Hi All
As any you used the new Nikon 14-24 f2.8 wide angle zoom from Nikon? I have read some reviews on the lens but it would be good to see some pics of Onexposure if possible with some feedback before i buy. I have had the Sigma 10-20mm the Sigma 15-30mm and the Sigma 17-70mm all of which I found not as good quality as my Nikon lenses.
Wether its me or not I dont know but the images never appear as sharp as top Nikon lenses I own and seem to darken at the corners.

Thanks Keith

Being a Canon man I haven't used the lens - but from what I hear and from the pictures I've seen, this is a great lens (and a lens I envy you Nikon people)
:-)

Well you know who thinks it's the greatest - http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm

I've been drooling over it ever since it came out but the price - ouch!

Well, it's not as expensive as the Canon 14mm f/2.8 prime - and from what I've heard it's a lot better than the Canon lens...

I actually switched from Canon to Nikon just to get hold of the 14-24! And I'm not disappointed :) It's probably one of the best wide angle lenses ever made. As for an example, the corners are sharper at 2.8 then the Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II at f8!
U

Hi. I have both the Sigma 10-20 and the Nikkor 14-24. I shoot a lot of 360 panoramas, so wide angle is important to me. I use the 10-20mm on my D80, and find it a very sharp lense - I probably was lucky with this particular sample, it's definitely in the "fantastic" category on my camera, sharper than the 10.5 Nikkor Fisheye.

On the D3 I use the 14-24 and it's an AWESOME lense. Sharpness, contrast and colors are just unbelievable. This lense defines its own class. One thing you should be aware of though, focal length at the widest end varies SIGNIFICANTLY with focus distance. I had some panoramas that were not stitching correctly, and it took me a while to understand why. I now shoot panos at F11, manually focused on the hyperfocal and I'm just fine.

Hi

The 14-24 it's an awesome lense, one of the best from Nikon.

The main problem I see is that you can't use filters on in, so forget the Lee filter holder, the polarizer and ND grads; unless you hold them with your hand :)

Cheers
Fernando

Hi,
Check it at www.naturfotograf.com
One of the best test sites for Nikon optics that I know. Lars

The best thing you can by! Do not hesitate! You will be a fool if you have the money to buy it and do not buy it. Its the best prof. lense!!!!!!! I use it too and im happy to have it. I throw away my 17-35 Tamron with happyness for this lense.

Greetings Robert

Has anyone tried the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 - I remember reading that Ken Rockwell thinks it's even better than the 14-24 Nikon and certainly cheaper. My cousin is bringing me one this week from the States - can't wait to try it - only thing is it's DX only.

Kevin, when you give it a try post your thoughts cause I've also been looking at that Tokina as well and have been scratching my head......

Will do - I'm taking it to Quebec City with me for a short trip and will send you some pics as well.

I will buy it next week.

I tossed up between this and the 17-35 - which I just purchased last week along with a D300 (sssh.. don't tell wifey).

Since I don't do landscapes - nor shoot wide at large apertures, I went for the 17-35. It is heavier but it has a more useful range and it is nearly impossible to get it to flare - short of putting a UV filter on the front! - why do people do that anyway?

I bought it to do tight street shots - not so much street shooting since it is so big and obvious - but more of a 35 lens that I can zoom out to when needed and do low light due to the lower shutter speeds needed at 17mm vs 35. Where I use a 35 F2 prime.

It all depends on what you want to shoot. I am not sure who needs to shoot wide open at 2.8 and 14 mm and then also needs corner sharpness? What type of photo has those needs? Most landscapes I am sure are done on a tri pod and at F8-F16?

Anyway. The lens is said to be excellent. But the 17-35 is also very good (hand ground aspherics AND ED glass in the same lens!!!) and has a more useful range on DX and FX IMHO.

Cheers,
RF.

An incredible lens for sure... was on canon ds mII with the fixed 14mm L2, and I switched to nikon a few months ago, I can say that the 14-24 is better than the fixed 14 from canon. Go for it...

A nice lens, the 14-24, absolutely. I have borrowed one, with a D3 at the back end of it. But for me, no, I don't need the 14mm. I have had the 17-35/2.8 for a long time, and I think I prefer that. That is my standard lens.
The D3 is a different story, that would fit perfectly in my new camera bag (I would have to buy a new one).
Then I just saw this http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/297%7C0/(appareil2)/287%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Nikon
See.. the D3X is almost as good at high ISO, so I will wait for the D700X... will have to come, it's a tradition..

Dont think! Buy it! The best for nikon you can have! I used on my D700 and D300!

Robert

Hello Keith,

It frequently pains me to use a 14-24 Nikkor on my unsuitable D300... but it is so much better than the 12-24 Nikkor (for the D300 x1.5 format) which I bought first and hardly use nowadays because of the noticeably softer corners and greater CA problems... and if I really need to get wider with the view I can usually step back a bit anyway.

Sure, the 14-24 is a handful, but the greater weight adds stable mass to the set-up when hand-held. Around a third of my close-to 5,000 images with the Alamy stock agency have been made with the 14-24 in the past year... and not a single QC (the in/famous Alamy "Quality Control") rejection amongst them.

Ed Buziak.

Put simply, this is an incredible lens.

Equal in optical quality to the Nikkor 24-70/2.8.

With those two in your bag you need little else.

I have a Tokina 12-24 f4 which I use for a lot of my landscape work. It is much smaller, much less money and many say it is quite acceptable for sharpness and quality. Makes a great super wide for a crop camera. A little side advantage is that you can use it on a film/FX camera as long as you don't zoom wider than @16mm.

This might interest you:
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Carl-Zeiss-21mm-f28-and-Nikon-1424-f28-lenses-are-put-to-the-test-11118

Here is a really dumb question I'm sure, but he didn't mention it in the article - how is he mounting that nikon lens on a canon body? He didn't mention any sort of adaptor, and I would think an adaptor would have had a radical effect (negatively) on his test results.

He shows the adapter here:
http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/nikon1424.php

Thanks. Very interesting stuff.

Hi there - I have the Nikon 14-24 and the Sigma 12-24 - I only keep the Sigma because you can put gel filters on the back, I also kept the 17-35 Nikkor because you can stick filters on the front. That said the 14-24 Nikkor is a joy to use, fast, pin sharp a dream lens as long as your heart can stand the strain of that great big vulnerable glass dome sticking out the front. I also used the 12-24 DX Nikkor, but got rid as I sold all my DX lenses and have switched to a total FX system (D3 & D700)

I have one of these that I'm thinking of selling because I don't use it enough. I think I have used it about 5 times.
It is a fantastic lens, but I would get more use from some lighting gear.

It's in A1 condition, with carry bag, but no box. (was thrown much to my frustration)

I will probably put it on Ebay soon, but if anyone is interested in offering me a realistic price, please send me a message.

Cheers
Bob

I am with you on the weight thing. I am 6'4 and weigh 120kg's - but I still got rid of the 17-35 for the very reason of weight. And even now having shot with a F80 and 35 prime mostly- I have very bad RSI in my right elbow. :-(

If you can't carry it - or your heart can't bear the risk, or it injures you - then it is not a good lens choice.

I think I buy 18-200 or 14-24

I don't understand how Nikon could make a wide-angle lens that landscape photographers would die over that can not be used with filters. I mean, couldn't they have made the body of the lens stick out a little further so it covered the front element? That way, filters could still be used.

I'd buy this lens if I could use filters. No GND, no ND, no Polarizer, etc. No lens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3byFHE2dt8

That's using your head! Good idea.

Lee Filters have announced a forthcoming kit that will allow filters to be used with this lens.

That's the reason I'm still using the good old one 17-35/2.8
I've tried the 14-24. It's an exceptional lens but the it's too much pressure walking with it over the shoulder... One can have a better option (and cheaper) with the new Nikkor 16-35/4 Nano.

I agree that the 14-24 is big and heavy but to say that the 16-35 is as good or better is way off the mark. 14-24 is superior in every aspect!

Glen

I probably did not explain myself correctly. 14-24 is a superior lens, but if anyone like me get's a bit anxious to play with it because all that naked and sexy front glass, could have a better option (not a better lens) with the 16-35/4. Otherwise, no fear, get one 14-24 and use it!

This is easily the best best best lens I have. It never ceases to amaze me the quality of it. get it get it get it !!



that'd be a dream come true!

Hi


I don't contest this statement at all and I've been tempted to buy one myself but the idea was always put on hold due to its exposed and unprotected "front" of glass and the problems about filters, namely the NDs.

The reference to the expected Lee 150mm and adaptor filters will at least solve this last point and only...hope the price to be lower that the one of the lens... :-) :-)

However, the new 16-35 f:4 changes my options and I put it in the short list, as I did read very good references references to its quality (except distortion at 16mm, but easy to correct during editing).

Now, I read in this thread that 14-24 is much superior hands down and it leaves me confused, no just because it can be a better lens but mainly because the way the quality difference is referred seems to put the new lens in another (and much lower) level.

Does someone have a real and practical knowledge about this, please?

It would be much appreciated. Obviously not the one stop advantage and the 2mm in the lower band of the zoom, but performance wise in the common covered focal distances.

Thanks very much. Regards

hi Antonio,

I totally understand how you feel about the lack of filters for the 14-24mm. I too feel somehow similar and if there was a coming solution for the ND's that'd be it for me. I was expecting anxiously for this 16-35 for that very reason but I have to say, the two serious reviews out there already have disappointed me completely (maybe my expectations were too high) www.photozone.de. But don't get me wrong...the problem is not that 16-35 is bad, it's not, it's a great lens considering what's been shown, the problem is that when you are already used to the quality of the 14-24 (and you've already invested in it) you simply can't give it up for less. I always thought I'd be selling it as soon as a filter compatible WA lens came out but now, I really don't think I will.

what else can I tell you about the 14-24? well... it seems perfect in all aspects to me. Maybe I got the best copy. The sharpness even at 14mm 2.8 is simply amazing across the frame, but not only that, the contrast and color that this lens renders seem just perfect to me.

I don't know why people worry so much about those "protecting" filters. I never use those and wouldn't think of using them. usually the hood on is more than enough to protect the front element. In the case of the 14-24, I always pull it back to 24 when carrying it exposed with no cap and that suffices. Front elements are delicate but according to many knowledgeable people they are a lot more resistant than what people think. There's an article that Thom Hogan wrote last year about this issue of the 14-24 and he gives an extreme example. So the bottom line... don't worry, just be reasonably careful with it and enjoy the lens. I never got a lens scratched.

hope this helps!

Hi Nicolas

Thanks very much for your input, it has been quite clarifying for me.
When I talk about protection filter it is not to get it already on, even in shooting sessions, but i have already seen a friend of mine's front element lens saved by one of those filters...and it was inside the bag.
All the best
Regards

Today my lens was saved by the hood. A violent choc against the metro automatic door. The cap was off but hopefully the hood was here, now very broken....

wow! that's nasty Jacques! what lens was it?

btw, it also proves my point...I think 99% of the time, the hoods are protective enough. A few years ago my old 18-70 fell from my open backpack about 1.50 mts high. It hit the ground with the hood, it broke, and the lens survive a miraculous fall

Tamron 17-50 f2.8

I bought it recently because the sigma 20-40 I used has a problem with the diaphragm (blocked). I am very happy with this lens BTW, which is very sharp. Probably not the same range as the Nikkor mentioned in this thread of course (and it is not FF)

Hopefully the bang was on the larger part of the hood. it has been broken very deeply but the lens itself was not hurted (there was no cap, and no filter...). I think I am gonna buy a filter anyway, to secure the lens.

On a side note I really appreciate to have solid camera body (Fuji S5 is Nikon D200). I happened to let it fall on the street, pretty badly. I got nothing but a scratch. I was lucky of course because of where it hurts was a solid part. But if the same has happened to a cheaper plastic body I believe the thing would be broken into pieces.

that is a TERRIFIC lens Jacques!! I had it and used it on my D300 when I was still on DX and loved it to bits. It's simply one of the best lenses I've ever had. I can tell you the only difference with the nikkors is its built quality and the focusing speed, where the tamron can get a tad slow sometimes. Other than that, optically, for me there's virtually no difference (in the 17-50 specific case of course)

I agree it is excellent IMO. A real bargain. Got my copy on line at B&H and I believe it is a good one. With the Sigma at 20mm I had to crop slightly to get rid of ugly distortion on sides. The distortion is here of course (at 17mm) but much better on the Tamron than on the Sigma, and the corners are noticeably less fuzzy. I can say it is very good, especially when comparing with similar shots, such as Balazs remake of Orkin's shot recently published on the FP (for which he was kind enough to provide me with details).

Here is an exemple of a non-cropped shot with the Tamron, at 17mm (equiv 26) - and no tool used to correct distorsion

See how the girl's face on left (not far from the corner) is well rendered.

Now it is a DX lens, which is too bad for FF camera owners.

yes, that's very good!

by the way, I read what you said to Balasz and I totally agree with you. One of the things that I had to grow very cautious with when using WA such as the 14-24 is to carefully avoid putting people near the corners as the distortion leaves the heads as smashed pumpkins.

LOL! ... that is very correct.

Fabulous Lens On Full Frame Cameras

For me the question is 14/2,8 or 14-24/2,8

The 14 mm is a real good lens and when you get it as used one take it and don?t think but when you want to go for a new lens go for the 14-24!  

+++   This lens is marvelous!  the distortion is unique, my fave wide lens so far!  

- -      hard to find filter & holder for it, you should making yourself it's filter holder by modified some material

I'm using the 14-24/2.8 with a D700 and I can tell you that the quality at 14mm is incredible (with very low distorsion).
So you get a great 14mm + great other wide-angle focal. Go for the zoom.

Agree with previous remarks that the sphere aspect of the front prevent filter usage and make it a bit big.

The 14-24 is a fantastic lens. Only thing I don't like is that the front element is very exposed as it can't be protected with a filter.

Thank you Lars for the very interesting link, I put it into my bookmarks. Of course Kenrockwell has different opinion regarding these lenses, and still I do not know which to choose.

Hi Gospar,

I have the 14-24 and it is an awesome lens! I am of the opinion that it's exceptional quality far outweighs the problems of weight and no filter. After all you need not carry it everywhere nor use it in conditions where it is impossible to get a good shot without a grad. Then you could also try HDR or fix the sky in post. But even if you get only some great shots with careful and limited use, (and you will) under the right conditions it will be well worth it.  So IMHO if you are desirous of this great lens just get it! Dont forget you only live once!!!

Cheers!

If he's only going to live once, maybe he should buy a used 20mm f2.8 AF-D w/ a couple of slim screw in filters and book a grand trip to that wonderful place he has only imagined going. In the end he'll have a few bucks left over probably!!

good new Lee has now released a whole new set of filters and a holder made just for this lens!

And for sure it will be delivered, just after the next generation of 14-24 `s is sold out

Christoph