Opinions on Nikon 14-24 f2.8 on full frame for weddings

<p>I am looking to get opinions on Nikon's 14-24 f2.8 for wedding work. I would be using it on a D700. Anyone use it for weddings? Does it get much use? I can see using it for prep shots, architectural/landscape shots, and on the dance floor. Sample photos would be appreciated! Thanks</p>

<p>It seems <em>awfully</em> wide for that sort of use. A 17-35/2.8 seems far more useful, if not the new 16-35/4 VR.</p>

<p>It's really big and heavy.</p>

<p>Can't answer for that Nikon lens directly re weight Image quality etc, but in regard to FL the 16 to 35F/2.8L did see some work on my 5D. <br>

<br>

I think stopping at FL = 24mm would be the limiting factor, in having it mounted for any great period of time of a D700, at a Wedding - and after all, one of the zoom lenses jobs - is to avoid lens changes.<br>

<br>

WW </p>

 

<p>Depends on whether you like to shoot wide stuff a lot or not. </p>

<p>When I shot Nikon it was a staple along with the excellent 24-70/2.8. If you do not have a 24-70/2.8, I'd say get that first. For me, use of a 24-70 ran at least 10X more than the 14-24 ... but when needed the 14-24 was indispensable. I was amazed how often I used the 14mm end.</p>

<p> The 14-24/28 is one of Nikon's new nano coated reformulated lenses, and is already a legend in its own time because of it's optical performance ... which is significantly better than the older 17-35/2.8. Can't speak to the new 16-35/4 VR which is also a nano coated lens as an alternative, but that lens is a bit large also.</p>

<p>Uses for such a wide zoom can be invaluable for cramped getting ready rooms, sweeping shots of church interiors and reception venues, wading into the dance floor amongst the people dancing where even a 24-70 can be useless. I also used it frequently for dramatic candids like the attached photo. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>I tend to shoot a lot at 50mm or so on a crop camera to get closeup shots of people without having to get too close to them. If you can stay 8-10 feet away you can get nice over-the-shoulder candids without people noticing you.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. Marc, that's a great shot. I love the look of these kind of shots and am thinking that although it isn't that versatile, I'd like to have the capability of getting this look for some shots throughout the day. I do have the 24-70.</p>

<p>I picked up a used Sigma 14mm 3.5 a few years back. It's small, so easy to keep in the bag at all times. Comes in handy for those ultra wide shots here and there. A nice compromise between nothing at all and a big expensive lens. Image quality is fine.</p>

<p>I love that lens...but I don't use it as much as I should to make it worthwhile. It's great for a whole church shot from the back or when the dancefloor is jam packed and you have to work your way through the crowd to avoid too many backs of people's heads.<br>

I went into Lightroom to see how much I used it at one of my last weddings. Of the 494 photos that made the cut, only 32 of them were shot with that lens and 357 were shot with the 24-70! The rest were shot with the 70-200 or the 17-55 on a D300. The 24-70 is on my D700 most of the time and my associate uses the longer lens on the D300.<br>

I do love it though. If I absolutely HAD to sell it, I could live without it, but what fun would that be?</p>

<p>Have it, but don't use it on the FF at weddings any more. Too bulky and not enough range. Great for other uses (interiors, dramatic vistas, etc.) though. I prefer it on a crop body most times as its like using a 20-35 type lens, and its ultra sharp/contrasty/colorful.</p>

<p>The 17-35 is still an excellent lens and will take as good of a picture as the user is capable of. I'm not sure what practical "significant" improvement is gained by the 14-24 though it is more modern. If you don' t have any of these lenses and price is no object, than by all means the latest greatest is the 14-24, but I wouldn't dump a 17-35 to get one unless I really wanted that extra wideness. But the 24-70 is a very useful range you would use a lot more. I use if for street and event shooting and it's very handy on a full frame. 24 is still pretty wide.</p>

<p>I use it for weddings. More for when doing creative shots where I either want to emphasize the environment for compositional reasons, or when I don't have too much space to work with (crowded places, small rooms, tight alleyways that don't allow me to back up. I prefer it to the 17-35mm because it is nanocoated and has in my opinion better optical quality and focusing (more accurate). If your style is to use some wide angle shots, this lens is definitely the lens to get. Only con is that like a previous commenter said, is that it is big and heavy. Kinda limits what you can carry. When I know I need this lens, I usually have it mounted on a second body, while my main body gets a fast prime or 24-70mm 2.8.</p>

<p>How's the distortion on the 14-24 especially at the wide end? Assuming you keep the camera straight:)</p>

<p>If you keep the camera straight, the distortion on the 14-24 is quite acceptable. If you don't, well... I have the lens and use it a lot for interior shots and landscapes. I am<em><strong> not </strong> </em> a wedding photographer, but if I were, I would only use the 14-24 for interior shots of wedding venues, reception halls, and perhaps for exterior environmental shots I recently used it to capture a family gathering of 30 or so folks gathered in a long family room kitchen combination. Perhaps three out of 50 images. Although I love the lens for its incredible sharpness, it is rather limited in its applications.</p>

<p>Would it make more sense to get a less expensive prime lens that covers the 14mm (approx) end of the spectrum, and then use your 24-70 for medium-wide-angle work? The 24-70 is certainly more versatile for regular portrait work.</p>

<p>I think you would use that wide angle very little relative to other lenses (and you would need to change lenses for portrait work anyway). Getting a zoom in that range seems somewhat unnecessary for wedding work. Your mileage my vary, but if it were me and I wanted a very wide angle lens, that's what I'd do.</p>

<p>Nicole already has a 24-70 Juanita.</p>

<p>I had a 14mm prime ... which isn't cheap either. It was even more limited in usage. </p>

<p>Sometimes when you are in a cramped dressing room, or other tight area, you need to go wider than 24mm, but want to limit the amount of distortion as much as possible ... so you can use just enough to get in the subject matter ... like 20mm ... but still have the widest end to get the dramatic stuff like the shot I posted above, which was @ 14mm.</p>

<p>No right or wrong here ... just creative preferences and options. I personally like the 14-24 because there was no overlap with the 24-70 ... just like there is no overlap between the 24-70 and 70- 200. Coverage from 14mm to 200mm with 3 lenses. </p>

<p>Thanks so much for the responses. It seems like a great lens for some creative shots. The distortion on the wide end is appealing to me... not quite as intense as a fisheye, but something different which can help bring emphasis to the subject.</p>

<p>The 14-24 has some distortion on the wide end (which both ends are BTW), but it has served me for some interior shots at a push. Correction is fairly easy with software too as the lines it draws are consistent versus wavy. </p>

<p>Nicole, you can get REALLY close with it too, but watch out, I have actually bumped into my subject once or twice as it gives you the feeling you are much farther back that you really are.</p>