AFS 14-24mm f2.8 on cropped body?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi, anyway, may I know is the 14-24mm f2.8 a lot better than the 17-35mm f2.8 if I am not comparing wideness. Thanks

Have used both but not side by side. Both are impressive so the difference cannot be that great. But that's just sharpness. Still, even to maintain the same legendary 17mm sharpness at 14mm is already a great feat.

Some people have complained about the shorter focal range of the 14-24. 17-35 is probably more versatile but 14-24 is the new standard. I do feel a little uneasy about the protruding bulbous unprotected front element. :sweat:
 

Have used both but not side by side. Both are impressive so the difference cannot be that great. But that's just sharpness. Still, even to maintain the same legendary 17mm sharpness at 14mm is already a great feat.

Some people have complained about the shorter focal range of the 14-24. 17-35 is probably more versatile but 14-24 is the new standard. I do feel a little uneasy about the protruding bulbous unprotected front element. :sweat:

Hi, but is the 14-24mm sharper than the 17-35?
 

Hi, but is the 14-24mm sharper than the 17-35?

Haven't have the opportunity to test both of them but the MTF charts suggests that the 14-24 is sharper, especially over FX.
 

Hi, but is the 14-24mm sharper than the 17-35?
Apparently,Yes...
What did you expect?14-24 is made in the D3 era while the 17-35 in the DX era...
 

to threadstarter, why on earth do you wan to downgrade yourself and get the 14-24? The lens is such a hassle to take care of due to the protruding front, in fact you will be worrying more about your lens then worry about the right composition. The lens is also so huge front and unbalanced, and hard to fit filters to suit your shooting style.
Wat it all means you already got the bestest, dun go and waste your money on the junk
 

To TS: Just get the 14-24 its great lens I am happy user. I don't know wether or not it is good on a cropped body. Should be bah.
 

to threadstarter, why on earth do you wan to downgrade yourself and get the 14-24? The lens is such a hassle to take care of due to the protruding front, in fact you will be worrying more about your lens then worry about the right composition. The lens is also so huge front and unbalanced, and hard to fit filters to suit your shooting style.
Wat it all means you already got the bestest, dun go and waste your money on the junk

lol what do you mean by junk?

a lens with a protruding front isnt too hard to use anyway.
 

to threadstarter, why on earth do you wan to downgrade yourself and get the 14-24? The lens is such a hassle to take care of due to the protruding front, in fact you will be worrying more about your lens then worry about the right composition. The lens is also so huge front and unbalanced, and hard to fit filters to suit your shooting style.
Wat it all means you already got the bestest, dun go and waste your money on the junk

Actually there are many people using this lens though it has large protruding element.
 

henessy, if you dont intend to get FX anytime soon, get the tokina 11-16.
 

frankly speaking, even if ppl give me the 14-24 for free, it most probably would be just a white elephant in the dry cabinet. Its too nonrealistically designed for functional purposes. I will take the 17-35 anytime anywhere. so wat if the lens is already out in the market for a long time, it is still superb in colour, contrast, sharpness or watever u throw at it. :thumbsup:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top