Wide Angle lens for Nikon D700

[Redgum]

It's easy for me to say (having both lens) but it takes a lot to justify that extra 3mm which cost you more than $2k. Unless you're doing lots of real estate/indoor stuff then the 17-35 is more than adequate and equally as sharp.
For example, I did a school formal, 250 students, and the 17-35 was more than adequate for the wide shots and certainly more useful for general shots where the 14-24 was too wide.
The 14-24 was designed for the three lens market - 14-24, 24-70 & 70-200 and if that's the way you want to go it makes sense but alone the 17-35 is more versatile.

[gaidin]

Yes I think I may have got caught up in the "trinity" mentality a little too.

Given I also have the 35/2 and 50/1.4 Im even starting to think I could live without the 24-70 and should just sell that to fund the 17-35 purchase...too many decisions!!!

That actually leaves quite a well balanced kit at 17-35/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 70-200/2.8 to have in the pack at all times....plus the special purpose 105/2 DC, 300/2.8 and a Macro based on each shoot.

[vqscorpions]

for me, after a long time of using zoom, i start hating using zoom as the quality is always less than the prime, even the prime is very cheap.

so, I bought 20mm for the wide angle and 14mm for super wide angle.

personally, I love 28-200mm AF G as it is really sharp and cheap one, very useful to walk around.

for me, 28-70mm AF-S is not good, it just has high aperture, but the quality is bad in comparing with prime. I intend to sell that one quickly.

[gaidin]

so, I bought 20mm for the wide angle and 14mm for super wide angle.

do you mean the 14/2.8 prime? Isnt that one only a few hundred dollars cheaper than the 14-24 and only just on par quality-wise though?

[Redgum]

You're right, Gaidin. Primes are not necessarily better than zooms and it would be hard to compare cheap primes to expensive zooms. In the case of the 14mm the zoom is superior even though they are the same price and of course with the prime you are limited to one focal length.
Most of the blokes I work with around the world are pretty much settled on good quality zooms and apart from the 50mm rarely carry any other primes (Nikon wise anyway). Different brands, different results.

[antongorlin]

why is it impossible to use filters on 14-24?

[Redgum]

The 14-24 has a convex lens which literally pokes out past the front of the barrel (without lens hood). You can attach Z series filters but the optics are not conducive.

[gaidin]

Not impossible, just very difficult.

It has a permanently attached "flower-shaped" hood, a bulging front element that extends out a long way, and no thread for standard filters.

The only options at the moment and "ghetto" style homegrown filter holders…or Lee have an upcoming product that will fit the lens but uses non-standard size filters.

[darkc]

I have this lens and use the cokin x pro series filter holder with universal adapter, it takes 130mm x 170mm size filters. I haven't experienced any vignetting yet even at 14mm. I have been using Lee ND filters with it, they make x pro sized filters. The holder and filters are quite large and the attachment method to the lens hood seems a bit flimsy but once on it's quite firm. It does suffer reflections through the gap between the hood and the adapter but hey, that's easily fixed with a peace of cloth or something to fill the gap.

[vqscorpions]

i used Nikon 15mm Q.D C f/5.6, then I got Sigma 14mm AF-D EX f/2.8. I decided to sell 15mm Nikon and use Sigma 14mm f/2.8.

This one is quite cheap and the results just are very very good enough on both of my DX and FX bodies.