Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G question

[reaction]

The Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G, being I think the widest FX zoom is very interesting. There are lots of reports of poor flare performance. Does this lens do WORSE than other UWA re flare? Say vs 11mm on DX, how does it compare?

What do people think of this lens?

[Xebadir]

Hey,
Its actually not the widest FX zoom, that honor goes to the Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6, which has more problems with flaring, haloes and chromatic abberations, but is still a pretty nice lens, and a darn sight cheaper than the 1500-2000 price on a 14-24 F2.8 (good luck finding one for under about 1900 atm since the Japanese earthquake)
Ive found it pretty good with flare, certainly better than any other UWA i've tried. I've been running a heap of tests and tbh I don't know what people are complaining about. Relative to some of the lesser offerings I find on a crop frame I think its really not that much of an issue, completely smashes a sigma 10mm on a crop frame. Its probably just a case of people whining because they are looking for something to be wrong with the lens. Alot of people get too hung up on minor points and end up not using gear because of it, when in fact if a bit of care is taken you can generally avoid/minimise the problem. Same thing with the weight of the lens, people whine and whinge about it but realistically its not that different to any other decent bit of glass and balances well on an FX or DX body. I find the 24-70 feels more ungainly/heavy purely because the 14-24 has its weight distributed closer to the body, even though its notionally lighter.

I haven't had mine for that long, but have rented it to try in the past and not found it an issue compared to what the lens provides. And I can honestly say I only wish I had this lens earlier. Its unbelieveable. Blows everything else out of the water. Sure it takes a bit of skill to handle and control like any lens (and perhaps moreso as its a bit of a specialist) but the IQ it gives corner to corner wide open and throughout its range is better than the primes for a reason. Ill be interested to see if flaring becomes a problem while shooting storms for 6 weeks in the states, but I somehow doubt it will be.

Hope that helps .

[reaction]

I don't yet have an FX camera, but was just intrigued to learn more about this lens. Being so bulbous, and yet the 16-35mm f/4 only 2mm more and is a normal shaped lens.

How much more does that 2mm give you? Is it worth the trouble of no filters?

[Xebadir]

Comparitively in terms of FOV the difference isn't massive on FX, your gonna be looking at:
Nikkor 14-24 114°
Nikkor 16-35 107º

The difference will likely be in the corner to corner sharpness, and the extra stop of aperture. The 16-35 performs like an F4 lens, yes, its pretty good, but IMHO it isn't in the same league as the 14-24. Filters, meh, if you really need to use them that much then i'd go the 16-35, but if I ever need them ill adapt my own filter or buy a Lee set...sure its not cheap, but filters aren't everything. Realistically if I want to use a filter/s I put on the 24-70, pan with a tripod head and stitch. In terms of physical difference, you will probably also notice a different depth in the photo as you get wider, but it depends if you are trying to use that aspect of the lens. Either way I had the toss up and decided not to go with second best and was happy for the decision. On a DX cam, 14 isn't ridiculously wide and there are other options. Everyone has their opinions, my preference was for the wider lens which works unbelievably well.

[nightbringer]

I was considering this for double duty on both FX and DX - on DX it would work as a 'normal' lens, since the converted focal length would be something like 21-36mm, has anyone ever tried anything like this?

[reaction]

what, tried attaching FX lens to DX body?

only Canon has lenses that aren't operable between 1.0 and 1.6 crop.

[MajorPanic]

I have the 14-24 & don't seem to suffer from flare, it's razor sharp from corner to corner when shooting slightly stopped down on my D700

Say... from f/5.6 on.

It's significently sharper than the 12-24 I had for the D300.

Being an old commercial/industrial (medium & large format) photographer my standards of sharpness are somewhat higher than the run-of-the-mill photographer.
I can say that this lens is razor sharp.

[nightbringer]

No, this particular lens on a DX body - it would be great if I could have it doing double duty as a 'normal' lens on a DX lens and as an ultra-wide on FX

[ricktas]

No, this particular lens on a DX body - it would be great if I could have it doing double duty as a 'normal' lens on a DX lens and as an ultra-wide on FX

it can. All Nikon lenses can go on both. You can put an FX lens on a DX body or a DX lens on a FX body.

[Lani]

Is it worth the trouble of no filters?

http://www.leefiltersusa.com/camera/...4D70E497E9AA1/ Not sure about their cost though.

[I @ M]

Not sure about their cost though.

Not cheap locally.

[Lani]

Not cheap locally.

Hmmmm, not too surprised at that, unfortunately!

[nightbringer]

Thanks ricktas.

I'm more troubled by the fact that you have to wait months before you can get one of those Lee filters.

[Lance B]

I have the 16-35 f4 VR and think it a fantastic lens, but this is on FX. The thing with any of these UWA lenses is that you need to know how to get the best out of them and that each one has it's own little quirks. The 16-35 f4 can be razor sharp as well from corner to corner if you know how to use it correctly. The beauty of the 16-35 f4 is that it has VR and this is handy if you want to shoot in low light and preserve the use of using low ISO as you can get up to 4 stops of extra handholdability, so instead of using ISO3200 for a given aperture and shutter speed, you can go to ISO200 which means preserving better DR and noise and this is especially a factor on APS C cameras. Or you can use an aperture of f16 instead of f4 for added DOF. However, on DX, the 14-24 gives an angle of view of 90° - 61° as opposed to the 16-35 which "only" gives 83° - 44°, which may or may not be a big deal to you.

To me the benefits of the 16-35 f4 are:
1) excellent IQ, maybe not quite to the standars of the 14-24, but still excellent and I am very happy with my results.
2) that is takes filters easily as I use ND grads extensively
3) it has VR. Don't dismiss this if you do not want to have to resort to tripods.
4) Is smaller and therefore easier for trips.
5) has a larger zoom range.
16-35 disadvantages:
1) wide end distortion, but can easily be corrected in post process
2) you need to know how to get the best out of it to get edge to edge sharpness, if required.
3) f4, but I have never found this a limiting factor for a wide angle lens

The advantages of the 14-24:
1) superb IQ
2) low distortion at 14mm
3) f2.8, although I do not find that f2.8 is all that much of an advantage with wide angle and only gives one extra shutter speed to stop action if required. I find VR much more of an advantage.
Disadvantages:
1) large and heavy
2) front element protrusion may be prone to knocking and scratching
3) no VR
4) filters will be difficult and expensive.

Having said that, I am thinking of getting the 14-24 f2.8, as well as keeping my 16-35 f4, as an adjunct to my 16-35 f4, not a replacement as I will still use the 16-35 more often due to filter requirements and VR. The reason I am thinking of getting the 14-24 is for that extra 2mm and for where I want the utmost IQ when I have the time and when the shot warrants it's use. I look at the 14-24 more of a specialist lens, not an every day type lens, IMO.

I think the question is, if you are thinking of getting a FX camera any time soon, you will need to think of your requirements on that camera as opposed to your current DX camera. On a recent trip to Europe using my D700, I found the 16-35, with it's VR, invaluable when shooting in all those dimly lit cathedrals, churches and castles, etc. I regularly shot at ISO3200, f13 for extra DOF and 1/5sec handheld! Also, when you're on a trip, you may not like to, or have the time to, have to keep switching lenses to get something longer than 24mm and the 16-35 fits the bill more often here as well. Also, the 16-35 is smaller and as the front lens doesn't protrude, it is less likely to be scratched or knocked.

However, for a DX camera, the 14-24 could still be a very good option as it gives the same approximate focal length of a 21mm lens on FX which is still quite wide and once you get a FX camera, you will have an excellent lens for it.

Anyway, good luck with you decision!

[nightbringer]

Thanks for the info Lance.
I picked up a Sigma 8-16mm back in December, and I like to think it's similar to the 14-24 in that you can't use lenses and that it is pretty damn wide. But the filter factor kept cropping up and I was seriously considering getting another wide angle like the 10-20 which can take filters, until I got an F100. At the moment I'm using a 24mm AI-S Nikon as my wide angle on that camera.

The 16-35 sounds appealing to me as a walk-around lens on the FX, given its longer zoom. But part of me wants the 14-24, for the crazy quality I hear about as well as the f2.8.

[K10D]

I use a 14-24 on both the D700 and the D7000. It's an awesome piece of glass. The more use, the better the results. As Lance said, UWA requires work to get the best results. If you don't have it, you can't learn. It will always hold it value.

The filter issue can be a problem for some.

Best regards

[Shingo]

Not cheap locally.

That's not the worst of it. The local dealer told me that they're on back order and the witing list is 6-12 months.

[Shingo]

The Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G, being I think the widest FX zoom is very interesting. There are lots of reports of poor flare performance. Does this lens do WORSE than other UWA re flare? Say vs 11mm on DX, how does it compare?

What do people think of this lens?

Ask anyone who's used or owns one. It's an outstanding lens, and in a class of it's own.

[Othrelos]

Interesting comments here. Though as far as i'm concerned the High ISO capabilities of the Nikon D3s the issue of lacking VR on the nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G hasn't been a problem for me. In the studio I have had some issues with flare with the 14-24mm f/2.8G when I was using a large Elinchrom Lightbank - which I ended up putting a grid on it to prevent the light from spreading too far. I suspect using shoot through umbrellas with this lens would prove to be equally bad due to the fact that shoot through umbrellas throw light everywhere - but that is conjecture I do not use umbrellas.

I have been waiting for a decent thunderstorm to blow through Adelaide ever since I got the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G

[monsters]

Really Rick!!?? OMG!!
I have a 35mm f1.8G on my D90 so can this lens be used on a D700 body?