for their use, even for landscape.

Personally, I find the 24-70 AF-S to be more than adequate for landscape. Anything wider is just a bit too wide on FX. As a matter of fact, 35~50mm is my ideal working range for landscape. When you think of it, why didn't Nikon introduce anything wider than 24mm in a tilt-shift (which are ideal for macro, architecture and landscape)?
 
Either I've been sold a different lens disguised as a 14-24 or my definition of what constitutes a landscape needs revisiting :)

1 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=163091




2 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=163050




3 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=164329 - Time Lapse


4 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=165629




5 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=166286

]


6 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=165662




7 http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=165791





Two weeks in the Lake District + D700 + 14-24. No filters.

The 14-24 is my favourite lens for landscapes. It's big, heavy and doesn't play nice with filters, but that doesn't bother me too much because I find filters aren't always necessary for what/how I shoot. Plus, they are a pain to faff around with on the hills and my horizons aren't always flat enough to avoid also darkening the ground/foreground with ND grads.
 
Those are quite nice shots, but I'm not keen on the over-satured HDR look personally you've got going on there. I think some grads would have led to some more natural skies, which off course you can't use on the 14-24 - and the point of this thread :)

However its a nice sharp lens for landscape - but it's still not a lens if you want to use filters.
 
puddleduck said:
Those are quite nice shots, but I'm not keen on the over-satured HDR look personally you've got going on there. I think some grads would have led to some more natural skies, which off course you can't use on the 14-24 - and the point of this thread :)

However its a nice sharp lens for landscape - but it's still not a lens if you want to use filters.
Click to expand...

The processing is to my tastes and the saturation is easily toned down to more 'natural' levels to virtually replicate the effect of ND grad filters. Perhaps not in every situation, but the second shot, for example, is a single exposure without any blown highlights. So, very easy to replicate the effect of a ND grad, in my opinion.
 
Some lovely shots there, and agree No.2 especially looks like an ND Grad was used, but you obviously have a fair degree of PP knowledge , which I currently don't have. Some of the others look a little blown for my tastes. I shoot mostly seascapes at sunrise and sunset and personally for me filters are far easier and enjoyable to use.

I may have to:
a) come to terms with getting better at PS
b) accept I made a mistake in getting the lens and get the 17 -35 instead :shrug:

Anyway thanks for you input folks, much appreciated :thumbs:
 
Will,

Without a doubt, the 14-24 is one of the best lens you can buy today; and in that range, it is probably the best.

Of course you can use it for landscape, as you've done very successfully. For that matter, almost all lenses can be used for much and anything. There is nothing to hold you back, other than your imagination and willingness to put in the time and effort. Just as the 85 PC-E is amazingly sharp from corner to corner, it's not the lens for portraits, but what's to hold anyone from using it in that fashion (actually, I've seen it used for that :p)?

I don't want to turn this in to a debate about do / don't do post-processing; but there are some filter effects that you just can't do that way! And while you can put a CP filter on a 14-24, it's an even much bigger hassle than doing the same with the 17-35, or a prime 14 ~ 24!

Your pictures, :thumbs: especially number 4 :)
 
treeman said:
....

I may have to:
a) come to terms with getting better at PS
b) accept I made a mistake in getting the lens and get the 17 -35 instead :shrug:

....
Click to expand...

I wouldn't!

It's a lens to be envied; almost perfect in all aspects.

What I'd do, if I were in your place, is use it and train my style around it. Try out the different means to attach filters to it. There is one way in which the author uses the Cokin X brackets to attach on the hood.

I'd leave PS / PP as a very last resort; but I am sure you'll be more than happy with it without any need for PP.

As for selling it for the 17-35; again, I wouldn't do that. Just to let you know, the lens is so sharp and has wonderful colour / bokeh that canon users have managed to couple it with canon bodies. They are that envious of it.

If, after a year or so of trying it out and you still find you want to exchange it for the 17-35 then you can always do that as most with the 17-35 will happily exchange along with some good £££ your way.
 
cokin x-pro filters with a 14-24 adapter ring works just fine on full frame at 14mm no vignetting
 
I accept and agree that the approach I took isn't necessarily going to suit everyone nor every situation in which the effects from filters might be required, but if it's only blown skies that are the concern then my point is that you don't have to sacrifice this wonderful lens just to shoot landscapes with a lot of contrast.

As long as your skies aren't clipped in your Raw files then applying a software grad is relatively straightforward.

Horses for courses and I'll be sticking with the PP approach because, so far, it works for me :thumbs:
 
its doable for DX with Cokin X Pro, but no chance on full frame, so forget it for your D700.
Click to expand...

I've just spoken to the importers, and they reckon it should be ok from about 19mm, which I'd certainly be happy with. Just trying to persuade my local dealer to get an adapter ring in, on sale or return, just in case it doesn't fit.

Puddleduck, have you tried this arrangement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top