Tue 03-Feb-09 10:54 AM | edited Tue 03-Feb-09 10:57 AM by nolitan777
Torn between these two lenses ? The 14-24 f2.8 is an awesome pc of glass but am afraid a bit too wide for general purpose. The 17-35 is a more practical lens but the optics of the 14-24 from what i read seems better. I did try a 14-24 with a D3 and the images were just awesome. My other lens outfit would probably be a 24-70 f2.8 or a combo of 50 1.4 and 85 1.4. Time will tell. But for scenery shots, street scenes or other scenes requiring a wide, what's the better choice ? I know i can't have both. Perhaps some experiences from this forum will make my decision easier. For now am for the 14-24 but my experience is limited. Care to vote ??
I never owned the 17-35 but I have compared the 14-24 to my older 28-70, my 12-24, and my 24-70. The 14-24 is heads and shoulders better than the 28-70 (which I always considered a top flight lens) and marginally better than the 12-24 and on par with the 24-70. Nikon's latest lens designs do in fact produce better results - all things being equal.
Ernesto Santos esartprints.comErnesto Santos Photography Get my new e-Book "Churches of Texas"
Al little more info would be helpful. How do you intend to use your new wide lens? Specific shot? Carry around? This may make a difference in your decision. I went through the same questions as you are now. I tried the 14-24 and it is as good as everyone says. However, it is BIG & BULKY; and cannot be protected with a filter. If I only needed this lens for specific and planned shots, then I would buy it. My needs for a wide lens are more general and spur of the moment. The differential between the 12-24DX and the 14-24 is huge in the easy to carry..spur of the moment category; and not as significant in IQ. My choice was to keep the 12-24. Hope this helps.
Sun 08-Feb-09 09:30 PM | edited Sun 08-Feb-09 09:30 PM by tdtaylor
I did not vote....
These are two lens intended for different uses. I have both and they definitely serve different purposes. The 14-24 is a much more specialized lens, which does not take filters, and takes a lot of patience and practice to use well. I use it mostly for architectural interiors. Composition with and ultra wide of this magnitude can be challenging...but the IQ is head and shoulders above the other lenses.
On the other hand, the 17-35 is a more practical day to day ultra wide angle. While it may not be as sharp, unless you are enlarging images to three or feet, it should not be a major concern. The 17-35 takes filers, and is smaller and travels better.
Note the 95% finder in the D700 presents a challenge. At 50mm, the 2.5% on each side may not make a big difference. When you get to 14mm, it is several feet on either side outside of the viewfinder. Liveview is the recommended method at 14mm to frame properly, or just lots of practice and intuition.
I;m actually in the same boat as Noli, the original poster & I'm very torn between these two lenses. However, i have to agree with most here that the 17-35 would be more practical of the two lenses in terms of coverage. That said, I also am very afraid to use any lens esp of this cost w/o any front filters. I think in the end, i might also just opt for a 17/35
Like Bob I have the 17-35 and am very pleased with it as a very useable ultra-wide angle lens. An added bonus is that the design is over 10 years old I managed to pick one up used for half the cost of a new one. Maybe when the 14-24 is more widely available used I'll try one of these too. Meanwhile I too am looking for a used 16mm fisheye for those extreme wide angle photo-opportunities