Nikon 14-24mm f2.8

[4colourprogress]

I consider this lens to be the Holy Grail of glass and I'm soon going to be a proud owner of one, As I'm upgrading to a FX format lens I'm also going to have to upgrade the body too. I'm currrently looking at the Nikon D700, However some people have mentioned that the 14-24mm works very well on the DX format D300s.

Just wanted to know if anyone has tried using the 14-24mm on a DX camera?, I'm pretty sure it's pointless seeing as it will only be using the centre of the sensor and a Tokina 11-16mm is much more suited for a DX fit.

[ALwin]

Hi, I have the 14-24 lens and I agree that it seems pointless to use it on a DX body, and not just due to the field of view difference or the availability of the Tokina 11-16 but also due to the size of the 14-24 lens itself. It's a really big lens to be used on anything other than Full Frame.

[Chris Humphreys]

Now come on, you don't need us to convince you that you need a D700.....

The D300 is virtually the same size body apart from the prism, so lens size shouldn't be an issue.

[egwardo]

come join the D700 club you wont regret it!

[peterlyall]

No issues here - a D700 it has to be to make anything of the lens worth writing about......................

[4colourprogress]

Okay so I'll go with the D700 for the body now back to the glass!

I've ready in reivews that many photographers prefer the 17-35mm f2.8 lens over the 14-24mm because of the fact you can use filters etc. although this isn't a problem for me as I havn't started using filters yet. Many people have also said that the 14-24mm is too wide and can sometimes look like a fish eye when the appeture is at it's widest and is impracticle for most landscape work.

Just wondering what you guys think

It's sharpness Vs practicality!

[ALwin]

For sharpness, the 14-24 f2.8 and newer 16-35 f4 is unmatched by the older 17-35 f2.8.

What I like about the 17-35 is the aperture ring, 17-35 focal range, ability to use filters.
What I don't like about it , the price.
I do not have this lens, read some reviews of it though. Availability of this lens brand new is getting harder, may have to get it used if I decide to buy it.

What I like about the 14-24, the 14mm width combined with a 10mm focal range, else I'd be buying the 14mm f2.8 prime, so far I haven't see any fisheye like effect that you mentioned in any of my shots. Of course being an ultra-ultra-wide angle lens, understanding how to use it is important. For landscapes it works well, for portraits I use this lens mostly when I want to get very close to my subject and use the expansion effect of wide angle lenses.
What I don't like, G lens and not being able to use filters.
I have this lens.

What I like about the 16-35, longer focal range, can use filters and price is cheapest of the 3 (around 1000 vs 1700+ for other 2), it has VR
What I don't like, being f4 and not 2.8 or wider, if Nikon can make a F2.8 version of this lens without VR it would be perfect for me.
I may get this lens or the 17-35 later.

[4colourprogress]

What do you think about the light fall off between the 16-35mm and the 14-24mm ? I know the 14-24mm lens has virtually zero light fall off at its widest appeture, however I've heard the other 2 lenses suffer from this significantly when at their widest!

[Chris Humphreys]

I have the 16-35 and find it very sharp and have no issues with light fall off. I've never had a problem with needing wider than F4 either as most of the time it's on a tripod and set at around F11 for what I do. The VR compensates for the F4 / F2.8 arguement as far as hand holding is concerned and the difference in depth of field perception between the two is negligable anyway. Besides who buys a wide angled lens to try and create a shallow depth of field?

[ALwin]

Besides who buys a wide angled lens to try and create a shallow depth of field?

Uhh, I do, for some of my portrait shots that I do with my camera inches away from the subject's face. DOF so shallow that only the eyes are sharply in focus and everything in front and back are not.

[4colourprogress]

I think i'm leaning slightly towards the 16-35mm now... I'll have to troll some more camera review sites later

[ALwin]

I think i'm leaning slightly towards the 16-35mm now... I'll have to troll some more camera review sites later

Actually in some ways I think I should have bought this lens first then then 14-24, but for me it's too late already. I don't think you will regret getting the 16-35.

[4colourprogress]

According to dpreview the 16-35mm suffers from some of the worst barrell distortion seen on any wide angle lens, However. I'ts easily corrected in photoshop, and to be honest It's probably a good idea to use lens correction on all super wide lenses as there will always be barrell distortion to some degree.

[Chris Humphreys]

Besides who buys a wide angled lens to try and create a shallow depth of field?

Uhh, I do, for some of my portrait shots that I do with my camera inches away from the subject's face. DOF so shallow that only the eyes are sharply in focus and everything in front and back are not.

Fair enough, I usually avoid wide angles for portraits, unless I'm trying to make my subject look like they have a huge nose of course