Why not 14-24mm?

<p>I already own the 24-70mm f2.8 zoom and I love it even though it's big and heavy. I have D300 and D700 cameras and want to go wider. I've read most of the posts dealing with the weight, lack of filter capability, etc. regarding the 14-24mm zoom.<br>

Why would I go with the 17-35mm when it would duplicate some of the coverage given by the 24-70mm? The price difference between these two choices is negligible. Most of my wide angle shooting is indoors and the choice to me seems obvious.........14-24mm.<br>

Am I missing something in these discussions?</p>

<p>The only DX lens I have is the 12-24/4 AF-S, and I wouldn't like to do without it. All the rest of my lens are full frame. I use the D300 and film cameras.</p>

<p>The only reasons people tend to say no on the 14-24 f/2.8 is because;<br>

1 - it is big & heavy<br>

2 - it doesn't take filters unless you buy a special "housing thing"<br>

past that<br>

It's really unrivaled.<br>

Paul is mixing up the lenses... He's talking about the 12-24 DX.<br>

I have the 14-24 - - love it. It is one lens I'm planning to keep for a very long time.<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why would I go with the 17-35mm when it would duplicate some of the coverage given by the 24-70mm?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I happen to use the 24 to 35mm range a lot and I think it is a big advantage to have some overlap so that I don't have to change lenses every time I cross that boundary, as I can work faster. (In most situations, I have no concerns about changing lenses leading to dust on the sensor.) Personally, I find the 17-35mm range much more useful than 14-24 on FX, and I have both of those lenses. I typically leave the 14-24 home unless I know I need to use the ultra wide range, e.g. architecture interior, etc.</p>

<p>If you use both FX and DX as I do, I don't think 14mm is wide enough and of course 17mm is even worse. For DX, I prefer something that starts from 10 to 12mm. In other words, if you shoot a lot of wide on DX, I would get a dedicated DX wide zoom.</p>

<p>Thanks Shun, what you say makes sense about overlap. I do have the 10.5 and 12-24 for DX and eventually I'll probably own both the 17-35 and 14-24 to fill out the FX wide angle needs.<br>

I have to give some thought as to what zoom range most of my shooting is. It seems that the 17-35 would be the most logical one to get first. </p>

<p>I was in the same boat a few weeks ago so I rented a 14-24. Loved it and just got my copy in yesterday. You don't say what you mainly shoot, but for weddings, I found it a huge help to be able to get wide enough to get the whole dance floor or those tight dancing circles that form. I also took it to Colorado for vacation and was blown away with the landscapes I was able to shoot.<br>

When the lens came in yesterday, I did a quick test of the difference between it and the 24-70 on my D700 and D300. I also set the 14-24 at 18mm to see how a 17mm might look. Check out the difference here <a href="http://samellis.smugmug.com/gallery/9005760_tMaV5#599036529_BEnK5">http://samellis.smugmug.com/gallery/9005760_tMaV5#599036529_BEnK5</a> Nothing scientific, but it satisfied my curiosity of the difference between the two lenses on two different bodies.<br>

Hope that helps,<br>

Sam</p>

 

<p>Personally, I think 17mm is really wide on FX already. Last year, there were a lot of rumors that Nikon was discontinuing the 17-35mm/f2.8. A Nikon rep I talked to last November confirmed that manufacturing had stopped, but somehow this lens is still widely available.</p>

<p>The 17-35 was originally introduced with the D1 back in 1999, so perhaps it is due for an update, but who knows?</p>

<p>In the zoom range they overlap, the 14-24 is a tiny bit better optically. If you are extremely picky, that may be a factor. On the 24MP D3X, both the 17-35 and 14-24 show some softness in the far corners.</p>

<p>When I had my D200 (recently sold), I found that the lens I used the most was my 12-24mm; my 17-35mm sat in the closet because it just was not wide enough. When I finally got my D700, the 17-35mm became my GO TO lens.</p>

<p>I rarely, rarely have the need to go wider the 17mm and can live without it. The 24mm-35mm FL range is something that I DO shoot a lot. So, the 14-24mm des not make sense for me as a go to lens.</p>

<p>If I want to shoot a little longer than 35mm, my own presonal preference is to shoot a f1.4 lens (thus a 50/1.4 and an 85/1.4). So that rules out the 24-70mm for me.</p>

<p>Obviously the above pertains only to me and how I like to shoot.</p>

<p >You'll first need to determine which body will be the primary for the proposed lens. Without that answer a coin-flip is in order. For conversation's sake I’ll assume the D700 is the primary.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >People are quick to favor the latest/greatest and/or remark that they want little, if any, overlap in their zoom coverage. The reality seems to be that most cannot be bothered to switch lenses for an extra mm or two of coverage and instead, shoot the mounted lens and call it good. I prefer to have a bit of overlap amongst zooms if given the choice. Granted, 24 to 35 is a fair bit of overlap. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I'm a firm believer that as one goes wider (wide to super to ultra) composition becomes more challenging for most. Practically speaking, how much would you miss the 14-16 range if going with the 17-35? I speculate very little. How often would you change lenses if the 14-24 is mounted and you'd like 26? You'd likely take a step or two closer provided you're able to do so. Conversely, if 24-70 is mounted and you'd like to see 22, perhaps take a few steps back? (I do not buy the 'zoom with feet' line, yet I do buy into practicality and minimizing lens-changing due to dust/debris in my shooting environments.) I'd rather not be hassled by lens-changing and opt for 17-35 as I find it a very useful range and if I can do without toting an anvil, even better. (Here we have 17-35/2.8 and 28-70/2.8. Also have 12-24 DX but often find I prefer 17-35 on D300.)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I also use filters (polarizer, ND’s and nearly always a UV/NC due to hazards posed to front element). Some will advise never using a pol on wide. I find that to be the voice of inexperience as there are many situations where a pol is advantageous and 'make' the image. Whether you find yourself shooting those subjects is another question.</p>

<p>I have had the 14-24 for about one year. For about 9 months of that year I only had the D300 and D200 and 3 months ago I got the D700. On all three cameras, this lens is wicked sharp. The only thing I do not like about the 14-24 is that the front element could be scratched easily. Other than that, I could not live without this lens. I shoot real estate and weddings, every time I shoot this lens comes out of the bag for one reason or another. I love to shoot the dancing at receptions with it. <br>

On another note, it makes for a great landscape lens as well.</p>

<p>Depends what focal length range you use. Overlap is no problem, frequent lens change due to a unsuitable zoom range is. If you need 14 mm get the wider one, if you want to do PJ style work and frequently find yourself alternating between 20 and 35 mm then get the longer zoom.</p>

<p>In order to determine what lens to buy I would think it would depend on what camera you are going to use and the lighting conditions in which you are going to use it. Myself , I use the 17-35 and my other wide angle lenses ( 12-24mm , 24-85mm ) in low light situations on my D700 . I use the 70- 200mm and other longer lenses when shooting average lighting situation with the D300.<br>

This way I can keep both cameras equiped and ready to use at a moments notice.<br>

I have read some excellent reviews on the 14-24mm lens but decided that I wouldn't use it enought to justify the cost for how I photograph. And I truly love the 17-35mm, it's on my D700 all the time .<br>

Best of Light !!!</p>

<p>Lots of good advise and opinions presented. I think I'll go with the 17-35 as my first choice though I'm concerned about Shun's comment about it not being manufactured any more. I just got the D700 and was going to hold off for a while. Oh well, it's only money ;(<br>

The 24-70 will see double duty on both cameras and the 17 to 35 will probably be used the same depending on what is needed in a given situation. Most of my wider angle shooting is done in bars and restaurants for musician friends.<br>

If I find myself really needing to go wider on a continual basis, well the 14-24 may wind up in my bag one day.<br>

Thanks to all.</p>

 

<p>Last year, there were a lot of rumors about the 17-35mm/f2.8 being discontinued. Back in November, I got confirmation from both a Nikon rep and Thom Hogan that manufacturing had stopped, but that doesn't mean it could not resume. The fact of the matter is that the 17-35mm/f2.8 is still available new today.</p>

<p>Whether buying it now means this is the last chance to catch it or potentially getting a model that will soon be superseded by something newer (and perhaps "better") is totally up to you to judge. I would like to think that Nikon would not simply discontinue a very important zoom such as the 17-35mm/f2.8 outright (with no replacement), and the 14-24mm/f2.8 does not at all replace it. But I have no futher information on it.</p>

<p>Don't forget, the 24-70 is at it's weakest performance at 24mm, while the 17-35 is really good at 24mm.</p>

<p>Did not mean to confuse, just my opinion that I wouldn't do without the wide angle for the D300. The 14-24 (usable on both the D700 and D300, which I do not have personal experience with, but Nikon has made very few duds!) would be invaluable for the D300, and somewhat useful on the D700 (I personally don't use the extreme wides very often, and again but when they're needed, they too are indispensable.</p>

<p>14-24mm Nikkor = no filters = vulnerable large front lens element on an expensive lens + larger and heavier. 17-35 = filters + smaller and lighter.</p>

<p>I've used a 12-24mm DX for over three years, first with a D70s, then a D200. I also use an 18-200, and like the 'overlap'. It saves me some lens changing, and as mentioned, zooms are at their weakest at the ends of their ranges.</p>

<p>I bought a D700 last month, a 24-70, and a 20. While in the store weighing options since I was going FF, I tried out the 14-24mm, comparing it w/a Canon 5DII and thelr 16-35 L which is similar in angle of view to the 17-35 Nikkor. (Save for Nikon's AEB and some ergonomics, I almost...) The 14-24 is <em>wide</em> . Don't know if I'd use all that angle of view very often, really. I believe I'll be getting the 17-35mm. No filters/cobbled-up ND grad holder is currently the deal-breaker for me. YMMV.</p>

<p>Bob,<br />I use both 14-24 and 24-70, they are a perfect combo, no compromises.<br />I hate when people comment about a gear they don't have, The front element of 14-24 is not an issue, it is very thick and has anti-scratch protective coating, it won't have any issues with rain/dust, unless you drop the lens on asphalt head on, in which case any lens will take damage. Most of the vulnerability myths come from users who don't actually have this lens so you shouldn't take them seriously.<br />Also there is not much difference in size and weight between the two.<br />14-24 : 35 oz. (1Kg) 3.9"X5.2" (98X131mm) <br />17-35: 26.3oz. (745g) 3.3"X4.2" (84X107mm) without hood, by the time you screw in the hood it will be actually longer than 14-24. Optically 14-24 is sharper than 17-35 across the frame, the difference is very substantial at wide open (f/2.8). Now that you have the 24-70 there is no point in getting a 17-35, as you can use your 24-70 for 24+.<br />Here is one shot with 14-24 from a recent trip, taken at 14mm. <br /><img src="http://www.stanford.edu/~ahazeghi/Photos/photonet/DSC_4842-2.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="466" /><br />sometimes the extra 3mm (which is a big difference in FOV at such wide setting) are very useful plus that you can shoot at f/2.8 and get a razor sharp photo. 17-35 is an older design and it is not very good wide open.</p>

<p>Arash, now you've gone and done it! I looked at your quick test w/ D700 and 14-24. Wow, I'm impressed. I really love wide angle shots with a lens like that.<br>

I appreciate the comments and opinions from one who uses the lens. I've changed my mind again. I can live with the "negative aspects" of this lens as preesented by others. To each his own.<br>

Thanks to everyone.</p>

 

<p>Bob,<br>

This is a lovely lens, I am sure you will enjoy it-good luck.</p>