But the test you done make me wonder about FF.... coffin $$$ if all go to FF, no more $$$ to buy ex lens for FF cam...... :sweat:.... how about for D300???
14-24mm
- Thread starter weekh
- Start date
- Status
But the test you done make me wonder about FF.... coffin $$$ if all go to FF, no more $$$ to buy ex lens for FF cam...... :sweat:.... how about for D300???
gglankie
Senior Member
Next Mon will be good... I'm free whole day....
Anybody else wanna join us?
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
i use both regularly & from my experience, the 17-35 is a lil too soft on wide open at f2.8
That's the point.. If you're going to invest in a lens now, you should just go for the best there is now so that you won't need to change in the future. FX is just a revolution which Nikon has to undergo or they will just lose market share. Having said that the lenses I've tested are still some of the best lenses available. They work great over DX. It's just that FX needs something a little better than what's available. That was the primary reason why Nikon has been slow in coming up with FX bodies.
If there hadn't been lateral CA correction in the D3, you will probably see CA at the corners as well. This doesn't just plague Nikon. Canon suffers from this as well but maybe to a smaller extent because the EF mount is a larger mount which allows larger diameter optics to be used.
i use both regularly & from my experience, the 17-35 is a lil too soft on wide open at f2.8
That's the point.. If you're going to invest in a lens now, you should just go for the best there is now so that you won't need to change in the future. FX is just a revolution which Nikon has to undergo or they will just lose market share. Having said that the lenses I've tested are still some of the best lenses available. They work great over DX. It's just that FX needs something a little better than what's available. That was the primary reason why Nikon has been slow in coming up with FX bodies.
If there hadn't been lateral CA correction in the D3, you will probably see CA at the corners as well. This doesn't just plague Nikon. Canon suffers from this as well but maybe to a smaller extent because the EF mount is a larger mount which allows larger diameter optics to be used.
noted with thank bro.... :lovegrin:
i use both regularly & from my experience, the 17-35 is a lil too soft on wide open at f2.8
May I know you mean for FF at corners?
My favorite local store Lords quoted 14-24mm at 2,450. Any one knows where in Singapore I can buy it even cheaper?
I've been to HK a few times before. I can't find any more reason to go there again and flying there just to buy the lens (at cheaper price than SG) is not worth it.
I've been to HK a few times before. I can't find any more reason to go there again and flying there just to buy the lens (at cheaper price than SG) is not worth it.
yup
both lens at f2.8...... ( tested both on D3 )14-24 still is king in terms of sharpness
only set back is the bulging glass & super big tumbler-like lens cap .:bsmilie:
however, set at f4, the 17-35 seems great .:thumbsup:
viceroy666
Senior Member
14-24mm handheld at f2.8 ISO1600
Why I got a feeling not only we kena poison with the 14-24mm and 17-35mm lens, at the same time also kena the D300 virus.... :sweat:
sample shot........handheld
17-35mm shot at 17mm wide open.
only resize ....no PP done.
Wah so wide. Never mind, 1 day I will try the Nikon 20-35mm f2.8, the 17-35mm f2.8 and the 14-24mm f2.8 all on FF.
King Tiger
Active Member
Wow...... Full Frame for 17-35mm is really wide.
For Fullframe user, wonder if there is debate which to choose.
14-24mm or 17-35mm.
14mm is a ultra wide, but without filter protection.
17mm is one of the trinity lense, wide, but not as wide as 14mm.
For Fullframe user, wonder if there is debate which to choose.
14-24mm or 17-35mm.
14mm is a ultra wide, but without filter protection.
17mm is one of the trinity lense, wide, but not as wide as 14mm.
yyD70S
Senior Member
Yes. FX brings back those glory days of 35mm film... 17mm is WIDE again. And this AFS 17-35mm f2.8 IS A GOOD LENS. I like the colours and contrast of this lens. I am biased though.
Having said that, if there are three reasons for me to save up for an FX DSLR, it would be:
(1) AFS 14-24mm f2.8
(2) AFS 14-24mm f2.8
(3) AFS 14-24mm f2.8
Filter or no filter. IT IS THAT GOOD.
Come to think of it, the two lens can co-exist in my dream setup.
Having said that, if there are three reasons for me to save up for an FX DSLR, it would be:
(1) AFS 14-24mm f2.8
(2) AFS 14-24mm f2.8
(3) AFS 14-24mm f2.8
Filter or no filter. IT IS THAT GOOD.
Come to think of it, the two lens can co-exist in my dream setup.
Seconded YYD70S view, if there are any reasons to get a FX cam it would be the 14-24.
Want to try ?? :devil:
Ansel
Senior Member
Well, since I am robbing the bank for the D700, must as well grab some more loot for the 14-24. Same penalty anyway. :hung:
:nono:
prolensdreamer
New Member
This Thread is really poisonous. I am a D200 user, after seeing the photos and reviews, I am really impressed by the lens.(I have never used wide angle lens before, would like to have one to try out wide angle shooting)Any body out there using such lens on D200?
King Tiger
Active Member
14-24mm :sweat:
The widest I use is the DX format Sigma 10-20mm and Nikkor 12-24mm
Arghhhhhh................ Dennis, dun posion me..................
King Tiger
Active Member
Dennis, why you free to meetup ?
Catchup with old friend, nothing else. :embrass:
Catchup with old friend, nothing else. :embrass:
- Status
Similar threads
