Nikon 14-24mm - Advice needed

I have a couple of (favor) weddings (no charge) coming up and I am wanting to upgrade my equipment. The weddings will

be very informal backyard type.

 

This is what I have

D300 and D70 w/ kit lens

70-200 2.8 VR

Two SB 800

50 1.8

 

I saw where a local photographer in my area was using the 14-24mm and I really like the look of his images. The wide

angle shots may be extreme for some but I think they are really nice looking. So my question is do or have any of you used

the 14-24mm 2.8 during weddings? Or do most of you use the 17-55mm?

Here is a link to his blog with the images I am referring to:

http://pauljohnsonphoto.com/blog/

Definitely the 17-55 is the one to have if you have to choose

The 14-24 is designed for full-frame cameras. It is indeed very special due to it's limited zoom range. It's huge and pricey. And it can't take filters.

 

On a full frame Nikon, I'd choose the 17-35/2,8 instead. It has a more useful zoom range and is much cheaper.

 

On a DX Nikon, there's the 12-24 or the Sigma 10-20 (among others).

A great lens. I've never seen a WA with less distortion (I borrowed one to use on D3) Pricey, but unparalleled.

the 14-24 on a DX nikon is equivalent to a 21-36mm. Based on my experience I 'd go for the 17-5mm f/2.8G Nikkor instead over the 17-35mm f/2.8D

The following image in my portfolio was captured with the 14-24mm/f2.8 Nikkor at 18mm, but that was on a D3 in the full-35mm-frame format. That same lens is not going to be nearly as wide on the D300.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7028377

I seldom used my 12-24mm f4 due to issues with AF, slow speed, and lack of sharpness. The 14-24mm f2.8 corrected all of those shortcomings exceptionally well. I sold my 12-24mm and now use the 14-24 on both the D3 and the D300.

 

Where it is great on the D3 is in being able to get a full length shot of someone at a distance of 8' or less, as on the dance floor or in a crowded hotel room, or a small venue for the ceremony. If I did not have the D3 I would probably have opted for one of the 3rd party 10-20mm zooms.

 

Another lens that works very well for WA work is the Nikon 16mm f2.8 lens. On the D3 it is a true fisheye while on the D300 it is a extreme WA lens that does not need to be "defished" the way the 10.5mm lens does. It is also light and very small so having it in the camera bag "just in case" is not a concern.

Although I like some of the wide shots in the site you mentioned, in some of them I am seeing distortion of the faces stretching toward the corners.

 

For myself I have grativated more toward two-shots and over-the-shoulder portraits using longer lenses.

Bill,

 

Paul actually let me play with his 14-24 at the DWF convention in January (and I love his work with that lens too) which prompted me to buy one for my D3. Paired withe the 24-70 it's a dream combo and they're both 2 of the best lenses I've ever used. That said, I don't mount either on my D300. For the crop cameras, the 17-55 is a much more useful lens, IMO. Where the 14-24 really outclasses every similar FL zoom is at the periphery which is lost on your crop sensor body. If you're planning to go FX then maybe it would make sense.

 

Paul

Thanks for the insight everyone. I am going with the 17-55mm. Have read great things about this lens. As far as getting a wide angle lens. I am thinking of going with the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 later. Have read good things about this one as well. Thanks again.