14-24 f2.8 and d300

<p>hi everyone!<br>

recently in august 08, i bought a d300 with 18-200 f3.5 and 50mm f1.8. I'm thinking about a step ahead and wish to enquire what would be the best lenses to be use especially for occasion such as weddings and outdoor photography. At present, i've been thinking about purchasing 14mm-24mm f2.8. Is it suit enough for my purpose and my camera? If it do not comply, what would be the best option? Sincerely hoping that this questionnaire would be kindly attend to. Really appreciate. Tq!</p>

<p>14-24 is a very wide lens. i don't think is ideal for weddings. My first choice would be the 17-55 f/2.8 G coz of the reach but if you are planning to go FX someday the 17-35 f/2.8 seems to great! Would go nice with your 50.</p>

<p>I recommend you check the wedding forum also. From what I have read it seems the 17-55mm f2.8 is THE event / wedding lense to have. The other would be a 80-200 f2.8 type zoom then if needed a 12-24 type zoom. </p>

<p>The current Nikon offer for pro photographers into the DX format still are the 12-24/4, 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, all AFS. As said above, the 17 to 55 range is probably the most used.<br>

I`d not advice you to buy a 14-24 for the DX format, the 12-24 is wider, with a smaller size and less... "fragile".</p>

<p>If you're planning on photographing weddings, you'll need the wide angle for some shots. To cover the entire range of what you'll expect to capture, I would suggest 12-24, 24-70, 70-200 and another body. --Rich</p>

<p>Rich... Anothere body as in the D300 is not good enough for weddings or another body as a back up?<br>

Also the 24-70 is not wide enough on DX which would mean changing lenses too often. It would be great on a D700.</p>

<p>Not a wedding guy, but it sure seems that a D700 or D3 would be, by far, the best choice for weddings. The low-noise high-ISO FX sensor, and a touch of fill flash would be much, much better than a DX camera with mostly flash as the light source. So, the 17-35 & 24-70 & 70-200 would be the combo...</p>

<p>Jose - is the 70-200 f/2.8 AFS a DX lens?</p>

<p>Jose says those are the lenses Nikon offers for DX-format cameras. He didn't say every one of those is a DX lens. The 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is certainly not a DX lens.</p>

<p>It is not signed as a DX lens, and covers the entire full format... then is a truly full format lens. But...</p>

<p>When the 70-200 was released back in the 2002, thought, the flagship Nikon camera was the D1 (DX format) and, if I`m not wrong, it was announced in the same year of the D100 (DX format) release. Have a look at the MTF chart (surprisingly outstanding on the whole DX area, with a great fall right out this format) and you`ll end thinking that is a full format lens specifically designed (at least, optimized) for DX sized sensors. I have read in this forum that other users agree with this idea. It doesn`t mean that is a bad performer on full format cameras. I think is the current best Nikkor for both formats in its type&range.</p>

<p>I have the 14-24mm f/2.8 & I love it on my D300. However for weddings I would think that's not a good lens.<br>

From all I've ever read it's the 17-55mm f/2.8 that's the lens for that.</p>

<p>Lil :-)</p>

<p>Rene - clarification....I use a D3 and a D300 with the referenced lenses and have had no real issues with any of those lenses on either body, but I do switch around a bit. --Rich</p>

<p>I use the 17-55 and 70-200 w/o any complaint. The 17-55 is a dx lens but will cover a full frame sensor from about 20mm w/o vignetting.</p>

<p>14-24 would be an awkward wedding lens, to say the least. In fact, it's awkward for many people for most things. It's for ultra-wide junkies (especially on FX, there are better choices for most people for DX).</p>

<p>hope all that would help but i've read on photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment and it says that<br>

 

<h3 >

<h3 >Wide-Angle Zoom</h3>

<ul >

<li >Nikon full-frame body: <a href="http://www.adorama.com/NK1735AFSU.html?kbid=3925">Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S</a></li>

<li >Nikon small-sensor body: <a href="http://www.adorama.com/NK1424AFSU.html?kbid=3925">Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S</a></li>

</ul>

</h3>

and some says both d3oo and 14-24 would generate a superb output.

lets say i am doing it with outdoor photography, ignoring weddings job. Is't great?

i've read and heard about how great the lens is. Fast aperture + high performance.

need a solid advice before i've make my concrete decision.

</p>

<p>For wedding photography I use a D300 with the 70-200mm, 17-55mm, Sigma 50-150mm, and 16mm fisheye. I use a D3 with the 14-24mm f2.8, the 24-70mm f2.8, and 16mm fisheye lenses. <br>

Ceremony is D3 with the aforementioned lenses and the D300 with the 70-200. Reception is with the D3 using the 14-24mm f2.8 and the 24-70mm f2.8, the D300 with the 16mm fisheye and the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 lens. The 17-55mm f2.8 is a backup in case the D3 packs it in. Then I would use the 17-55mm f2.8 for the ceremony processional and recessional as well as for 90% of the reception shots.<br>

F4 lenses are too slow for wedding photography. I frequently find myself at ISO 3200, f2.8, and 1/40th second exposure. With f4 I would be at 1/20th and the odds of acceptably sharp images without motion blur would be about nil. When it is really dark I rely on the f1.4 Sigma 30mm, Nikon 50mm and 85mm lenses.<br>

I switched back to Nikon in spite of the low light AF problems of the D3 because of the ability to use the 14-24mm f2.8 lens. I had been using a 16-35mm f2.8 lens on Canon Mark III's with the 1.3 crop and there is a huge difference between the maximum picture angle at 16mm - 21mm effective on the Canon and a true 14mm on the D3. I can get the entire room in the shot during the bridal prep or the entire length of the couple during the first dances in crowded venues and it is really great. In the past I would have used a fisheye which is OK for a few shots but is otherwise limited. On the D300 the 16mm f2.8 fisheye works like a 16mm f2.8 rectilinear lens and is small and lightweight on the camera - nice kit to have for the second camera during the reception while shooting with the 24-70mm on the D3.</p>

<p>Regardless what other people said., the 14-24/2.8 lens is strictly for a FF camera and for a special us, not for DX and wedding. Plus, it is a big, big junk of lens. You need a 17-55/2.8 for close work, and a 85 or 105VR, for closing on for some subject.<br>

Even if you going to get a FF camera in the future, the 14-24/2.8 not a lens for your use.</p>

<p>I agree that the 14-24mm is not for weddings Fid. You ask about other uses, such as outdoors. I actually prefer the 14-24mm on my D300. It's my main combo when i shoot interiors/architecture (full time). If I need wider - which is not usually - I would use the 17-35mm on my D700. At it's price, I would recommend the 14-24mm only if you plan on getting the use out of it. </p>

<p>No offense to you Bela, but when trying to contribute in the future, it would be a good idea to not disregard all previous posts. And is it really up to one person to decide a lens is to be "strictly" used on any given format?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Bela, PLEASE refrain from making proclamations regarding a certain lens' attributes on a given format or for that matter declaring that a lens is junk and not good to use. I for one love the 14-24 on both my D300 and D700. It is true that the lens is more of a specialty lens but so is a 10.5 fisheye or a 400 f2.8...so when I need to go wide I can do so on two different format cameras depending on what I need for the composition / lighting at the time. So the 14-24 IS NOT JUST FOR THE FF CAMERA. You could go to Ric's website and actually see some great work using the 14-24 on the D300 used for architectural interior shots and they are quite beautiful. </p>

<p>You can use 14-24mm on D300 but that would a waste and defeat of its purpose, the point of 14-24 is that it is a lens that is corner to corner sharp at 14mm so you can use it at 14mm as intended. by putting it on D300 you are trashing the corners. You are buying a 21-36mm f/2.8 lens for $1500, neither very wide nor long a total waste. If you need a super wide for D300 your choice is 12-24 f/4 DX for almost half the price, and for wedding the best lens is 17-55 f/2.8 DX.</p>

<p>Did you read what was written above Arash. It may be a waste to YOU but it is heaven for me. The lens has paid for itself over 10X now. Actually, by using it on my D300 as opposed to my D700 - the sweet spot is sweeter. Yes, it has very good corners on FX, but even better on DX. </p>

<p>There are very few instances when you would use 14mm on FX successfully. As Shun has pointed out in the past, your subject gets really far away from you and composition becomes even more challenging. And 21mm IS very wide. It's not ULTRA wide but again, read my last sentence. </p>

<p>It's funny how many posts are written from a narrow point of view - that your own opinion is gospel. I only write what works for me and try to share my experience. You may disagree with me and that's fine - but I have thousands of shots with the subject of this thread. I wonder if you and Bela have shot this lens on FX.</p>

<p>Keith, a humble thank you for your kind words.</p><div></div>

<p>one more from Tribeca, NYC. Is this not wide enough for you?</p><div></div>

<p>Ric,<br>

I have shot more than 2000 photos with my D700 and 14-24 since I got it in January, if you don't know how to use a 14mm and FX that is your issue, and please keep your opinions to yourself I was replying to the OP neither did I respond to your post nor do I care about it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fid,<br>

Here is an example of what 14mm can do, I am putting together an extensive gallery of D700 and 14-24, for now I have a quick gallery on my photo.net page you can take a look at, it's a great lens but as I said it is not for wedding.</p><div></div>