Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by cvansickler, Jul 5, 2008.
Is the new 14-24 worth selling the 17-35 and buying.
It really depends on your photographic style. When I bought my D3, and needed something to replace my DX 12-24. I ended up going for the 17-35mm for the following reasons:
- it is smaller and lighter than the 14-24
- it takes front filters
- it doesn't have a protruding front element
I also have the 16mm fisheye for when I want to get really wide.
However, the 14-24 is definitely a stellar lens. I am still considering buying it further down the line - the definition, contrast, and sharpness the lens can deliver is something not matched by any of Nikon's other pro zooms, at least based upon the samples i have seen on NikonCafe. However for me the deal breaker was the inability to attach filters. I will probably end up with both one day though......
If you're into landscapes and like to use NDs or Polarizers, keep the 17-35 and get a 14mm prime. You cant put filters on the 14-24 unless you make a filter hold that attaches to the front. And when you do that it vingets a lot till about...17mm anyways.
If you're not a filter user, than 14-24 would be a nice replacement.
I know that eventually I'll have a 14-24.
Resistance is futile. But still......
I'll not get rid of my 17-35 when I get a 12-24.
The 17-35 is my #1 favorite lens.
The 20-30mm range is my home base.
The 14mm is way wider and the 35mm is way longer.
I believe this is not an either/or choice, as the ranges are so very different.
here.....17mm image on top of the 14mm to illustrate.
Throw the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 into the mix for consideration. If you're doing landscapes or WA cityscapes, it's the widest zoom available for FF shooting. I'm trying to find somebody I know who has it so that I can test it out for myself.