Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 comments/suggestions alternatives?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 comments/suggestions alternatives?

(28 posts) (18 voices)

Tags:

12 Next »

poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

Alright guys I am really excited to say that I am almost decide to get this beauty.
However I have a felling that a 17-55 lens might be a more universal fit for me. I don't know. I guess my main question is, does this lens have a lot of distortions? at what ranges does it start or rather stop distorting people. I know that this is very much distance related but if somebody could give me some indications it would be great.

I know that this isn't for getting everything into the frame type of lens, I am not looking for one like that nor do I need one. I wanna use it mainly for environmental portraits. Nothing too close, maybe if I am at the end of the range at 24mm I would consider doing a more close up type of a shot.
I can also see myself using this lens at rallies or for "get in that face" type of shots. Or something that would actually give me a wider coverage than the 35mm 1.8 that I am using.

I am planing to switch to FX as soon I can realistically afford it. Maybe get one of the D700s used when the replacement comes out. I don't know. I am still hoping for the "affordable" FX camera.

Alright so guys share your opinions, suggestions. And no I don't really want to get Tokina 11-16. I don't feel like going through the hassle of selling my dx lenses when I move up to FX

edit: sorry I meant to write 17-35 instead of 17-55mm

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
RRRoger

member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 21
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

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

Posted 3 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

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 ?

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

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. . .

Posted 3 years ago #
Regulator75

preferred member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 829
offline

I agree. 24-70.

Then get a super wide down the road.

Posted 3 years ago #
smarterchild

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 678
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

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

Posted 3 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
DrMarm

junior member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 5
offline

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

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

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?!?

Posted 3 years ago #
smarterchild

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 678
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Welcome, Laura.

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

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

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).

Posted 3 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
jbl

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 266
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
earthsea

senior member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 69
offline

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.

Posted 9 months ago #
imua hawaii

member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 49
offline

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

Posted 9 months ago #
HockeyMan

member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 16
offline

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.

Posted 9 months ago #