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.

Keep in mind that the 17-35, the 16-35 and the 14-24 are not DX lens so it all depends on how long you'll stay on DX... I mean.. even with the 14-24, the wide end is not wide enough.

I think if you are staying more than 6 months on DX, getting a 11-16 would be wise... they resell very well anyway... it's a great lens, sharp, fast, wide! I got mine until I switch to FX.. waiting for a 14-24.

about the 16-35 I think it's really great, small, light lens.. perfect for landscape when you don't need the wide aperture... however, I totally understand you as I would never invest this much in a f/4 lens.. for the 2.8, I'd not get the 17-35 because its getting old.. the 14-24 seems perfect as you can live without filters and as long as you can carry this big thing around.. you will love it.

if you plan to upgrade to fx with the next FX announcement.. I'd say go for it.. if not, take the tokina until you get to fx.

I don't really care about the filters. F/4 is kind of slow for me. I don't know.

On one hand I will need smaller apertures, to show the environment nicely, but on another hand i also plan on using this lens at night quite a bit.

When I will have a free weekend I will rent the 14-24 to see how I like it.

poster - than I would go for the new 16-35/f4, IMHO it would be perfect for Your style of photography, also it will give You the ability to use filters (protective ones).

adamz said:
and I on the contrary would go for 14-24, 24-70 is a nice lens, but gets a little bit too long on DX - perfect for portrait, but hard to get the whole body and part of environment. this ain't a problem with 14-24, and on DX it's also a nice combination - 21-36.

Indeed but keep in mind that I am planning to upgrade to FX in the near future. However you are correct 24-70 is too long for DX, 14-24 would come out pretty okay range wise for DX for me.

and I on the contrary would go for 14-24, 24-70 is a nice lens, but gets a little bit too long on DX - perfect for portrait, but hard to get the whole body and part of environment. this ain't a problem with 14-24, and on DX it's also a nice combination - 21-36.

Welcome, Laura.

Poster, I say just go with the 24-70 unless you want to wait until they put VR in it ;-)

welcome Dr.Marm! Actually I hear the 24-70 is a wonderful landscape lens. There is nothing this lens can't do. Its unreal for weddings and other such work like newspaper work etc.

I'd like to throw my vote in for the 24-70mm as well as it does everything. If it had VR it would the world's perfect lens. Its heavy but all pro glass is. I own the 14-24mm and love it but the 24-70 is more useful for your $$$$. Hey RRRoger, just wondering do you really use the 14-24 for portraits? I suppose its possible but I find it distorts like crazy even at 18-20 end. You get a nice background and foreground, then the person is bent into the middle of the frame "alien like" making them look extremely slender. I use this lens for indoor photography such as spiral stairwells, any architecture,weddings, autoshows, flower festivals and the occasional landscape where filters don't need to be used. This lens is shockingly good with any water sources I've found. Beaches, waterfalls, ice, snow. I bought the 70-200 and the 14-24 and went cheap mid range. I got the awsome 50 1.4 D, a 35 Zeiss and 28 Nikkor to compensate.

The girl on the skateboard was shot at 30mm. The girl running seems to be the only shot in posters examples that was shot at 15mm on a D200 so that's closer to 24mm.

Imo, alot of those shots seem to be around 24mm FX.(18dx). except the skateboarder seems to be even wider. The 24-70 would catch some of the wide angle but you might want more. But still recomend that it would be a great lens to start with in FX. you wouldnt be limited to the only focal length of 14-24.

Welcome to the forum Laura. I'm glad you found us as we could use a Dr. in the house :^)

How the heck did you scratch your focusing screen?!?

Greetings! I am new to this forum...must have been under a rock!

Have followed NR w/ baited breath for more than a year & never noticed forums before! (like I said, under a rock...) Can't wait to explore this weekend and learn more from you all:)

Anyway--I have the 14-24mm and love it. Amazing results--do remember NASA is taking it into space w/ D3s!

I rented the 24-70mm 2.8 over the weekend and fell in love! (Was Valentine's Day...but I fell for glass!)

I know it is not meant for landscapes, but I went to the river and got excellent shots. (Will revisit this forum on the weekend & share!) Best shots were of my numerous animals and can be viewed: http://twitpic.com/photos/DrMarm the last 9 shots are all with the 24-70!

I too plan on going FX and recently caved into the D300s when I scratched my D60 Focusing Screen--oops. Loving the D300s and searching for the next glass--really want a "walk around lens". Am now torn between the 24-85 & 24-70.

Have a great day, evening!

DrMarm (twitter)
Laura

Alright maybe I should clarify. I know that WA lenses distort. I have never really done any environmental portraits with the WA lens like that. I am glad to hear that you can fix the distortion in post processing, though probably not completely, correct?

I am not looking for a portrait lens. I want to do environmental portraits, where obviously you are not doing a close up of a person's face.

examples

http://www.flickr.com/photos/semibar/3795647991/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80614755@N00/243478681/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonseyboy/3012314770/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tgkw/1287643410/
or the latest McNally blog entry with the ballerina in the foggy forest.

Okay, I will just rent the lens for a weekend just to see if I will like it or not. It's only $30 anyway. Will report if I like it or not for my purpose.

Another vote for the 24-70. Why would you spend so much on a DX lens if you plan to go full frame?

You should look at the 24-70 before you would get the 14-24. its Way more useful esp on a FX camera. It would be about the same on the wide end as the 17-55 2.8 DX on a DX camera.

I agree. 24-70.

Then get a super wide down the road.

the 14-24 isn't a portrait lens by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe on the long end on a DX body, but not on FX.

Really, ALL WA's distort on the short end. it's a given, the 17-35, 14-24, 17-55 ALL do, and there's no way around that in camera - post processing will straighten it all up for you.

You sound confused, if you are concerned about distorting people with the 14-24, maybe you shouldn't be shooting them on the wide end? I would look at a zoom on the 70-200 end then (or even 24-70, though it does distort a bit at 24mm)

I have the 17-55 2.8 and it's a great walk around/all purpose mid range zoom; the 14-24 covers a much smaller range and can't be compared to it.

I think u should be looking at the 24-70 2.8 instead. . .esp if you upgrade to a FX body soon. . .

RRRoger said:
These lens are in a completely different class.
Not only is the 14-24 twice as wide, it has exceptional glass.
Best used for Landscape and Architecture. It is not a FishEye lens.
I have found it very good for portraits and using indoors at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

I am not looking for a fisheye. I don't find them practical for my purpose.

The only reason I even mentioned the 17-35, was because I figure that it doesn't distort like ultra wide angle lenses do.

So you are saying that the 14-24 is good for portraits? I would imagine that it would distort quite a bit like any ultra wide angle lens would. Are you talking about close up portraits or environmental ?

ted2001 said:
Take a look at the new 16-35/4. It's less expensive and more versatile, but the reports aren't out yet about it's optical quality. The 14-24 is The ULTRA Wide champ, but quite specialized, no filters, heavy.

I feel that it's too slow for me. I played around quite a bit with the Nikon 12-24 f4 and i didn't like it one bit. i know that there's the VR and all but I would rather take a faster lens than a slower one with VR.

I don't really use filters except protective ones. I am not really concerned about this with the 14-24