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!

The 14-24 is 32.5% better than the 17-35.

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Vernon t, Jul 8, 2008.

  1. At least it must be since it weighs 32.5% more.:Smart:

    That makes it a bargain since is only costs 6% more.:biggrin:

    Actually....I just 6 hours ago pulled the B&H trigger on a 14-24 based on excellent glowing reviews from owners and on my 4 upcoming trips to Crested Butte, Sonoma, Estes Park and the San Juan's where I expect to find uses for it.

    Once again, resistance is futile. You guys fueled my vice/lust/passion again.

    I just have to de-klutzify my shooting style so as to not flutz up the bulbous what-am-I-compensating-for front glass.
    We'll see how I like it.

    And....bonus....it adds enough weight to my pack such that it'll improve my aerobic endurance on the planned hiking trips.
  2. The weight is the main factor why I still hesitate to get it.
    I almost convinced myself to keep my 12-24 and just use it between 18-24. Still pretty wide on a D3.

  3. NeilM

    NeilM Guest

    To sell the 12-24 or not to :) 
  4. Doug


    Jan 17, 2006
    East TN
    So, what is the science behind this number 32.5% Inquiring minds could care less. I mean want to know. Also, is that a metric 32.5% or under the english system?

    It is a jewel for sure though!
  5. I bought a 14-24/2.8 as it had gloving references. But I went back to 17-35/2.8 because the lighter weight of the 17-35/2.8.
  6. JeffKohn


    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    Hey Vernon, when are you going to CO? We're going to the San Jauns the last week of July (first trip to CO for us).

    I've been contemplating a new lens purchase as well, but I just can't make myself pull the trigger on the 14-24. I think the main reason is the lack of filter support, but also the fact that right now I'm still shooting DX and 14mm just isn't quite wide enough so I'd still have to keep my 12-24. I'm also considering the Tokina 11-16 but that would leave me with a substantial hole in coverage unless I pick up something like the Ziess 18mm (which isn't actually available yet).
  7. So do what I did and get a used 14/2.8. Vignettes wide open but it sure is w-i-d-e!

    And it is half the size and weight and about half the cost (used) of the 14-24.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  8. drjiveturkey

    drjiveturkey Guest

    Now if only they made a 14mm 2.8 with perspective control!

  9. Doug,I believe Texas still uses its own system :biggrin:
  10. Hotplate


    Oct 23, 2007
    Austin, TX
    Nice Vernon. Even better that you've got some great trips planned with which to use it. A friend of mine uses the 14-24 and I got to try it out on my D300. Very, very nice lens. The lack of filter support would bug me though, as I would want to use that lens for landscape.
    BTW, I'm still enjoying your old 17-55. Enjoy yourself and those trips..
  11. drjiveturkey

    drjiveturkey Guest

    That is a big downside. I wish Nikon put in a rear drop in filter or even a gel holder. You have to be pretty creative in using this lens for waterfall shots!
  12. I've taken to hand holding my ND grads. So far so good--but not for long exposures.
  13. what size grads do you use? any light leakage?
  14. Mine arrived today, I accidentally bought it over lunch, didn't mean to..

    No where near as big as I feared, and it doesn't look too mental even on my little D60.

    Optics..? I would put this in the 300mm f/2.8 VR zone for wide open OMG goodness. Its THAT good.

    Just need to jerry-rig some sort of filter contraption...
  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.