This will be a quick question but, Im looking into the 14-24mm 2.8 and i was curious if they are in the process of making any type of filter for it. Ive used the lens before and it would make me nervous even owning such piece of glass without a filter to protect it. Would i expect one in the future?
Nikon 14-24mm 2.8
(36 posts) (15 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Nope. . . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
With an angle of 114° on FX, shooting through a flat plate glass filter already introduces unacceptable (to me) distortions at the fringe. A lens this good should not be compromised with distorting filters (Any light ray that hits a flat plate glass at an angle other than 90° gets deflected twice: towards the perpendicular on entry, away from the perpendicular on exit). If someone ever makes a dome-shaped filter - equidistant from the front element - that may be acceptable.
I just use my 14-24 with caution: cap off, compose, shoot, cap back on.Posted 3 years ago # -
Think new 16-35, it is made exactly for people who want to put a filter on a wide lens.
If you need wide FX AF-S lens than this one is made for you.
There are third party so called creative (ND, CPL, grads ...) filters that could be attached to 14-24 but not for protection.Posted 3 years ago # -
smarterchild you must be a loaded highschooler if you have a D3 and are looking to buy a 14-24...
anyway, yeah, get the 16-35 if you want filters, or even an 18-35. I use the 18-35D on my F3 and F4 all the time, and it's a fantastic lens, compact too.
I'm using more 120 film these days than anything though, so I'd say the 105/2.4 on my 6x7 is getting the most use.
Posted 3 years ago # -
chris, im not that loaded. The equipment i have now was due to me using my college fund. along with that, i am possiably doing a wedding this coming summer along with a massive senior portrait job where they want band photos and also live performance pictures. i am looking at a goal of 1500 all together + hoping to sell prints myself. The next lens purchase will be either the new 85 1.4 or the 14-24, Or sell my 70-200 vr1 and upgrade to the current vrII.
its not thatprobable that id even get this lens anytime soon but i was wondering if a filter would ever exhist. The dome filter would defferently be a idea
Posted 3 years ago # -
I've seen a video on youtube showing how to make a filter foe the 14-24. Not sure it would serve your purpose though. Frankly, I don't get all the concern about damaging front elements. I've been using lenses for years (with and without filters) and have never broken or even scratched a filter. If you use your lens caps and treat the gear with a little respect you should be fine. Obviously you wouldn't take an unfiltered lens to a sandy beach or somewhere there are fine airbourne particles.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I never scatch my filters either and i use caps, i am just worried ever since i set my new 70-200 down at a wedding when it was time for the photographers to eat and a waiter walked over and kicked my lens perfectly where her tip of the toe touched the front element and luckily it had a front filter on it. it barely scratched my filter either but i am worried about just carrying it around and having it accidently hit a corner of a chair or anything while itd be on my backup body around my shoulder
Posted 3 years ago # -
Recent Convert said:
With an angle of 114° on FX, shooting through a flat plate glass filter already introduces unacceptable (to me) distortions at the fringe. A lens this good should not be compromised with distorting filters (Any light ray that hits a flat plate glass at an angle other than 90° gets deflected twice: towards the perpendicular on entry, away from the perpendicular on exit). If someone ever makes a dome-shaped filter - equidistant from the front element - that may be acceptable.
I just use my 14-24 with caution: cap off, compose, shoot, cap back on.So the problems stated above are true for the new Lee Filters 150mm solution too?
Im a noob when it comes to landscape photography and usage of filters, any commnets or links to discussions are welcome.
The pretty significant flaring aside the 14-24 has been very nice. I currently use it with D80, but bought it future in mind (FX).Posted 3 years ago # -
COKIN makes a circular polarizing filter for the 14-24mm lens, and they might have a UV filter option, too. But, it is an outrageously large contraption - and very expensive. ($600+ for the CPL) To most, it just doesn't make sense.
We've been selling the 14-24mm lens for a couple of years now, with no real incidents. We see many repair issues daily, and we have yet to see a 14-24mm need a front element replaced or fixed. Owners of the 14-24mm lenses use them carefully, with great results.Posted 3 years ago # -
Newfie, not just the sand on the beach, but near the coast you can get a lot of salt spray. Sometimes I just take filters off and wash them in the sink, if I still lived in Minnesota I wouldn't have the problem, but here in California it's an issue.
Posted 3 years ago # -
On the main blog Admin just posted a Youtube video of Lee filters.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hey smarterchild if I'm not too late the other posters are right in that Lee has made a new 3 piece filter unit for the 14-24mm. I'm not sure of the price but it must be expensive maybe more than half the price of the lens. The other original $600 Lee Filter unit only can be used at the 18-24 range. I couldn't find this new product on their Lee website but here is the youtube clip others mentioned:
On a side note I don't regret buying this lens at all I love its sharpness and pop on the D700.
Posted 3 years ago # -
kanuck- thank you for your post. I thought more about that lens and realized what i need for the photography i am doing. I would love this lens, but the 70-200 upgrade is at the top of my list with the 85 1.4 replacement this next year. Plus, i really would like another Sb-900. So this lens is at the bottom of my list right now sadly :/. I just know that lens would be only used rarely when i would shoot weddings. Unless i got a second FX body
Posted 3 years ago # -
Plus, that lens filter would look extremely goofy when youd shoot a reception at a wedding :P
Posted 3 years ago # -
No problem^^ Actually I know 3 people (2 guys and one girl if that matters) who shoot weddings with this lens! Its funny you mentioned that. Its obviously and indoor lens or night time gem. I like many others try to sneak it in for landscapes as well although the filter problem poses challenges as you already know because you started this post. That 85mm sounds like a must for you because of portraits and the new 70-200 as well.
On the plus side the new 16-35 might drop the 14-24 price and its demand. We'll see by this summer maybe. Weddings are demanding aren't they? I've only done 3 in my life and they can be tough. Two of the three were satisfied...
Posted 3 years ago # -
ahh oops the filter! haha yes that could be problem! But filters are not as important indoors unless you have some really nasty lighting challenges thrown at you. ^_~
Posted 3 years ago # -
Kanuck- I would actually use that lens during the reception if i had it. If i had two FX bodies then i would. But right now. My favorite lineup is the 24-70 and 50 1.4. Id rather have the 85 later on. I was able to use somones 12-24 Dx nikkor lens on my D90 but i just missed the ablilty to extend the reach. I love shooting wide, but i would rather keep my midrange zoom and prime on my bodies during the reception. I shot half a reception With a 85 1.8 on my D90 as the second shooter once and loved that lens but missed alot of shots.
Basically, id love this lens and itd be fun. But theres other focal lengths id rather stick to if im doing a wedding by myself.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes so the new 85mm for portraits and the 70-200 for a nice zoom would be the way to go then. I would imagine you must use the 50mm a lot because of the D90 crop factor. The 50 is the perfect portrait lens on a DX body I thought. I always found any focal length over 90mm not as useful with a cropped body for wedding shots. I always preferred the 18-50 range. You must use the 24-70 frequently too I'd imagine.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I always just carry my D3 around with the 24-70. But when i want two bodies Outside, i have my 70-200 on my D90. Indoors the 50 1.4 is on it. and i somtimes just switch lenses back and forth when i have two bodies. Its mostly mix and match.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Wow so you have a D3 as well I didn't know that. I was wondering why you were considering the 14-24 lens for a D90, when there are so many other more useful lenses for a DX body for weddings. A D3 and a D90 nice combo! Thats perfect for almost any project. I'd love to have just a D40 as a second body to my D700 I miss the crop for telephoto work and they are just $300-$350 now.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I love my D90, it was my first body. I got it october 2008 with the kit lens and shot with that since dec. 09 when i got my D3 and 24-70. It was more of a college gift for me since im going to school for photography. The d3 i got was a used factory demo for 3500 with 3yr mack warranty. I work as a second shooter for local wedding photographers and work freelance for our local newspaper. The D3 is amazing compared to my D90, i feel bad when i say i wish i had another Fx body instead. The D3 has spoiled me with the iso capablity and AF. I might not even save up for any more lenses or speedlights and pick up a D700 once the replacement comes out. I have 1 wedding and 2 portrait shoots coming up soon.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Interesting I also love FX too and have not regretted upgrading my D300 to the D700 last Christmas. Yes the D700 prices should really plummet this year maybe around August and thats scary because people are going to be able to afford a really serious camera thats for sure. Even the D3 is a good price now. I guess we thank the endless supply of new technology for this!^^
Posted 3 years ago # -
Hopefully itll be in the 1700 range for a used low acculation D700. I just found out my sensor on my D3 is extremely dirty, hince were visiting a camera store here in washington D.C. for all the sight seeing, i found my 24mm not that wide indoors. I am going to try to look into renting either the 14-24 or 16-35. For 2 days. I already found my D3 and 24-70 a heavy walk around setup hahah
Posted 3 years ago # -
haha yes its painful. The D700 with 14-24 is also painful though. I'm dumb enough to hike with it while my brother and others blast past me on the trails with their Canon gear. Oh well... Be careful if you rent the 14-24mm you might be using your credit card afterwards to purchase it because you are going to love it! ^^
I had to get my used D700 with 25,000 actuations because I couldn't resist the price and its overall great condition despite higher actuations. Its been great..
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
