Nikon 14-24mm or 17-35mm ??? HELP ME lol

[aaron said]

I dont know what to do ..... I have heard great comments on the 14-24mm and some not too good..... some people

tell me to go for the 17-35mm instead, I would like to hear your comments, I want the lens to make landscapes and

aerial pictures..... I was told I can not use filters on the 14-24mm

 

I need advice please...... thank you very much.

 

Aaron from Cancun Mexico

[joseph_wisniewski]

This is correct, you cannot use filters on the 14-24. Not even gel filters on the rear. This will be a problem if you are used to using an 80A indoors under incandescent light (which helps reduce blue channel noise and red channel blowouts). You cannot use polarizers, which is not much of a problem with something as wide as the 14-24, especially in the 14-20mm range. They're more likely to be missed from 20mm on up.

 

I don't typically use UV filters for "protection", so in general, the only filters that I really miss are the 80A and the neodymium enhancing filter. I love the 14-24mm, and it's the 17-35 that usually stays home while the 14-24 goes in the bag, along with the 24-70, 70-200, 135mm f2.0, 50mm f1.4, 45mm f2.5 (that's my favorite bag).

[edwin_walke]

I recently bought the 17-35 and love it. I primarly use it on my D300 and D2x so it is equivalent to 25-52mm in 35mm format. although I have not used the 14-24 I think both are both excellent in terms of image quality. I know for a fact the 17-35 is. I recently pulled out my F4S and put the lens on it and it is truely outstanding. AF-S works perfectly and the FX format is really nice, I will be cranking some film through the beast soon. I considered both of the lenses when I bought the 17-35 and the ability to use filters was probably the point that swayed me along with the the fact that I have a 35-70 F2.8 that I love. If I was looking at adding the 24-70 to my collection I might have gone with the 14-24 but the filter issue is must be considered.

 

Hopes this helps.

 

Ed

[gregf1]

I think it depends on the purpose and your other glass. For me I plan to get a 14mm - 24mm later this year.

[ShunCheung]

Which camera body/bodies are you going to use this lens on?

 

The 14-24mm/f2.8 is a wonderful lens that has a limited zoom range. On FX, it is an extreme wide lens that is quite specialized. Unless you really like an ultra wide lens, 17-35mm is a much more useful zoom range.

[josephwalsh]

I have never been a "UV filter to protect the lens" kind of guy but the front element on the 14-24mm looks very, very vulnerable.

Does it have some sort of extra hard, impervious coating on it?

Couple that with it's gigantic size and it makes me lean toward the 17-35. (no featherweight itself)

 

OTOH, its IQ is seems to be really exceptional.

[aaron said]

I will use either on the Nikon D3 and will be for landscapes and aerial pictures...... still dont know wich one to use.......

[eric_arnold]

if you want to use filters get 17-35. if not, get the 14-24. for some filters have become redundant in the digital age since you can add effects in post- . a more practical concern might be the risk of damaging the front element on a $1700 lens.

[ShunCheung]

For landscape and aerial pictures on the FX sensor (i.e. D3, D700), I would get the 17-35. The 14mm is mostly too

wide for a lot of landscape work. If you zoom up to 17, 18mm, you might as well take advantage of the 17-35 since

its long end is more useful. Additionally, using filters can be important for landscape.

 

I am afraid that the 14-24 is also too wide or derial work unless you want to include part of the airplane in your frame.

 

The 14-24 can be great for certain building interior work. Don't get me wrong, I have used the 14-24 quite a bit and am

getting one myself, but I'll be the first to tell you that it is not a lens for everybody. I also have the 17-35mm.

[juanjo_viagran]

I'd also go for the 17-35mm AFS, I had it and is an AWESOME lens.. and with the extra money I'd get a 16mm fisheye.. very fun lens for FX.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Ultrawide? On FX, 20mm is a "normal"...

 

Around 25 years ago, I walked into the "Negative Outlook", and Mark goes "look what I just took in in trade. You can have them for what I gave him for them". Nikon 20mm f2.8 AI-s and 35mm PC. Those were my second and third Nikkors, after the 50mm f1.4 that I bought with the used FM2. Boy, was the 20mm a pleasant change from that 50mm telephoto. I think I went an entire year before acquiring the super long telephoto...

 

105mm f2.5.

[gregf1]

i thought 50mm was normal on a 35mm flim camera. Which means it would also be normal on a FX camera. However a 32mm lens would be normal on a the DX camera.

[tpernal]

A 50mm lens is a "normal" lens on a full frame sensor and a 35mm body.

32 x 1.5 (for a DX sensor) = 48mm

Darn close to 50mm.

Look up the definition of a normal lens....

[ShunCheung]

It is abnormal to think 20mm is "normal." :-)

[jose_angel]

The 17-35 covers an angle slightly narrower than the 14-24 (104º vs.114º) which is barely a 10%.

 

In my experience, the gap from 14 to 17 is not as useful as from 24 to 35. The slighly wider 14-24 could be useful if

you must be so close to your subject (=almost in contact). On open air, the 17mm seems to me pretty wide enought

(perhaps too wide, too). On the other side, 35mm is probably the worldwide most used focal, vs. 24mm that could be

still too wide if you want to isolate a part of the view.

 

The 14-24 could be a delicate lens, althought the front element is protected by the built-in hood. The 17-35 is

noticeably smaller and light.

[Matthew Brennan]

Aaron,

 

I think the inability to use filters on the 14-24mm Nikkor is an oversight on Nikon's part. As stated in your previous thread, I now shoot with the 17-35mm as it will allow me to use my Lee filter system. I shoot landscapes with the 17-35mm and would be much agrieved without the abilty to use ND grads in landscape photography. The 14-24mm is said to be an ultra fine performer by many but I truly find the lack of frontal filter threads a major limiting factor. If you intend to keep your lens after you complete your aerial photography then I strongly suggest the 17-35mm.

[carl_becker2]

I don't have experience with either lens but for landscape it would be the 17-35mm. The 14-24mm may be better but its just to wide for me and with no filter option just not a good choice. If the use was for tight inside shots then the 14-24 would be my first choice.

[ShunCheung]

That is not at all an oversight; it is due to the very convex, bulging front element and the need of a built-in, non-removable lens hood to protect that front element. Pretty much all fisheye lenses cannot accept any front filter either for the same reason. However, most Nikon fisheye can accept a rear gel filter; the 14-24 cannot.

 

The question concerning which super-wide to pick is actually very simple. The 14-24 is good for those who really like ultra wides. For most people, perhaps 80 to 90% of the people, the 17-35mm is a far more useful lens. Just the fact that one needs to ask which one to get is a pretty good indication that the 17-35 is for you. All of those who really need the 14-24 should be well aware of it themselves already.<div></div>

[james_symington1]

My silliest waste of money in the last year was buying this lens - just an impulsive 'I want a new toy' purchase. It's a great lens believe me but it is really wholly unsatisfactory for landscape use and I should have contented myself with the 17-35mm that I already owned. For some reason I talked myself into the whole thing that not being able to attach filters was going to be a mild impediment in return for extra extra wide shots. Foolish indeed. It sat in a cupboard for a few months until I sold it at a modest loss.

 

Unless you like blending multiple exposures (I hate it passionately) this lens is not good for landscapes and you should get the 17-35mm which is already wide enough and gives you way more flexibility. The 14-24mm is a special effects lens really.

[raymond_petty1]

The 17-35 is still my favorite lens even though I may use others more. I see no need to ever replace it.

When I go to FX it will serve very nicely as my wide angle zoom.

[laverephoto]

The 17-35 has served me very well. I do a lot of close range work with it and I really would not like the distortion of

perspective that would occur at wider focal lengths. I think the 17 is plenty wide enough for everything but the most

extreme architectural shots.

[mtrejo6]

For your purpose, I would recommend the 17-35mm. I have the 14-24 and love it but I use my for wedding photography. It's great in tight spaces and panoramic interior shots. The only advantage of the 17-24mm is as stated earlier, you have the option of using filters.

[paddler_b]

17-35mm is by better useful range, and it is a marvelous lens. 14-24 is nice but it has a more limited use.

[Matthew Brennan]

Shun,

14-24mm with bulging front element or no bulging frontal element / protective hood or none - the fact remains that the 14-24mm is currently Nikon's flagship wide angle zoom lens and yet it won't take a filter...... If the 17-35mm lens is discontinued then I stand by my opinion that it's indeed an oversight on Nikon's part.

[ShunCheung]

Matthew, how do you put a filter thread and a filter in front of a bulging front element that covers a 114-degree of view? That is going to cause serious vignetting.

 

And it is not a "fact" that the 14-24mm is Nikon's flagship wide zoom. As I pointed out earlier, it is a specialty lens similar to a fisheye, and you cannot use a front filter on fisheyes either. That is precisely why most of us recomment the 17-35mm for more ordinary usage.