17-35 vs 14-24 image quality thoughts

[kaiyen]

<p>All,<br>

In another thread - http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00RtHj<strong> - </strong> the issue of whether the 14-24 was the best focal range or not was raised. Personally, I would have trouble using a lens with which I could not easily use filters. Therefore, as I progress towards FX (slowly), I am tending towards the 17-35.<br>

For a while, many stated that the 17-35 was one of the best lenses Nikon ever made. I heard this a few places, at least. I'm curious, for those that have that and have at least done a good test with the 14-24 or have actually switched, whether there is in fact a difference. And if there is, is it "amazing vs. super-amazing" or something more dramtic, like "really good vs. amazing." <br>

Thanks for the input,<br>

allan</p>

[paul hart]

<p>I had the 17-35 but it developed a fault, so took the chance to replace it with a 14-24. The 17-35 was a new lens, but squeaked when focussing. There is some evidence that I was not alone in having this problem with it.<br /> The 17-35 is smaller (but not small) and is probably more useful as an all-round wide angle zoom.<br /> Image quality of the 14-24 in the corners wide open is clearly superior. It handles flare extremely well. Overall IQ is astonishing, and reports that say it beats most or all primes within its range are probably correct.</p>

 

[walterh]

<p>"And if there is, is it "amazing vs. super-amazing" or something more dramtic, like "really good vs. amazing.""<br>

Allan how many images need this difference. For me "amazing" is good enough. On the few occasions when I used a pol filter I liked to be able to use a filter on my 17-35mm lens.<br>

Shooting an image for a large advertisement that might live from standing out from the crowd of amazing shots then super-amazing might pay its own price tag several times.<br>

On the other hand an "amazing" lens offers the photographer the chance to convert amazing to super-amazing by the personality of the photographer. I personally try to live up to the capability of my amazing lens :-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>We have discussed this issue many times and I am not sure anybody can provide any new ideas. The 17-35mm/f2.8 is an excellent lens on FX but a lot of them have developed AF motor squeak after a few years. Mine has a bit of that issue also.<br>

As an super wide lens, the 14-24mm/f2.8 is essentially an optical wonder with extremely sharp details and minimal distortion. In the range they overlap, the 14-24 is a bit "better" than the 17-35, but we are essentially splitting hair.<br>

The real question is whether you are better off having the extra 14-17mm range or the 24-35mm range and whether the fact that the 14-24 cannot use any filter is an issue for you. In my opinion, for perhaps 90% of the photographers, the 17-35 is a far more useful zoom range. For me, I'll only bring the 17-35 in most situations while the 14-24 will stay home unless I need to shoot building interiors or other ultra wide needs. If you like things that wide, the 14-24 is a must have.</p>

[galileo42]

<p>One issue that often seems overlooked: if you want to use your wide zoom on older MF Nikon bodies as well you will need the aperture ring of the 17-35. The 14-24 is a G lens. Ought to be taken into consideration.</p>

[mars790]

<p>I have both lenses and also a D300 and D700. Contrary to many opinions - I love the 14-24mm on the D300.<br>

It IS wide enough and the range is very useful (this combo is my main money maker). On FX it can easily be too wide with hard to control perspective. Plus, the "sweet spot" cuts down on exaggerated stretching at the edges.<br>

The 17-35mm is very nice on FX with a great focal range but doesn't have the corner to corner magic of the 14-24mm. </p><div></div>

[kaiyen]

<p>First - thanks for the responses. As always, I should have prefaced my question with a bit more. I did do some searching, and read the comments about the two lenses. But I did not get the impression of whether the issue was indeed splitting hairs or not. <br>

And I guess I better way of putting it was whether the nano-coating and optical design was a "giant leap forward" or just a noticeable but otherwise expected step forward in image quality. If the 17-35 is still "really, really good" if not "amazing on its own" then I'm fine with that :-). I definitely want to use filters, and have the 18-35 so am very comfortable with that focal range.<br>

thanks.</p>

[AndyMiller]

<p>Hi there, I have used both, and I have now got rid of the 17-35 in favour of the 14-24. I consider it a giant leap forward in IQ. As for filters, I now tend to use the Nik Software ColorEfex Pro3 and others in CS4. If I ever use filters they are used in post processing which I thinks give you better control.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Allan, I have tested both lenses very carefully. The 14-24 is a tiny bit sharper in the super wide range. You have to be very picky to tell the difference.<P>

A polarizer is a very important tool to block reflections from water/liquid surface, windows, glass, etc. There is absolutely nothing you can do to fix most of those problems in post processing. For example, if you have a landscape shot and you want to remove glare off the water surface so that you can see some rocks or logs under water, you have to use a polarizer. The same applies to glass surface, windows, etc.</p>

<P>

On DX, it is totally a different story. 17mm is typically not wide enough for DX but then 14mm is not that wide either. If you shoot DX, you are better off with the 12-24mm/f4, the Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 10-20.

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Comparing lenses like these two...</p>

<p>...You HAVE to figure out how big you're printing to know if you will even SEE any difference. I've worked with the 17-35 on full-frame and on DX (although that was a D1) and it's the one I'd go with in a heartbeat for FX. The 24 - 35mm range is WAY more important to me than the 14-17mm range.</p>

<p>On DX, I agree with Shun, the 14-24 is probably not the best choice.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>On Dx there are no corner to corner sharpness issues with the 17-35 that I've ever seen. Fortunately, for my type of photography I don't really need anything wider than a 25 35mm equivalent and for street you have a great, classic range on a dx. 25 to 50 with the 17-35. Its a heavy beasht, but it lives on my D200 now. The issues you will have with either of these lenses and your photography will not be with the lens. They both probably can resolve anything a sensor can throw at them. The only issue will be what pictures you take.<br>

Therefore, choose the focal length that best serves your needs, quality isn't a real issue with either of these choices. The insignificant hair-splitting differences do not really mean anything to the photographs there more of nitpicking red-herring. You'd be much better off thinking about your photos than miniscule rendition factors.</p>