14mm f/2.8 or 14-24mm f/2.8 ?

<p>Hi there, Nikon shooters. I had a dilemma. . . . . Last year, I bought a D700 and a 14-24 & 24-70/2.8 lens. ( Get reed of my 17-55 DX and the old 15mm f/3.5 ) Now I realized, the two combination don't work very well for me. I shoot a lots of landscape, wide, and I missing a 17-35/2.8 greatly. So I just bought a 17-35/2.8 and I debating what to do. I don't really need the 14-24 I would rather have a 14 prime instead. But, my friend said I'm crazy, ( and they right) do not get reed of the 14-24. Yes! It is a super sharp lens, but rarely used, and big and bulky. I would rather have a smaller prime 14/2.8. I don't doing very large prints, (14x18 max) and I wonder, if I get reed of the 14-24 zoom, and get the 14 prime, is a good idea, or not? And how much better or worst the 14 prime vers. 14-24/2.8?</p>

<p>The so-called "prime" isn't nearly as a good or sharp as the 14-24mm, but if you aren't using the 14-24mm much it is money tied up. Myself, I tend to "see" in terms of ultrawide and am an ultrawide fanatic, so that lens would be a "must have" for me. Things are apparently different for you. I would just skip a 14mm "prime" and go for the 17-35mm f2.8 if you think you'll get more use out of that.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SvQV<br>

Check out my post above re: which WA zoom to compliment the 24-70 on a D700.. I haven't made up my mind yet re 14-24 vs 17-35. (Price is similar, so not an issue).... How much does the 3mm field of view difference make, taking into account distortion free composition or the scene, IQ, size, weight, naked front element that can't be protected or use creative filters, and hand-holdability? Any interest in parting with it?</p>

<p>I would never sell my 14-24 f/2.8.</p>

<p>Bela,</p>

<p>From what I gather the 14-24mm zoom pocesses the very best IQ of any Nikkor glass be it prime or zoom in that focal length range - you can't beat it for sharpness in the corners- the 14mm Nikkor prime is not up to the same standard.</p>

<p>I too have the 17-35mm zoom and love it to bits but I enjoy having that extra ultra wide breadth on occasion and have taken the relatively cheap option of purchasing a second hand AF Sigma 14mm f/3.5 for US $150. The corners are pretty ordinary on this lens but that is a compromise I'm prepared to make over purchasing another heavy multi thousand dollar zoom..........for now.......</p>

<p>If I were you I'd stick with the 14-24mm as you will loose too much on the re-sale as it will still be rather new - at least wait a year or two and make your mind up when it's monetary depreciation has slowed somewhat.</p>

<p>If you hardly use the 14-24 (which is arguably a much better lens for various reasons than the 14mm prime), do you honestly think you would use the 14mm prime more often? I do understand that it may seem somewhat redundant to have all three of those lenses, but why take a loss on a fantastic lens for an equally expensive lens that is not only not quite as sharp, but offers less flexibility (zoom)? You would lose money and be forced to change lenses more often. Just my thoughts.</p>

<p>Of course I only can tell you about what I`d probably do... let me write while thinking:</p>

<ul>

<li>I`m glad having a 14-24 that I consider a "14mm prime with a bit of zooming feature". I don`t see any sense trading a 14-24 for a 14 prime, money loose added. If you need a 14mm lens you already have it.</li>

<li>The 14mm prime is not precisely a "pankake" lens.</li>

<li>If I were having a 17-35, I`d probably skip to have a 14mm prime, as 17mm is <em>wide enough</em> for most ocassions.</li>

<li>If I were thinking that I`d never use my 14-24 (therefore any 14mm lens), I`d probably sell it. </li>

<li>In my experience, never say "I`ll never use this or that" because tomorrow I`ll using it.</li>

<li>I like the 17-35 zoom range but also like "N" technology, "G" lenses like the 14-24.</li>

<li>I think sometimes is very convenient to modify my current "perception" and try to adjust my point of view to the lenses I have. It saves money, bulk and leave my budget fresh for other needs.</li>

</ul>

<p>The 14mm prime is quite old noe and may need an update to keep in pace with what digital sensors can reveal these days. The 14-24mm zoom seemed to be more well corrected using more modern techniques.</p>

<p>Have you considered the Zeiss 18mm/3,5 or 21mm/2.8 Distagon? I have the 21mm and I find that it is very nicely corrected lens and a pure joy to use. The images have really high clarity and resolution is, in my opinion, above what the D3 can record.</p>

 

<p>Thank you, for everybody, all the ideas and comments, recommendations. because I all ready have the 17-35/2.8, I taught I my need a straight 14 ( the widest available and affordable) prime after 17. You right, when you saying a 17mm, you hardly need a wider lens. Not so! I demonstrated in one outing to a small group of photo club members, how much is the different for a special subject, from 17 to 15mm wide angle, I had that time. On that time on film I had the 15/3.5 and the 17-35/2.8. It was a big different as everybody realized, seeing the projected image on a big screen. I know, the 14 prime old design, still better then my 15/3.5 was, but mach better is the 14-24/2.8. Yes! The lens 14-24 very rarely used, since I just had a 17-35. The losing money on is a factor too. As some of you suggested, I my have to wait for a vile, and see, what going to happen in the coming 2-3 years with the prime 14/2.8 Half the size of the 14-24 and because I have the 17-37, I have a big overlap. Practically, 14-24, I mostly using, at the 14mm range only, now. And that is my dilemma. Anyway! I going to keep the lens, big and bulky regardless. Or! Nikon my come out with a 13mm Super wide angle again. (???) Just dreaming. I'm a Super Wide Angle fanatic too.<br /> The Zeiss 18/3.5 is a good idea, if I don't have all ready the 17-35.<br /> Thank you for your input on this mater.</p>

<p>Well, filters do not fit very well on the 14-24, except maybe with tape or gunk of some sort. So, why not get yourself something that takes filters, neutral density grads, and so forth? I'd be happy to buy a used 14-24 with an appropriate discount for use and no warranty.<br>

Only partly kidding on the last bit. </p>

 

<p>Hi David. I never used filters on 14-24. And, even you forced to mount a filter in-front of a lens, you going to have a reflection on the filter side facing to the lens, because the filter is open, not covered by the front round lens edge. The tulip shaped lens hood don't let you use any kinda filter. Plus! You don't really need a filter, even ND grad, anymore. Two frame will doit, one for the ground and one for the sky, even that I managed to work out with a good processing technic. The 14-24 always give me a nice blue sky. My real work horse; first, the 17-35 on FX, and the 24-70 on DX. Both camera has 12 MP, no problem. and they are almost the same quality. And that is a reason, I really don't needed a super wide angle zoom, rather have a smaller size good quality 14/4 or 13/4 wide. NIKON. . . ! Please do a small, top notch 14mm/4 prime. I don't even need a AF ether. like the beautiful 16 fish-eye. Who a hell need an AF on it. Below 16mm prime, you absolutely don't need Auto Focus!</p>