I am going to Arizona and Utah later this year, and I know that I will have lots of opportunities to shoot some amazing landscapes. I currently own a Nikkor 17-35, and it has served me well. My question is: Should I consider buying or renting a Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 for this trip (and beyond)?
Does the extra 3mm on the wide end make a significant difference for this kind of landscape photography.
It definitely gives you more in the frame. Whether that's useful.... depends. But since you have a 17-35 I wouldn't worry about the 14-24 at all. Also you can get around the whole issue by shooting in portrait mode and panning (and combining in a tool like Photoshop). You'll get a more detailed panorama with less distortion. That may or may not suit your needs, though.
It's not "just 3mm" - it's more like "15% wider." (or 15% more extreme.) And that actually means about 25% more area covered in the frame. But you didn't seem to think that the 17-35 was a problem, so it ain't broke, and I wouldn't fix it.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
I think this depends on which side of the fence you are on. I have never shot a landscape wider than 16mm and I am not a fan of super wide angle lens. Contrary to what the internet says, you do not have to have a super wide to capture beautiful landscapes.
I think the landscapes taken with super wide lens look un-natural and have a vast open look to them. When I see one, I start to wonder how wide was this taken, instead of enjoying the scene.
That is my side of the fence and certainly not everyone agrees with me. Probably more disagree than agree but that is my take on it. Now it comes down to what you like, after all, photography is an art and is seen differently by everyone.
Jerry Jaynes Great Smoky Mountains of North Carolina
Sat 23-Feb-13 01:41 PM | edited Sat 23-Feb-13 01:47 PM by GiantTristan
There certainly is quite a difference in angle of view between 14 and 17mm. However, you have to be aware that the geometric distortions get more pronounced at shorter focal lengths - people appear to gain weight when they are close to the edge of the exposure. This effect can be corrected in PP - I use DxO Pro. I use 14mm quite often, mainly for architecture and landscape. IMHO, the 14-24 is the best wa lens ever made by Nikon or by any other manufacturer. It is very sharp even wide open with no corner softness and has beautiful contrast and color. I suggest you rent this lens for your trip.
I've shot a lot in those areas and own both the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm (I previously owned the 17-35mm). I tend to stick with the 16-35mm for landscape photography, primarily because I can use reasonably-sized grad and ND filters with it, but also because it flares less and 16mm is wide enough for the shooting I do there. The same thought process would apply to the 17-35mm.
The 14-24mm is definitely a great lens, but I tend to use it more for architecture and interiors.
Sat 23-Feb-13 10:24 AM | edited Sat 23-Feb-13 10:26 AM by GilesW
Another approach to extreme wide-angle photography is to add the stunning, inexpensive, fixed-focal-length manual focus Samyang / Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 UMC FX lens to your outfit. I recently bought one for my D700. Topic #5319 refers. I am currently exploring its use for photographing the nearby Forth road and rail bridges, and construction work on the new "Forth Replacement Crossing" bridge.