1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Performance Question

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by mindspan, Jul 2, 2008.

  1. Hi all,
    Am thinking about the new 14-24 2.8. I already have a 17-35 2.8 and was wondering how they compare. I find the 17-35 a little soft in the corners at times and am wondering about the newer lens in this respect. Anyone have any first hand experience with each of these lenses?

    I am thinking of taking the 17-35 in for service (just a sticky focus ring), but at $85/h, am wondering if I might be better off investing that cash in the 14-24. Also, has anyone compared the 14-24 to the 14 2.8D ED prime?

    Thanks in advance!
  2. Surely somebody has experience with these two lenses...
  3. I can only say I'm interested in this thread as well. I have the 17-35.... and have asked myself the same question regarding the 14-24. The other constraint with the 14-24 is the inability of using filters with it.

  4. JeffKohn


    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    I think the 14-24 has out-performed pretty much every lens it has been compared against except for the Zeiss 21mm (which is not available in Nikon mount). Check http://www.16-9.net as I believe they have a pretty good comparision review although I'm not sure if they actually compared with the Nikkor 17-35.

    Part of it I think will depend on your usage. Do you use wide apertures, or mostly shoot stopped down? I don't think there's much doubt the 14-24 is better particularly at wide apertures, but if you shoot mostly in the f/8-13 range the difference may not be so great.

    Other things to consider besides optical performance and cost, are size/weight and filter support.
  5. What kind of filters ...

    What kind of filters would prevent you from looking at a lens.

    I used to have filters on all my lenses and I no longer use filters on any of my lenses except when by the sea side or when there is a high risk of a projectile hitting the front element.

    This week - Tristan complained to me about heavy purple fringing with his 85/1.8 - told him to take his filter off and voila.... No more fringing... So what filters prevents you from getting a lens which render the rich blue sky color like not other lenses out there in the midday sun even when shooting into the sun...
  6. Circular Polarizers are the main concern when it comes to filters and the 14-24. The biggest misconception about them is many folks think they are only good for making blue sky darker. Landscape photographers use them for cutting glare from foliage and water. I leave mine on my lens for 80% of my shots, rarely do I use it for sky.
  7. JeffKohn


    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    In addition to CPL's, also solid ND filters and for some folks ND Grads.
  8. Good point Jeff, I forgot about ND's. I've started to play around with ND's more at dusk to really slow down the shutter speed. The colors are so much more vivid with a long exposure.
  9. I use a 2 stop graduated ND for photographing ruins fairly often in SE Asia, Mexico etc. The dynamic range in these places is such that it's pretty much a requirement -- or at least it was on the D200. Haven't photographed any of these types of places since I got my D3.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.