Nikon 14-24 or DX 10-24 with D90 dx

[anges_chan]

<p>I'm struggling on whether to get the 14-24 or 10-24 for my D-90. I purchased my D90 together with the kit lens 18-105

and recently purchased the 17-55, which I love a lot. The reason why I like the 17-55 besides it's quality is that I

don't like to carry around a number of lens, and 17-55 distance is perfect.<br>

Getting back to the wide angle lens, as I'm planning a trip to Italy with my GF, I want a wide angle lens that can

capture the nice scenary like castles and stuff. I plan to take the wide angle lens together with my 18-105 and

35/1.8 only, as together with the tripod and flashlight I'll be carrying a lot of load, and the 17-55 will stay at home. <

/p>

<

p>I've tried both 14-24 and 10-24 before, and obviously 14-24 has better quality both in pic and built quality, and I like it a l

ot. I have no plan in going to FF yet, that might happen in 1 or 2+ years. I can afford 14-24, but just hard to justify b

uying it as I have the 17-55 DX, and it is 2 times the price of 10-24 DX.</p>

<

p>Therefore my question is</p>

<

p>1. Which one to choose?</p>

<

p>2. 10 is definately wider than 14, but is 14 good enough for Italy?</p>

<

p>3. Am I wasting money as I have 17-55, and 14-24 only gives me a bit more on the wide side?</p>

<

p>4. Should I just buy 10-24 and save the rest to get a new 70-200vr in the future?</p>

<

p>5. As I don't like to carry more than one lens around when I'm not travelling, can 14-24 be a carry around lens when I j

ust go out to the city or dinner with friends, is the distance good enough for that?</p>

<

p>4. Is wide angle + 18-105 + 35/1.8 a good choice for the Italy trip or too heavy or should I carry 17-55 also?</p>

<

p>I would love to hear from ppl who's been though the similar debate or who has both 17-55 and another wide angle l

ens. Thanks.</p>

<

p> </p>?

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Buy the lens for your camera. The 14-24 is designed for ultra-ultra-wide on FX. Not what you have.</p>

<p>Get the 10-24. Neither lens is a main camera "stay-on" lens for walking around the city unless you are really only looking for ultra-wide stuff.</p>

<p>And an 18-105 with a 35 in the bag is a great choice for a trip if you need to go light-weight. That said, I tend to carry everything I have when I go some place.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Anges,<br />I can only speak from my own experience.</p>

<p>I live in Europe, and my camera has accompanied me on many trips. I seldom have had the need to go wider than 18mm (18-70 DX), but of course, your shooting style may differ from mine. I have also bought some lenses, without properly sitting down in advance, thinking through: "What do I need and why?"</p>

<p>If you are not sure whether you need a wide-angle, or which kind, I would rather consider buying some of the third party lenses. They are often cheaper that the Nikons, and often with quite acceptable IQ. Nikonians had a few years ago a Wide-Angle shoot out (<a href="http://www.nikonians.org">www.nikonians.org</a>), which you might find interesting.</p>

<p>Myself, I was in doubt whether I really needed a Super-WA, but it would certainly be "nice to have", so I bought a Tamron 11-18. Not expensive at all, and quite usable for my use. It seems I do not shoot that wide angle that much, so I saved quite a few bucks compared to the Nikon 12-24 I really wanted. To me, everything wider than 16mm is so wide, that I really have to think composition, and on a holiday, being a part of a group (spouse, family) I cannot spend that much time. Happily "snapping" with a super-WA often includes too much in a photo.</p>

<p>Not knowing what kind of equipment you have, I'd bring with me the 18-105 and the 35 1.8 (the latter for low-light situations, restaurants in the evening and so on), OR take the 17-55 and a prime approx 85-105 if you have one. I do not think you will need much other lenses, if you do not have any special interests (birds, animals, sports) which I from your post cannot read whether you have.</p>

<p>The most important with such a trip is to HAVE FUN. Don't bring too much.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Well I am going to complicate things even more! <em>My</em> suggestion would be the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Excellent optics; great build quality; fast(er) glass than the Nikon 10-24 or the Tamron 11-18 and priced right in the middle. I haven't used the Nikon or Tamron lens but when I shot Canon I had the 10-22 and I can say that this lens is far better than that. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'm with peter on this, who i believe has the 11-16. you dont need the 14-24 on a DX camera. period. it's that simple. if you have the $$, get the 10-24, otherwise you can save even more ans get the tokina 12-24. the 11-16 only makes sense if you a)need 2.8 or b) are also bringing the 17-55. it's just not long enough. the extra reach means less switching. you dont need fast glass for an UWA.</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>10-24 is a great lebs for a DX camera.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I have a 14-24, a D3, and a D90. It's hard to picture something that handles much worse than the 14-24 on the D90. I can't picture lugging that huge, heavy, and highly vulnerable monster around unless the D3 is also around to use the full capability of the 14-24. For the D90, save yourself a lot of weight and go with Eric and John, teh Tokina 11-16mm is very nice.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>As a follow up, I would rather have a constant aperture lens than a variable aperture lens. IMHO, they just seem sharper. Part of that might by that a f/2.8 lens will be stopped down when shooting @ f/4.0 or f/5.6 which would make it sharper. But f/2.8 is very handy, even with an ultra wide angle. I would say the 11-16 would be the perfect compliment to both the 17-55 and/or the 18-105. You will know when you want the UWA. Finally, here is an available light shot @ f/2.8... so it is nice to have. BTW, it's handheld @ 1/20th- I was just playing when I first got the lens!</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I wonder whether the OP has seen the 14-24mm/f2.8 or not; it is considerably bulker than the 17-55mm/f2.8. Most people using DX bodies are much better off getting a DX wide.</p>

<p>I have never used the Tokina 11-16mm/f2.8, but based on the rather large number of complaints about sample issues, I have some concerns about its construction quality.</p>

<p>Nikon's new 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S is a fine lens. Obviously it is wider than the older 12-24mm/f4 AF-S, but otherwise it is similar in quality as the older version. On the wide end, corner quality is mediocre. Here is the difference between 10 and 12mm.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I would rather have a constant aperture lens than a variable aperture lens. IMHO, they just seem sharper. Part of that might by that a f/2.8 lens will be stopped down when shooting @ f/4.0 or f/5.6 which would make it sharper. But f/2.8 is very handy, even with an ultra wide angle. I would say the 11-16 would be the perfect compliment to both the 17-55 and/or the 18-105. You will know when you want the UWA.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>john, while in general constant aperture is desirable over variable aperture, keep in mind we're talking about an UWA here.</p>

<p>like i said, i have the tokina 12-24, which is a f/4 lens. i rarely shoot it wide open as it's best at f/6.3-8. maybe the 11-16 gets that sharp at 5.6-6.3, but for night landscapes, 2.8 isnt nearly fast enough to give you a slow enough shutter to use it handheld. it's fairly obvious that your pic is handheld; that scene would have been a lot less blurry on a tripod. for evening landscape stuff, i like to stop the 12-24 down and use base ISO. i could probably use the 11-16's 2.8 for concert photography--one place i'm loathe to use the 12-24 w/out flash--but that's only because i already have a 17-50/2.8.</p>

<p>so while the 11-16 is great in theory, in practice, it's limited. it's really a specialty lens. it only has a 5mm zoom range. this means its often not long enough for people shots and frequently too wide for a lot of other stuff. i'd agree it complements 18-xx and 17-xx lenses but IMO 10-24 is just a more useful range if you actually plan on using the UWA for more than just the occasional wide view/available light shot and pressing it into service as a walkaround lens.</p>

<p>that said, kent's example shows the 11-16 can be used selectively for available-light interiors without tripod. but unless you're doing a series of subway pics, are you really gonna shoot an ultrawide at 2.8 that often?</p>

<div></div>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>You have to figure out if you really need a dedicated WA lens. To many people, a 17mm lens on DX is wide enough. </p>

<p>The 10-24's obviously advantage is that it's wider than the 14-24 by a lot; and it's cheaper. </p>

<p>On the other hand, the 14-24 is a significantly faster constant f/2.8 lens. To many shooters, faster aperture is not needed for a WA lens; but the feature is nevertheless extremely nice if you're into low light/street/candid stuff. The 14-24 should AF faster too. The 14-24 is heavy, big, and can't use filters. Many users might find its physical attributes overwhelming in practice. Yet it's without a question the best Nikon modern WA lens out there. In terms of optical quality, the lens' design is almost flawless: sharp, minimal distortion, minimal vignetting, good bokeh, good color; many claim that it outperform primes. The lens is also built tough like other metal-bodied pro-grade (gold-ringed?) Nikkors. </p>

<p>If you purchase the lens, I'm pretty sure its (either one of the lenses) quality won't fall short of your expectation. The real question is: do you really need it? what you want to do that will make good use of it? and that's not a question that can be answered easily from a 3rd party perspective, </p>

[mizuho_saito]

<p>I would only get the 14-24 if you plan to upgrade to FX anytime soon, which you don't sound like you will. I have used my friend's tokina 11-16 2.8 and it works well on the D90 which is what I would recommend as it almost goes as wide as the 10-24 and you already have the 18-24 covered by your 17-24 covered, so the 11-16 fits in perfectly. Plus the 11-16 is cheaper than the 10-24.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>There is an interesting article on how to use ultrawide lenses to their fullest on Ken Rockewell's site. You can link to it from his update page via the review on the 10-24mm lens. The 'How To..." link is at the very top. I found this article extremely informative on the use of ultra wide lenses. I made the mistake of reading it after last years vacation and took many of boring shots with my WA lens. You may find it interesting and the techniques presented may help you get some stunning images.</p>

<p>Should you invest in an ultrawide, I suggest you buy it well in advance of your trip so you can practice with it as its use is totally different than a regular lens.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>If I were you, I'd get the 10-24mm Nikon. It will give you a greater range than the 14-24 would, and almost the same angle of view as the 14-24 would on the D700 body. Isn't that wide view why you want a wide-angle lens in the first place? I use a 12-24mm on a Canon 5 D. That's about equivalent to an 8-16mm on a Nikon D90. I LOVE the photos I get.</p><div></div>

[jon_roche]

<p>Hi<br>

As has been said the 14-24mm lense may not be the most obvious choice for what you want. However having recently used it on a DX body in Italy heres why I chose it.<br>

On the downside it is fairly large but not as bad as people would have you believe, not a great deal bigger than your 17-55mm and a piece of cake compared to the 70-200mm. The biggest problem is not being able to put a filter on the lense and and therefore you have to be carefull when out and about.<br>

But, and you have to decide how big a but it is for you, ...For IQ it is the best wide angle lense on planet bar none. In terms of sharpnes, resolution, edge light fall off and contrast it is better than any nikon lense, zoom or prime, any cannon lense and only the legendary contax 21mm prime has beat it in tests.<br>

On a DX camera it is a 21 to 36mm a very nice range so I would not agree with those who say don't buy it for a D90. I tested it against my Sigma 10-20mm which has had many good reviews and served me well for a couple of years, but it is just not in the same league as the nikon.<br>

When I got the 24-70mm I found it a little better than the 17-55mm for IQ, the 70-200 is better than the older 80-200mm but is far from perfect, but the 14-24mm just made me say wow.<br>

I also use FX bodies from time to time so it was a no brainer for me, but if the size and cost are not the main issues for you and you intend to buy a FX body in a year or two consider the 14-24mm. It will still be in the bag in 10 years time where as any DX lense may be gathering dust. </p>

<p>Have a good time in Italy</p>