| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Nikon AF-S 14-24 2.8G ED
Kevin Batchelor, Photographer
 |
Southampton | Hampshire | England | Posted: 12:17 PM on 12.15.10 |
| ->> Am looking at a wide angle zoom and thinking about the Nikon AF-S 14-24 2.8G ED to go with my d3 and d3s. If not then the Nikon 17-35mm 2.8. Just wondered if any one has any thoughts pros or cons or pics shot with the two combos. Thanks |
|
Dan Megna, Photographer
|
Coronado | CA | USA | Posted: 1:23 PM on 12.15.10 |
->> I owned the 17-35 since it was introduced 10 years ago. While I wasn't crazy about it with DX bodies, mounted on the D3 it's a solid and sharp lens and one I would rarely leave out of my bag.
That is until I used the 14-24. This lens, in my opinion, and the opinion of many, raises the bar of wide angle zooms. I promptly sold the 17-35....
You can't go wrong with either. But for my shooting, the 14-24 provides me with a much needed wide, distortion free frame. It's truly an incredible lens and a heck of a lot of fun to shoot.
The only consideration I might put out there is protection of the large bubble front element. If you're shooting in tight spaces or you have to rough-house your way into/from a shooting perch, you'll need to exercise a little extra attention. |
|
Bill Danielewski, Photographer
|
Boston | MA | USA | Posted: 2:31 PM on 12.15.10 |
| ->> I concur with Dan's comments. I love the 14-24 - a ton of fun to shoot with and the images are terrific. The bubble front element does need special care - I'm terrified that I will scratch it someday. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 3:11 PM on 12.15.10 |
->> I agree with Dan on the 17-35 on DX bodies. It shines a lot better on my D700, but I would imagine the 14-24 might have an upper hand.
I currently own the 16-35 f/4 VR, which is a steal for $1100. It's clean, sharp and can hand-hold at 1/2 sec. No Joke. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 3:36 PM on 12.15.10 |
->> +1 Nic,
I owned the 14-24 and Sold it to max Simbron when his got damaged.
I got the 16-35 when it came out, and yes,it has Barrel Distortion at the 16mm, but you can't beat the price!!
Very good lens on my D3's
Y |
|
Michael Schwarz, Photographer
|
Decatur | GA | USA | Posted: 7:08 PM on 12.15.10 |
| ->> The 14-24 is sharper and has less distortion than the new 16-35, but the 16-35 is way more practical. Both are better than the 17-35. If I had to pick one lens out of those three, I would go with the 16-35. |
|
Samuel Lewis, Photographer
|
Miami | FL | USA | Posted: 10:12 PM on 12.15.10 |
->> I have both, and they both serve very different purposes.
The 14-24 is a truly exceptional lens. Whatever you thought was a good wide angle lens previously, this will blow it away with its sharpness, contrast, etc. However, it is also exceptionally heavy, and with the giant front element, it is not exactly subtle (it actually seems to attract the attention of subjects when you don't want to attract attention).
The 17-35 is also a very good lens (better than the older 20/2.8), although not quite as cutting edge as the 14-24. It is also a much more mobile and less obtrusive lens. If you're going to carry a pair of bodies and lenses all day long, you'll probably be happier with the 17-35 than you will with the 14-24 (I also second Dan's comment about the lens on DX bodies; I was never happy with the performance, and felt the 17-55 outperformed the 17-35; however, on FX bodies, the 17-35 is a wonderful lens).
Hope this helps... |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:44 PM on 12.15.10 |
->> I've owned both the 17-35mm and now the 14-24mm. Joe McNally said it best: "Nikon invented a lens I didn't know I needed" referring to the 14-24mm f2.8
The 14-24 IS a big, heavy lens.
I don't care - I love the lens. Samuel's analysis is on target. FWIW, you can find a used one in really condition for about $1200 give or take a few bucks.
Really makes the decision a no brainer. |
|
Kevin Batchelor, Photographer
|
Southampton | Hampshire | England | Posted: 2:21 PM on 12.16.10 |
| ->> Thanks to all of you for the advice I think it will be the 14-24 that wins my vote. Has anyone got any images taken with it? |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 9:12 PM on 12.18.10 |
->> "Teed Off" ..the first image on my member page was taken with a 14-24mm.
Michael |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 11:04 PM on 12.18.10 |
->> I had the 17-35.... good lens
I thought about the 16-35, didn't think the barrel distortion was any better than the 17-35.
I hate barrel distortion, hence, I am LOVING this 14-24 |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 3:09 PM on 12.19.10 |
->> For those that are saying there is no distortion on the 14-24, thats a bit of an overstatement. There is less than many wide angles for sure, but put someones heads off center and they start looking a bit like ET. As a wedding photog, i've had to fix a few quick group grabs where the folks on the ends were warped enough to cause the clients to complain. The "lens correction profiles" in PS5 simply are inadequate to fix...and required using the liquify tool.
That said, its a fantastic lens for just about everything else. I use it for the entire receptions, and its great for showing off an entire stadium, or other wide perspective in sports.
But....its a hunk, with a VERY limited range. You'll be amazed at how little the fov changes from 14-24. When after a game you want some jube...its great if you are in a pack...but once you need the shot of the trophy...its too wide..and other options are simply too much more versatile. ie the 24-70 or the new 24-120, while not quite as wide, give you drastically more reach and versatility. Look at the shots that end up getting sold. Not many in the 14-24 range.
Its a great lens. No question. But its one that you have to have in addition to...not instead of one of the other wide angle zooms with more range imo. |
|
Kevin Batchelor, Photographer
|
Southampton | Hampshire | England | Posted: 2:02 PM on 12.21.10 |
| ->> Hi Brad I have a 28-70 as well and the new one is on its way |
|
Chris Peterson, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbia Falls | MT | USA | Posted: 4:40 PM on 12.22.10 |
->> I owned this lens and was one of the first to give it a "10" on SS. Then it started to back focus on me and developed a clunking sound. I sent it into NPS, had it repaired and its still sounded like an element was loose.
So I switched to Leica for my wide angles. The Leica 21 mm on an M9 is astoundingly sharp and fits in the palm of your hand. In fact, I can't think of a Leica short lens (50mm or less) that doesn't hammer a Nikon. Of course, the Leica was also shockingly expensive... |
|
Rodrigo Pena, Photographer
|
Beaumont | CA | USA | Posted: 4:30 AM on 12.24.10 |
| ->> Kevin, you'll love the 14-24mm. There is definitely some distortion at the edges of the lens with a full-frame camera, but nothing terrible. After I made a few mistakes taking portraits using the ultra wide portion of the lens, I don't take any portraits with it less than 24mm anymore. For everything else, it ROCKS!!! Once you get used to the extra weight it'll be lots of fun for sure. Enjoy! The lens it's sharp, the autofocus is fast and the contrast is really nice. Even the lens flare is neat to look at. |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 12:27 AM on 12.25.10 |
| ->> 14-24 a 10 across the board. When everyone else is backing up for more room you are taking photos. |
|
Kevin Batchelor, Photographer
|
Southampton | Hampshire | England | Posted: 4:45 PM on 12.27.10 |
| ->> Got it very impressed on first outing thanks for all the advice |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|