14-24mm 2.8 or 24mm TS-E for FF Camera

<p>Hello,<br>

I will be upgrading to a nikon ff camera in the near future and am trying to get into the world of architecture/interior photography. To those who make a living doing this – what would your recommendation be for a first lens purchase? I'm considering the nikon 14-24 (however <em>might</em> be open to the Sigma 12-24 – i've read the mixed reviews here and elsewhere) and the 24mm tilt/shift lens. If you were to choose one, what would it be? Which lens do you find most useful on a daily basis? Are both of those lenses very narrow in the scope of usefulness?<br /><br />Should i be considering a longer lens for any reason (possibly as a second lens, like the nikon 24-70?) I am not interested in renting a lens as a long-term solution as the nearest rental place is far too distant and costly. I would rather put that rental money towards paying off the equipment i own, just personal preference. It makes you work that much harder. <br>

<br />Thanks in advance for sharing any input you have on this!<br>

Nate</p>

<p>I currently use a Nikon 14mm f2.8 on full frame and crop body giving a view of a 21mm lens. In my opinion 24mm is not wide enough. The moustache distortion in the 14mm can be problematic at times.</p>

<p>The two lenses that intrigue me the most are the Nikon 14-24mm and the Canon 17mm TS. I have read that distortion in the 14-24 may also be a problem. I photographed with a 17mm lens for over 15 years and the thought of using a 17mm TS on a 5DII is very exciting. If you are not too heavily invested in Nikon (or even if you are) you owe it to yourself to check out the Canon. </p>

<p>Creating effective compositions with superwide lenses, wider than 24mm, is a challenge but also very rewarding. If you have patience then superwides for architecture, interiors, and landscapes are the only way to go! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I bought both of those lenses last year. For architecture work, I find the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E excellent.</p>

<p>The 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S has very little distortion, but for architecture, it is hard to beat tilt-shift with the 24mm unless you use large format. The 14-24 is better for interior.</p>

<p>I would buy the 24mm PC lens because I have a lot of experience with movements on large format cameras and I miss that functionality on small format cameras. Then I would have it modified so I can use tilts simultaneously with rise and fall.</p>

<p>But that's MY requirement, not YOURS. A lot of people get a kick out of those ultra-wide focal lengths. The 14-24 would probably give most folks "more bang for the buck." If I weren't so dependent on movements, I'd probably buy the ultra-wide zoom.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I love my 14-24 on my FX D700. But I had a lot of fun with it already on my D300. I would think the 14-24 would do great for you.<br>

An other thought would be the 17-35mm which is also a great lens.</p>

<p>24 PC because you get tilt, shift, little distortion and if you sometimes run out of coverage you can stitch quite easily. The 14-24 could be interesting if you typically shoot in very cramped interiors and want everything in, but I wouldn't consider that typical. Personally I could get away with just one superwide for architecture, I need at least a 35 or a 50 for situations where I want at tighter view, but YMMV.</p>

<p>My non-professional view is that a camera with tilt shift capabilities is the first choice for professional architecture photography. So how about an old used 4x5 camera like a Linhof or Sinar with a film back if a modern camera with a digital back is out of financial reach?<br>

A professional would use the right tool for the right job at least if he can get professional money for the results. This may not be a popular answer in the Nikon forum though :-P<br>

The next best thing to a camera that allows movements of the back and the lens is a lens that at least allows you to move the lens to some degree.</p>

 

<p>I have a D3 and the 14-24 but not the 24 PC-E. I have used the 14-24 for shots of buildings and structures; If you frame it so that the verticals are straight, you can crop the shot for a simulation of a rising-front camera view--IF you can tolerate the cropping in regard to print size. Prints look fine in the 6X to 11X range. The 14-24 has a small amount of barrel distortion however, and I haven't seen distortion figures for the 24 PC-E. By the way, does anyone have distortion figures or a Zeiss-style graph of distortion for the 24 PC-E, or any of the Nikon lenses???</p>

<p>Nathan, you haven't stated which Nikon bodies you use. Note that the 24mm PC-E lens is limited in its movements with cameras other than D3 variants. A photo site that rhymes with Ren Kockwell has a page showing the lens' capabilities with various bodies that can't be linked to from p.net.</p>

<p>Here's an interior with the 14-24</p><div></div>

<p>For interior I would pick 14-24, it is not tilt-shift but the fast aperture and immense sharpness makes up for it, you just need to keep it level, it is perfect for those narrow dim interiors where tripod is not allowed. For exterior PC-E 24 is better due to shift capability . Usually you can change your tripod position to fit the entire subject so you can get away with 24mm. </p>

<p>Here is an example with 14-24 @ 14mm. </p><div></div>

<p>Eric, I am not too concerned about the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E's compatibity with different bodies. I have tried it on the D3000 and D5000, and they don't work together. However, on any camera body one would reasonably put the $2000+ 24mm PC-E on, including the D700 and D300, there are no issues.</p>

<p>More importantly, it only makes sense to use the 24mm PC-E on an FX body to photograph architecture anyway. With the DX crop, it is really not wide enough. The OP's title specifies that the intended camera body is FX.</p>

<p>I cannot thank you all enough for your great responses. To answer a few questions, I am currently using a D80, while i wait for the D700 replacement to be unveiled. To John, I have thought long and hard about Canon. I like their software better (in camera) and some of the ergonomic/layout choices they made. On the other hand, i prefer nikon's decision to use lots of buttons with single purposes. Canon seems to have more options when it comes to lenses however they also overlap a great deal (i.e. 17-40 and next obvious lens is the 24-70 – why pay for that range twice… or why pay $1400 for the remaining 40-70mm?) Hands down every review claims that the d700 <em>just slightly</em> surpasses the 5d mk ii in noise and sharpness, while it is obvious that the 5d mk ii's sensor is nearly twice the megapixels (and yes, i know that isn't the <em>whole</em> battle.) It is my opinion that cameras are becoming less disposable than they were a few years ago as the technology is really starting to reach a nice resting place (at least for the majority of us photographers). The fact that the 14-24 is widely regarded to be the sharpest 14mm ever, seems to say this is a good lens to spend the money on. </p>

<p>Shun, your comment intrigues me, as I've considered getting a 24mm PC-E, but shoot D700 bodies, as we've discussed. You're saying the overhang created by the pop-up flash on the D700 in no way limits the operation of the 24mm PC-E lens?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You're saying the overhang created by the pop-up flash on the D700 in no way limits the operation of the 24mm PC-E lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The short answer is "correct."</p>

<p>Think about this: the designers at Nikon are not stupid. The three PC-E lenses were announced in early 2008, between the D3/D300 (August 2007) and D700 (July 2008). Therefore, the design of all of those cameras already had the PC-E lenses in mind.</p>

<p>First of all, the front part of these PC-E lenses can be rotated WRT the mount so that you can achieve tilt and/or shift when the camera is in both the vertical and horizontal orientations.</p>

<p>The only problem with the 24mm PC-E and D700 combo is that the knob that control the shift function can potentially scratch the D700's viewfinder overhang. That can happen if you mount the 24mm PC-E on the D700 first and then rotate the front of the PC-E <strong>counter-clockwise</strong> by 90 degrees (when the front of the lens is facing you), something you would typically need to do if you want to shift the lens when the camera is in the vertical orientation. However, instead you can rotate the front of the PC-E <strong>clockwise</strong> by 90 degrees. Now that knob will be at the bottom of the camera instead while you can still shift the PC-E vertically and there is no limitation.</p>

<p>I know this description is complicated. Once you mount the PC-E on the D700 or D300, the limitation (or the lack of it) should be very obvious. An analagy would be you can only shoot vertically by rotating the camera one way but not the other; you can still make all the vertical shots you want without any difference.</p>

<p>I have tested my 24mm PC-E on the D3X, D3, D700, D300 and recently I tried it on the D3000 and D5000. I can't even mount the PC-E on the D5000, but except for those who are interested in such trivia, I doubt that anybody would even care.</p>

<p><strong>"Think about this: the designers at Nikon are not stupid."</strong></p>

<p>The statement assumes facts not in evidence. If the designers at Nikon were smart, they wouldn't have built a pop-up flash into the $2,500+ D700 to begin with. Seriously, do you use any lens that doesn't vignette with that useless little flash?</p>

<p>That having been said, thanks. I'll put the 24mm PC-E lens back in the running for my next lens purchase. </p>

<p>Eric, I never use any one of the pop-up flashes to light my images, but the D300 and D700's pop-up flashes are wonderful for controlling remote flashes in a Nikon CLS set up. I happen to have an SU-800 also, but frequently I just use the pop-up. Once I travelled and somehow forgot my SB-800 at home; I was so glad that the pop-up on the D700 could control my SB-800 and SB-900 ....</p>

<p>But that is another off-topic story.</p>

<p><strong>"(T)he D300 and D700's pop-up flashes are wonderful for controlling remote flashes in a Nikon CLS set up."</strong></p>

<p>As you say, its off-topic, but I disagree. You cannot use a pop-up flash to remote-control other Nikon flashes without the pop-up flash introducing some level of light contamination into your images (see photo). This is why I bought an SU-800.</p>

<p>Also, on any SLR or DSLR with a pop-up, the trade-off is that top-of-finder space is used up that could be better used for a larger chunk of glass in the prism, resulting in a brighter finder image. In other words, the pop-up flash dictates the negative consequence of a dimmer in-finder image. </p><div></div>

<p>Unlike some posters here, I have actually tested the 24 PC-E on both a D700 and a D300 and the image quality is very impressive when the lens is stopped down (in architecture photography there's zero use for wide angles at f2.8). The choice is really about the tilt/shift ability or the zooming. Choosing based on quality is really nitpicking in this case, if quality is a problem then the poster should consider a larger format.<br>

I don't agree with the 24 not being wide enough on DX. Like I indicated, one needs two or three focal lengths for this kind of work and top pros have still more in their bag. I have many times used an 180 mm lens on 4x5" for architecture (this is 50 mm equivalent in 35 mm terms). Also, stitching shots is relatively easy for architecture, that's why I didn't originally see the 14-24 as being particularly desirable.</p>

<p>You hit the nail on the head ("The choice is really about the tilt/shift ability or the zooming") and that is exactly my question. For those of you how have one or both lenses, which do you use more often? Wish you owned but don't? What will your next purchase be? <br /> <br />I do have to disagree though with 24mm on dx format being wide enough. The 17-70 i have on my D80 isn't wide enough in my opinion. <br /> <br />Thanks again to all for the helpful responses!</p>

<p>I would put it this way: if you shoot a lot of architecture externals with an FX body, get the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E. It is indeed a very special lens. I think that is the better lens for architecture.</p>

<p>The 14-24mm/f2.8 is great for tight corners, but I wonder you really need that wide or not. I think the 17-35mm/f2.8 is the better overall wide angle lens and 17mm is already very wide on FX.</p>

<p>I have all three of those lenses and the 17-35 is the one I use most.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have all three of those lenses and the 17-35 is the one I use most.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun,<br /><br />That's the kind of insight I was hoping for. Do you use the 24mm/f3.5 PC-E much for interiors? Can you comment on why you feel the 17-35mm/f2.8 is a better lens?<br /><br />Thanks!</p>

<p>I don't shoot very much architecture or building interiors. I bought the 24mm PC-E mainly for near-far landscape photography to manipulate the plane of focus.</p>

<p>The 17-35mm is a "better" lens mainly because that is a far more useful 2x zoom range. It covers from slight wide to super wide for the FX format and can therefore be the only wide angle lens one has. 14-24 is a much more limited zoom range; not a whole lot of people need to use 14mm very often. Meanwhile, you clearly need another lens (or lenses) to cover the common 28m and 35mm angles.</p>

<p>The 14-24 and 24-70 is a good pair, but every time you need to go across the 24mm boundary, it means a lens change, and I cross that boundary very often. That is why I would rather have the 24-70 and 17-35. A bit of overlap in zoom ranges is preferred in my book.</p>