Wiiiiiiiiiide

[dakinetx]

Am selling my Last DX lens and wanna replace it.
Selling Sigma 10-20.
Now, mainly do People/Wedding Photography so a WA is abit more of a "trck" lens or good for those "dressing room" shots (altough would use when traveling too). The 17-35 appeals to the PJ in me but it's not "best" @ 2.8 irks me.

So, which to get? 14-24 f/2.8 or 17-35 f/2.8

I do like my shallow dof but want most versatile (bit of oxymoron with these two lenses really I guess lol). Guess with 17-35 having some swm issues? and the 14-24 "ding me" stick out front element both have their "issues".

I have posted here for sometime now (images I mean) so what do those of you that have come to see abit of my style think would best suit me?

Cheers,
Nick

 

[shaocaholica]

The 17-35 can take front filters while the 14-24 can't. May be an issue for more "creative" work like long exposures that require NDs and such.

 

[craig.martell]

14-24 is specialized, and doesn't work very well for people. At least not easily. I think the 17-35 on one camera and the 70-200 on the other is the best for people/events/etc.

Craig

 

[Preston]

Go with the 17-35, the 14-24 is just too wide for people shots in a formal setting like a wedding.

 

[andy6789]

i agree with the 17-35, it is perfect for weddings

 

[Uncle Frank]

Am selling my Last DX lens and wanna replace it.
Selling Sigma 10-20.
Now, mainly do People/Wedding Photography so a WA is abit more of a "trck" lens or good for those "dressing room" shots (altough would use when traveling too). The 17-35 appeals to the PJ in me but it's not "best" @ 2.8 irks me.

So, which to get? 14-24 f/2.8 or 17-35 f/2.8

If I were shooting FX, I think the 24-70 or 28-70 would be about as wide as I'd want to go for people pics. Heck, 24 is pretty wide on DX.