I have the 14-24 and the 24-70, I shoot mainly landscape and bought both lenses at the same time as the D800. I envisaged the 14-24 to be my most used lens but it is not. The 24-70 on DX is more useful and it is what I use on most landscape too, after all not all landscapes are the big vistas.
However when you do use the 14-24 it is such a great piece of glass and I would not be without it. Both very expensive lenses and I felt guilty when I spent the dosh, but that lasted a couple of days of guilt. Now I do not regret buying both.

@Eric +1

The 14-24 is an amazing lens...bet it on DX or FX ( personally I cannot wait to try it on my D4 when it arrives). As far as distortion goes it can be addressed very easily in post.

I have the 14-24, 17-35 and the 24-70. My favorite (of all my lenses) is the 14-24. It is really sharp at 14, better in fact then Nikon's 14mm f/2.8 prime. I have the 17-35 for those occasions where I want to use filters (ND or CP mostly). With an FX camera the 14-24 provides an opportunity for lots of creative use of perspective. However, I can see where the distortion might be a problem with people if you aren't careful. Since the wide lens will enhance the sense of distance between near and far objects, shooting at an angle where the entire subject is not on the same plane relative to the camera can result in distorted features.

In my opinion, the 14-24 is best used for enhancing perspective. Having looked at your photos, I'd say that if you want to continue doing what you have been but just want to replace your D200 with an FX body, then the 17-35 might be the better choice. On the other hand if you want to push your creative capacity and play with more perspective then the 14-24 is the way to go. For more traditional work the 24-70 is absolutely unbeatable.

The 16-35 is a great lens too and some feel it is sharper than the 17-35. However you do give up a stop of speed and it has more DoF wide open.

Given the price of the 14-24 it might make sense to rent one before you buy it. I love mine, but it sounds like you have pretty specific and critical application.

Hi, Imua

This photo of my daughter (center) and two friends was taken in 2010 inside of my parents house. 17mm, f/2.8, 1/640th, ISO3200 on my D300. I was still too scared to shoot RAW at the time so the orig file is jpeg, but the photo came out nice enough for me. I've done PP for noise, sharpening and trapezoidal distortion.

How is this lens for photographing people indoors at say... group shots indoors..? on DX?

Just received my new 14-24mm 2.8. Wow! What a lens. You don't even have to use this lens to appreciate it.
I will say though that at 24 mm it is not as sharp as the 24 mm on my 24-70mm lens.
Any how, I'm a happy chappy.

gelu88 said:
As you dont have a FX camera you might be better off getting the 17-55 2.8 instead. It has the same focal range as a 24-70 on FX and costs half as much.

The wide end is the problem with DX bodies. The 24-70mm on DX is roughly equivalent to 35-105mm on FX which is not bad, but probably not wide enough for getting in close with bands & such. I don't have the lens you recommend, but have seen images taken with it and they were quite sharp. I agree that it is pretty much a DX equivalent of the 24-70mm. OK it only goes to about 27 or 28mm, but the OP could purchase an additional wide DX lens with the money "left over" from not purchasing the 24-70mm.

That said, the 24-70mm is a great lens if the OP plans to move to an FX body any time soon.

Exactly. Ilford will keep on rocking for some time to come. My freezer has a dedicated shelf of PANF 50! And some old Velvia too! :]

I'm not sure I'd be too concerned about film going away. The decrease in sales is largely due to amateurs and consumers using digital instead of color negatives. There is still a significant "die-hard" segment who will stick with B&W or slides, and that probably isn't going away, particularly B&W. And if there is a market for a product, someone will make it- for instance, Ilford just recently (relatively speaking) introduced a new B&W printing paper and continues to make sheet film available in very odd sizes.

SkintBrit said:
Thanks for being my conscience guys, seems like the consensus of opinion is, although many of you have fond memories of your film days, you're all very happy to be shooting digital now. Does anyone have a "feeling" on how long standard 35mm film will be available? Presumably unless there's a revival, manufactures will stop making it at some point?

Kodak would probably go out of business first before film goes away. The rate at which Kodak is doing, it's not good. I heard that 35mm film projectors in movie theaters might be gone by 2015, and Kodak depends on that for its bread and butter.

In that case, Fuji would probably pick up on the slack.

Terrible how Kodak failed to diversify their products, even when they pioneered digital sensors.

SkintBrit said:
Presumably unless there's a revival, manufactures will stop making it at some point?

I dont think the film industry has gone completly digital, so i would guess some 35mm film wil be around for at least another 5 years,

Thanks for being my conscience guys, seems like the consensus of opinion is, although many of you have fond memories of your film days, you're all very happy to be shooting digital now. Does anyone have a "feeling" on how long standard 35mm film will be available? Presumably unless there's a revival, manufactures will stop making it at some point?

I really love my olympus OM-2. Gorgeous (huge) viewfinder image, pretty intelligent metering system, great ergonomics and feel...hasn't been used at all for 5 years. I'm never going back, but I was never so attached to film, either.

I'm glad I didn't really get into photography until digital so I could put the money into gear upfront and then learn when the cost per shot was nil.

Get an old medium format rig if you really want to get something from film that you aren't getting from your present digital setup. My Hassy gets way more use than my F100 ever does. Even a cheap TLR will be more fun, IMO.

SkintBrit said:
I just thought a spare emergency body for £200, and the fact that I would be able to use it without having to buy any new "hardware" sounded quite appealing?

Assuming you are experienced in shooting film that makes a lot more sense

The only reason I can think were film might be better than digital, is infrared
Even then, I am not sure if IR Ektachrome is still available

If you can do your own B&W go for it. I just set up my old lab and will be shooting a few rolls per month. Just picked up an old mint FA. I still have a 15mm f3.5 AIs, 16mm AI'd f3.5, 28 f2.8 AIs, 50mm f1.4 AIs and a 105mm f2.5 AIs that have been dust collectors. I hope my eyes can still focus manually.

framer

You make a strong case for staying out seven :-) I just thought a spare emergency body for £200, and the fact that I would be able to use it without having to buy any new "hardware" sounded quite appealing?

Saturday, I shot the equivalent of 20 rolls of film, that would have cost about £130
(with out processing)

During the shoot, I was able to check the flash balance, focus, exposure and so on

The client saw the proofs less than half an hour later

An hour later they had selected the shots and I had finished the post production

Job done

Go back to film? you must be joking

Yes I could have done the job with just one role of film, and yes I could have processed it (in B&W ) in the same time, but the result would not have been anywhere near as good)

I would... My last camera was a N80 and I love it to death... While film is kinda novel it keeps you in check as a photographer and it is just fun to use... the f100 is a superb camera too (I did not get paid to write this :P)

No great reasons to get back into film. Is money an issue for you? If it is, I certainly wouldn't get it. But if I had the money, I'd be somewhat of a collector too.

SkintBrit said:
I didn't want to start a new thread

I think you should

I didn't want to start a new thread and I remembered this "talk me out of" one from a while back. So:
As many of you know I shoot FF and have a selection of FF "G" lenses and SB900's. Please talk me out of buying in to film with a F100. Mint condition with grip, boxed with everything like it came out of the factory. Mine for £200 if I want it. Any super reason for getting back in to film?

In a backpack for me (Kata DR-467).

One on my back and a lens holster on the seat...

My other hobby is mountain biking, I always take a camera with me when I'm riding.

On the trails that I know well and are not extreme, I take my D70s with its kit lens (18-70), but when the trail is more than a regular cross-country trail, I take a small point-and-shot camera

I use a simple Camelbak Cross 20 Hydration backpack arge enough to carry my D70s. (Although it may not protect the camera as required)

I wish to find a good bag that will serve for both purposes (Like Kata bags + some hydration system for Mountain Biking.)