Miller said:
Actually, the 14-24/2.8 is not really 14mm. The angle of view, on full frame, slightly smaller then the prime 14/2.8 lens. I have both of them, the 14-24 & 14 prime, and noticed this.

Wow! Interesting! I have the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D fixed-focal length lens, and I'm using it on a full-frame body. How does the barrel distortion compare between the two: the 14mm Nikkor prime, and the 14-24mm Nikkor zoom?

Yeah, the big appeal for this lens is how rare it is- by all accounts it's hard to consider it a practical lens, due to its massive size and weight. Still, it's optical performance is be exceptional, and I suspect it is far better than the Sigma 12-24, although it may be similar to the Voigtlander 12mm or possibly the new Sigma 8-16 on DX (anyone know of any comparisons?)

Can you believe Nikon only produced 350 of these 13mm lenses? No wonder they cost as much as they do and its amazing they turn up on Ebay at all. I have heard the 14-24mm is comparable which in it self is astonishing. Its my best lense in my current colection as well recent convert so you are not alone there. Its tact sharp even when compared to my Leica 18 and 28mm lenses on my M9!

LessThanThreeLeo said:
How can a 14-24mm zoom at 14mm not have the same angle of view as a 14mm prime? I highly doubt there is any difference (at they're the same focal distance).

I can't speak as to the 14-24, but most lenses are not actually the focal length they are marketed as.

These are not scientific instruments and, unfortunately, it is common (not just of Nikon) to round the numbers (both focal length and f-stop) in a manner which looks good. Not to mention the fact most IF lenses change focal length when focusing...

How can a 14-24mm zoom at 14mm not have the same angle of view as a 14mm prime? I highly doubt there is any difference (at they're the same focal distance).

The Nikkor 13mm 1:5.6 rectilinear super wide angle lens is better in many way. The 14-24/2.8 is relatively cheep in money and construction wise, to the 13mm. It has almost no distortion, compared to the 14-24 at 14mm. Wider angle of view, and at list 4 time as expensive as the 14-24/2.8 You can't compare the two lens at all. One is 13mm and the other 14mm, and in this angle, the 1mm, means a lot. Actually, the 14-24/2.8 is not really 14mm. The angle of view, on full frame, slightly smaller then the prime 14/2.8 lens. I have both of them, the 14-24 & 14 prime, and noticed this.

Has anyone ever compared the 13mm to the 14-24mm at 14mm, stopped down to f/5.6 ?? Couldn't find it in a hurry on the web, but I doubt that the 13mm can be much better than the $2000 zoom. I have one, and it is the best lens I ever owned.

I'd rather get several new lens for that price.

only up to $13,600 so far

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220559396058&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT#ht_1231wt_1194

Sorry if I saw this here, I can't remember how I came across it and couldn't find it on the board.