Nikon 14-24mm or 17-35mm ??? HELP ME lol

Shun, what is your opinion of the vignetting on the 17-35 on FX? From what I've been able to read, at 17mm the lens needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 to clear it. Is this true? I think that a superwide would usually be used stopped down. 17mm isn't exactly a people focal length (on FX) and only Frans Lanting shoots animals successfully with one, so most of us would be shooting still subjects and stopping down. ;-) But still, since the 14-24 is so good in this respect, virtually vignetting free, I think it should be mentioned in a thread about choosing between the two lenses, just in case someone wants to shoot wide open.

 

In general, my opinion on the 14-24 is that of James above. I don't think 14mm is at all for everyone and when I had the 14mm prime I wasn't able to get anything useful out of it with 35mm film. Literally not a single image worth keeping. I sold it at a loss and don't want to make the same mistake twice, although the 14-24 gets much better reviews and is more general purpose since it zooms to 24mm. I think Nikon made the lens largely to make one high end lens to solve superwide problems for both FX and DX users and the FL length range is a compromise between needs of users of both formats. Before the D1, Nikon superwide zoom was the 20-35.

 

For interiors, if you can shoot from an elevated position, I imagine the 14-24 offers good value for even the FX shooter. I just don't get to such positions often and would be mortally afraid of damaging the front element. Can anyone tell that I'm talking myself out of temptation?

I'll be reviewing the D700 for photo.net in the near future, and I'll check out how both the 17-35 and 14-24 perform on

the FX sensor. I have previously attempted to shoot some landscape at 14mm on the D3; I ended up with a lot of very

mediocre images because it is simply too wide with way too much foreground and decided not to post any of them

for the review. I'll have the opportunity to photograph some fall foliage next month. We'll see how that goes.

To me, the 14-24 is more an indoor, tight corners lens.

Shun, if the 14-24mm is not Nikon's 'flagship' wide angle zoom lens then do you care to suggest which wide angle zoom

is? I take your point that the frontal element is very bulbous and at the wide end this lens is ultra wide and vignetting from

filters and filter mounts would be inevitable. What I can't reconcile is why Nikon might manufacture such a zoom that cuts

out a good size of the market who wish to hang ND grads / ND filters etc in front of the lens, let alone have the cheap

insurance option of a protective clear front filter as a first defence against ruining a super expensive lens. I'm sure it sells

quite well but would sell even more units if it was not filter un-friendly.

 

To get back onto the thread subject it appears that the majority of responses recommend the 17-35mm over the 14-24mm - I

wonder why?

I have both lenses. The 14-24's has it's pros and cons. While you can't put filters on it, the len's design cuts down on

barrel distortions. That's important to me for what i do (mostly interior/architechtural shoots). And the sharpness, colors

and even shooting wide open for a wide lens are all superb.

 

Contrary to what many say, the lens is amazing on my D300 and that's how i start my shoots. I keep the 17-35mm on

the D700 if i need to go wider, and believe me, 17mm on FX is super ultra wide.

 

For landscapes, the 17-35mm on FX is great. You have your filter options and a more workable zoom range. On DX, the

range is limiting if it's your widest lens.

 

Photographers spending over a grand on a lens (or almost $2k for the 14-24) should know what they need and why.

I just received a call from the designer of this kitchen. She sent the manufacturer in Italy a couple of shots that i captured a

few days ago. They were very impressed.

 

They asked her "What lens did the photographer use?" This was a first for me. I didn't mind telling her - Nikon's 14-24mm.

They didn't ask "What camera?" They might be surprised it's the D300...<div></div>

Matthew, in my opinion, the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S is Nikon's flagship wide zoom.

 

The reason the majority of us (including me) are recommending the 17-35 over the 14-24 is very simple: 17-35 is a far

more useful zoom range, especially for the stated landscape use. The 14-24 is a very extreme lens that has a limited

zoom range (it is not even 2x) that is

useful in a limited number of situations. Keep in mind that 17mm is already very wide for FX, and the only advantage

the 14-24 has is in the extreme 14-17mm range. The 17-35 covers a much-more-useful 24-35 medium wide range.

Isn't that what I have been saying all along in this thread?

 

I am making this recommendation even though I am actually buying the 14-24mm/f2.8 myself this week; I already

have the 17-35mm since 2001 and I am keeping both lenses. Of course, I have rather unusual needs that I don't think

I am your average photographer. Personally, I don't use any filter on such super-wides anyway so that whether the 14-

24 can accept filters or not is a complete non-issue to me. There wouldn't be any filter available for a 114-degree wide

angle anyway.

Hi Shun,

 

Yes, I agree with you that the 17-35mm lens has the more useful 'general purpose' zoom focal range. I also agree that the 14-24mm lens is a very 'extreme' lens both in design and in limited focal range. You will get no counter argument from me on those points.

 

When I recently purchased my 17-35mm lens the store owner had only two units remaining and told me that it (the 17-35mm) was a discontinued lens and he was unable to re-order this model anymore. Unless my store owner has mis-informed me then I say it's a fair call to assume the 'flagship' Nikkor wide zoom is now the 14-24mm. I'm expecting you are about to tell me the 17-35mm is not discontinued.............

Matthew, you are mixing up different issues here. What I disagree with you is calling the 14-24 not being able to

accept any front filter an "oversight," while in fact it is physically impossible to put a filter on such an extreme wide

lens.

 

As far as I can tell, the 17-35mm/f2.8 is in stock at a bunch of stores, including B&H and Adorama:

http://www.nextag.com/Nikon-17-35mm-f-3384577/prices-html

 

And it is not in the official discontinued list from Nikon Japan (while the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S is on this list, as it is

superseded by the 24-70mm/f2.8):

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/discontinue/others/index.htm

 

The 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S was originally introduced back in 1999 along with the D1. Therefore, it is entirely possible

that Nikon will replace it with a newer version with nano coating, etc. However, if they simply discontinue it without

any replacement and depend on the combination of the 14-24 and 24-70mm/f2.8 to cover the wide range, IMO that

would be a major mistake. But that is another topic.

GUYS

 

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS, BELIEVE ME IT HAS BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO ME.... I GUESS I MADE MY MIND UO AND I WILL BUY THE 17-35MM FOR WHAT I WILL USE IT FOR...

 

MAYBE I WILL GET THE 14-24MM LATER CAUSE I LIKE IT LOL

 

THANKS AGAIN....

 

AARON FROM CANCUN

The 17-35mm should be plenty for general wide angle FX purposes. In many situations the 17mm end may already

be way too wide unless, for example, one is faced with a wide landscape vista of mountain peaks complete

with mirror reflections at the foreground; then the scene would fill the frame -- in this case, perhaps the 14-24

would be useful as well. In my experience, usually, when it

covers the width, something redundant in the vertical area would need to be cropped.

 

Mary

The 14-24 is a specialised lens. It's not designed ( IMHO) to be a landscape lens as such, more a special effect lens giving drama and impact to an image ( if used correctly). It complements the excellent 24-70 f/2.8 really well too.

 

I don't use filters for anything so it's not a problem for me...I knew this when I baught it. When you spend £1000 on a lens I feel it important to understand this when you buy it. For the job this lens was designed for it's a gem.

<p>The 17-35mm for sure! The 14-24mm, much too big. And no filters used? I'll pass. Get the 17-35mm. A stellar lens to be sure.</p>