feedback on Nikon 14mm f2.8 lens

<p>Hi,<br>

I do a lot of wide angle photography (landscape, travel, some people shots) and currently own the Nikon 17-35mm and 16mm fisheye. I looked at the 14-24mm lens in a store, but it's way too big and heavy for me to carry around. However, I would be tempted to buy a Nikon 14mm lens which would complement nicely the rest of my lenses. If you have used the 17-35mm and the 14mm, I'd really like to hear about your thoughts in terms of sharpness, distortation, flare, etc. Yes, I have read the reviews on the web, but I'm looking for more real usage information. I have a Nikon D700.<br>

Thanks, Mihut</p>

<p>I owned a 14mm f/2.8 ED lens for a while. It is a good lens on a D700, if you shoot it at f/5.6-8.0. The lens certainly exhibits CA in corners, which can largely be corrected in Pshop. Again, at f/5.6-8.0, the lens is pretty sharp from corner to corner.</p>

<p>Optically, the 14-24mm is going to be a better lens in every way. Though, as you note, the 14-24mm is bigger and will be pricier.</p>

<p>One particular peeve- the 14mm f/2.8 has a bulbous front element and doesn't take front-mounted, screw-on filters, so you'll want to use the lens cap. Nikon sold the lens with a super-annoying, soft-sided leather lens cap that almost always takes two hands to put back on. S.K. Grimes did a swell job of making me a plastic lens cap that fit like a glove:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.skgrimes.com/products/lens-caps">http://www.skgrimes.com/products/lens-caps</a></p><div></div>

<p>I would avoid the 14/2.8 AF Nikkor at all costs. The 14-24 produces much, much better image quality. Sharpness, clarity, color rendition are a lot better in the zoom, it produces much less CA, and distortion is more regular (14/2.8 has moustache distortion, the 14-42 straightforward barrel).</p>

<p>The 14-24 is surely heavy but the 14/2.8 isn't lightweight either, and the former is in every way worth what they're asking for it. That is, if you really need a superwide angle lens. </p>

<p>I haven't used the 17-35 so I can't comment on its performance.</p>

<p>Just in case it helps (and this isn't from personal recommendation - I have a 14-24), have you considered the 14mm Samyang? I believe I might have seen mixed reviews, but photozone seemed to like theirs. It's not tiny, but it's a lot smaller than a 14-24...</p>

<p>When I was looking for a 14mm I went to a camera store that had the Nikon 14mm and the Tamron 14mm.<br>

I shot both of them on the same DSLR and ended up with the Tamron. I found it to be better in the corners and over all sharper.<br>

Unfortunately you cant buy the Tamron new anymore but good used copies are easy to find.</p>

<p><em>"I would avoid the 14/2.8 AF Nikkor at all costs."</em><br /> <br /> Ilkka, it's a lens; not rectal cancer. The 14mm f/2.8 weighs a third less than the 14-24mm and can be purchased in like-new condition for half the price (or less) of a 14-24mm. Melodrama aside, the 14mm f/2.8 is a good lens.</p>

<p>I had the same wide lenses you do, Mihut, and wanted to go wider but the price of the Nikon 14mm or 14-24mm was too much. I found an eBay auction with no bids & got a Tamron 14mm for $400 in 2009 and am perfectly happy with it. </p>

<p>I don't know if $400 is a good price right now, but it sold new for about $1,100 US and many were going for over $700 on eBay at the time.</p><div></div>

<p><em>the 14mm f/2.8 is a good lens.</em></p>

<p>I guess that depends on what you call a "good lens." I would not consider it worth more than 400 USD. If I had to keep it I would not accept it as a gift. I think Bjorn Rorslett's review summarizes its performance nicely though I would not be as kind to it.</p>

<p>I just did a quick search for the Sigma 14mm and here's a review by Thom Hogan:</p>

<p>http://www.bythom.com/14lens.htm</p>

<p>Michael - for reference, I've used a 14mm Sigma f/2.8, borrowed from a friend, on my Canons (300D and film). I was grateful for the field of view, since my Canon lens collection was less extensive than my Nikon one now is, but I wasn't blown away by it optically. The original owner of that lens had got rid of it in order to pick up a fish-eye, which was allegedly sharper. I've not put them side by side, but I'm sure the 14-24 is in a different league. The Sigma wasn't that small, either - although at least you could put a filter inside the lens cap (as you can on the Sigma 8mm fish-eye I now own). I don't remember thinking "eww" as I did when I put a 20mm f/1.8 Sigma on my D700, so it's probably not that bad - but then the 14-24 is one of the reasons I switched to Nikon.</p>

<p>I used the Nikon 14mm f2.8 for about 8 years. Contrast, colour rendition, and over-all resolution are excellent. Control over flare is reasonable, but not as good as my Nikon 8/2.8. Main subject resolution is superb. Sure, it might be a bit soft in the corners but what wideangle isn't. Most people are more likely put off by the perspective distortion in the corners, again typical for a superwide angle lens. I never noticed any out of the ordinary CA, and never had to correct any as I have had to do with other lenses.</p>

<p>The only negative comment I have about the lens is the "moustache," distortion pointed out by Bjorn Rorslett. I learned quickly to chose compositions that would minimize the effect. When I took architectural interiors I would try to take photos into the corners of a room so there would be no straight lines in the foreground to show the distortion. I took an image parallel to a wall of windows overlooking Niagara Falls. It was a wonderful idea and a good image but it certainly highlighted the moustache distortion. Needless to say I never tried that again.</p>

<p>If I could have afforded to keep it I would have. I switched to a Canon 17 TS-E. The Canon is extremely highly rated and in my quick tests while I had both, the Nikon 14/2.8 compared extremely well.</p>

<p>The Sigma 12-24 is another lens that may be worth considering. I have no idea how its size compares to the Nikon 14-24. I do agree that, at least as a focal length, 14mm fits very well with your lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here are some samples taken with the Nikon 14/2.8 on either film or full frame digital (Kodak SLRn). A couple with a bit of moustache distortion and a couple with none visible. Not the greatest quality here, but you can check my portfolio for larger individual images.</p><div></div>

<p>I own the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D, and it just so happens that I was shooting some tests with it last night, mainly to compare it with my AI-S primes (35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2, and 105mm f/1.8). The AI-S primes bested my 14mm f/2.8D very slightly, at optimum aperture (i.e., f/5.6), so I give my 14mm f/2.8 a 'B+.' Below is an Aperture screen grab, and a 100% crop of the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D, shot with a Nikon D3s at f/5.6:</p>

<p><img src="http://nikoncinematographer.com/images/14-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://nikoncinematographer.com/images/14-2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>Gorgeous shots, John!</p>

<p>There doesn't seem to be a clear winner for the top prime lens spot. Tamron goes for $400 now, I think I'm going to give that a try. Of course, Nikon might up the game with a fixed 12mm after they did the 14-24mm zoom. Afterall, for many years the holy grail was the 13mm, probably no one thought a 14-24mm f2.8 zoom would be possible. Thanks, everyone!</p>

<p>http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx116prodx-a.html<br>

Better, lighter, cheaper, more versatile. I'd never buy an overpriced 14mm with this gem on the market.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Better, lighter, cheaper, more versatile. I'd never buy an overpriced 14mm with this gem on the market.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I'm sure that will work out well using a DX lens on a FX body, gives the 14-24 a real run for it's money.</p>

<p>For lenses that actually have FX coverage, I'd meant to pick up on John's suggestion: the Sigma 12-24 is very well thought-of, and was considered very respectable until Nikon turned up with the 14-24 and blew it away. It's definitely much smaller, although bear in mind you get a dimmer finder image because of the smaller maximum aperture. I've not seen it compared with the obvious primes, but it might be competitive, and you get more flexibility and a wider wide end for your money. Worth a look, anyway. (I've only briefly used one in a store - it was very dim on a 300D viewfinder, but I suspect the D700 would be much better.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, I'm sure that will work out well using a DX lens on a FX body, gives the 14-24 a real run for it's money.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. I like the Sigma option for FX. I just find that for the price, there are lots of better performers than the Nikkor 14.</p>

Hello,

 

I have the Nikon 14mm f2.8 lens but use it for now on a dx camera. It is a heavy but compact lens. I bought it used at an attractive price

but would not buy it at the full price. It is a very difficult to use but very creative. I think your 17-35 zoom is one of the best but then there

is the quest for something wider. I only have prime lenses but I am fascinated by the ultra wide creative aspects. This lens format is

widely copied by third party manufacturers. Once a person chooses to enter the world of ultra wide photography then there are the

attendant problems of bulbous, unprotected front elements, lousy lens caps, flare, edge performance and aberrations.

 

The 14-24 has set the standard for optical performance in this area with zoom flexibility as well. However I prefer to use a single focal

length (preference). The ne plus ultra for me would be the new zeiss 15 mm f2.8 because auto focus is not essential for this focal length.

Any comments on optical performance for this lens used on a dx camera have little meaning.

 

So for me the creative aspects of this lens, along with the relatively compact size, make this worth the problems. I like this lens a lot.

Good luck with your ultra wide journey!

<p>Sigma 12-24mm seems to be better than the Nikon 14mm in this test:<br>

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/14mm/14mm_test.html</p>