Nikon 14-24 & 24-70 . . . ?

[BelaMolnar]

<p> In logic, it is a nice combination, a 14-24/2.8 & a 24-70/2.8 lens. Nice continuation from 14 mm super wide angle, to a short tele, 70mm. But ! In practicality, it is not really a good combination. I would prefer a prime 14/2.8 or even a 14/3.5 or f4 ( the movement of angle so small anyway, a slower lens would do it) and a zoom, for example 16-28(24)/2.8. (able to accommodate filters) I have the 14-24 & 24-70. Mostly the 24-70 is on my D700 body, and the 14-24 I using when I need an extra wide for a composition. ( super wide angle addict). Mostly the 14 end. Plus, the 14-24 can't accommodate any filters. The 17-35/2.8 is not a solution, when you have all ready the 24-70/2.8. So. . . . NIKON, please do a new lens for me ! Ha, ha. . . . . So! What is your nice people opinion on this?</p>

<p>Cheers; Bela</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>Few filters are needed for digi. A pola is the single most valuable and it will not work well with wide lenses to darken skies uniformly. That is a photoshop job with gradients.</p>

<p>14/24 is a large bulky lens as is the other. Wide prime Nikkors do not win any prizes in my book. You and I have the wrong system for that. The proper solution is a Canon and you adapt a a leica or Zeiss or use the Sony FF.</p>

<p>My Leica wides are better without question.</p>

<p>From where you are now, the 14/24 is best and is better than Nikkor primes in that range. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>I think the 14-24mm f/2.8 is one of the finest wide angle lenses I've ever used, including various Zeiss , Canon, Leica, Nikon, Rodenstock & Schneider lens for formats from 35mm to 6x17cm.</p>

<p>Frankly I haven't missed the ability to put a polarizing filter in front of it which would be pretty pointless with a lens in the 14-24mm range anyway. As for other filter effects (including graduated density filters) that is so very easily and more carefully done in either Lightroom or Photoshop that for me, for what I photograph (people (in studio and on location), architecture, products (in studio and on location), industrial sites, stitched panoramics, and cityscapes), the way I photogrpah (raw ) that I haven't missed that either .</p>

<p> </p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Thank you for your comments, Ronald and Ellis . The only reason I like to have a prime 14 and something from 16, 17, 18 to cover the field from 14 to 24. The 14-24 is to bulky, heave, and mostly I like to work hand hold, and then you can't take multiples to caver the sky and foreground, to merge the two images. On tripod. So, I thought, the 14/2.8( mostly using for interior/architecture) 18/2.8 (not available in Canada) and I'm o.k. from 24 up. I don't using a pola with wide angles, I know the exposure problem of it. But, I like to use ND-G filters if it is possible. Well, I my have to stuck with the 14-24.</p>

<p>Cheers; Bela</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Why is the 17-35 not a solution. Wider than 17 with filters is not happening. You describe a proposed 16-28 f2.8. Nikon will not make that lens with a perfectly good 17-35 already available.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>There is absolutely no doubt that the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S is a wonderful super wide, but it is also a bulky lens with a limited zoom range. Personally I think the 17-35mm/f2.8 has a far better zoom range and you can use filters with it. Unless you are really into super wides (as I do occasionally), the 17-35 is a better lens to have in my opinion.<br>

<br />I have heard from multiple sources that production for the 17-35mm/f2.8 has already stopped. Whether Nikon will resume it or replace that lens is unknown at this point. It is still available, but unfortunately the price has gone up quite a bit since the recent price increase.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Say whatever you want about it being big & bulky - - lets not forget the word "heavy" - -but the lens is dreamy & it's one lens I'm not giving up. I just love mine...<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[hawkman]

<p>You are saying that Nikon should make a 14mm f/4 prime and a 16-28mm f/2.8 zoom instead of a single perfect 14-24mm f/2.8 ? humm....</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Bela, your portfolio is the one I`d like to have... I see you`re pretty used to Ps. For whatever the reason you want to use filters. Why not to use Lee or Cokin or a homemade filter holder if you are not using polarizers? Specially if you look for a ND filter just buy Cokin X-Pro NDs and build your own attachment directly to the filter! I think it must be soooo easy... Of course a 14/2.8 will be always smaller&lighter (as any prime vs. zoom) but the 14-24 is already a "big" 14/2.8 that gives you the highest available performance with the plus of a little zoom versatility.</p>

<p>Why not a 17-35 and a 24-70? Overlapping? Who cares? If the 17-35 suit your needs, why not? A 17-35 cannot replace a 24-70 nor a 14-24; or in the opposite, it could replace both lenses. It all depends of the user`needs and likings.</p>

<p>Personally I like the 14-24 as it is (I consider it as somekind of "exotic"). Sometimes I miss to have a 17-35, too.</p>

[nathancraver]

<p>I think Sigma has an ultra-wide made like the 14-24, and it has a cap that goes over the hood that you can screw filters into. Basically, if you could take the cap of the 14-24, cut a hole in it, and attach a filter step-down adapter to the inside of the cap, then you would have the same thing. I don't have, and have never used the 14-24, but it might be worth a try as the parts required would be cheap. Just an idea...</p>

[hawkman]

<p><a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=27047243">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=27047243</a></p>

<p> </p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Thank you for your comments and recommendation, for all of you, I will stay with the 14-24 & 24-70 arrangement, but as some of you commented, I miss my 17-35/2.8 too. And the price jumped up to high. I tried hand holding the Cokin X-Pro ND filter, but because the hood opening at the side, I get reflection on the filter. So, I don't using any filters anymore. I managed to get the sky as I like it on the PS. The 24-70/2.8 is a fantastic lens to, I don't mind the weight and not really bulky. It is mounted permanently on my D700. Some cases I wish it got a little bit wider, but I can live with it, and if I really want a super-super wide, I just pull out the 14-24. Also considering to buy a second d700 body for the 14-24, because I hate to change lenses, specially on the field, dusty, rainy or in a heavy morning fog. Up from 70, I using the D300. Thanks again, for your advice for all of you.</p>

<p>Cheers; Bela</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Bela,</p>

<p>On second thought maybe the following lens is perfect for you:</p>

<p>http://www.ppmag.com/web-exclusives/2009/01/review-tamron-sp-af1024mm-f354-1.html</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Elllis - thanks so much for the tip about the 10-24 on FX. How is the Nikon 12-24 on FX?</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Ellis. Thank you for your recommendation. The Tamron 10-24 is a great lens, but my pain is, . . . even a 14-24 @14, not as wide as the 14 prime lens. The 10mm on the FF body, only 15mm max. but, the Tamron is a good idea if you can compromise on the wide end.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>I have not tried it on a D3, D700 or D3X. I did try it on a Nikon F5 or F6 and if covered the full frame over the 17-24mm range with excellent results.</p><div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I've read a few sites, but seen nothing from anybody really reputable yet, however, the early word on the Tamron 10-24 is not good at all!</p>

<p>Check this out. <a href="http://virtualentity.blogspot.com/2008/11/tamron-10-24-35-45-vs-compared-to-sigma.html">http://virtualentity.blogspot.com/2008/11/tamron-10-24-35-45-vs-compared-to-sigma.html</a></p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>I guess I'm not reputable...</p>

<p>Sigh...</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Thomas. The 12-24 is a no no for FF bodies. heavy vignetting from 12-20, on a FF body. And the lens has an uneven barrel distortion, witch is very difficult to correct with PS. The lens is very sharp otherwise.</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>dpreview just put up a review of the tamron 10-24. check it out. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ellis,</p>

<p>Didn't mean that at all!</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>Actually I was just looking at Rockwells site and the Tokina 11-16 works at 15-16mm on FX. So if you switch to FX you end up with a very wide 2.8 prime on FX. So I think this is a good way to go, if right now you'd rather have the optical quality and 2.8 aperture of the Tokina and it's limited zoom compared to the other options out there. Though some people have not liked the Tokina as much as others.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<blockquote>

<p>Even a 14-24 @14, not as wide as the 14 prime lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'll have to show me a direct A/B comparison shot (14-24mm @ 14mm vs. 14mm Nikkor) of the same photo to convince me of that. At any rate the 14mm Nikkor can't really be filtered either and is not as good a lens as the 14-24mm is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I've often heard about using some of these lenses that are DX on FX in the range where they cover the frame, but I've not as often seen real tests of them in this usage. I suspect that the edge sharpness might not be great on a Tamron 10-24 or a Tokina 11-16 at the edges, used in a way that they weren't designed for.</p>

<p>Anybody really tested them?</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>Perhaps Zeiss will make a 15mm ZF lens eventually...but it'd probably cost the same or more than the 14-24!</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Peter, the 14-24mm/f2.8 @ 14mm on FX has excellent edge sharpness. I have posted the following image a few times, captured on a D700: <a href="../photo/7919556">http://www.photo.net/photo/7919556</a></p>

<p>Attached is a pixel-level crop from the bottom of the lower sculpture. It was at f11, but the amount of depth of field and edge-to-edge sharpness one can get from that lens is incredible.<br>

<br />The 14-24 is a lens with a lot of limitations: limited zoom range in the extreme wide area, bulging front element that cannot take filters and is also vulnerable, heavy ..., but for what it can do, it is beyond excellent. It is more a specialized lens for those who love superwides and is not a lens for everybody.</p><div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>Amazing lens no doubt. I was talking about the edge sharpness of DX lenses used on FX.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>That would be a different topic, Peter. Even though some DX zoom lenses can cover the full FX frame on the long end of those zoom range, usually edge quality outside of the DX area is at best mediocre and is frequently outright poor.<br>

<br />I have posted a couple of samples with the 12-24mm/f4 DX and 17-55mm/f2.8 DX covering the entire FX frame on their respective long end. Whether people consider me as a "reputable source" or not is another issue. :-(<br>

<br />12-24: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00QgSE">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QgSE</a><br />17-55: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00Qybj">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Qybj</a></p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Ellis. I had read from KR that, "the 14 prime little bit wider then the 14-24 @14." I don't have a comparison test, but planing to rent for a weekend the 14 prime for testing.</p>

<p>Cheers; Bela</p>