psychobiologist
Senior Member
looks good for DX, but i believe it will vignette & shadow on FX

looks good for DX, but i believe it will vignette & shadow on FX
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:
Hi, but is the 14-24mm sharper than the 17-35?
Hi, but is the 14-24mm sharper than the 17-35?
Apparently,Yes...Hi, but is the 14-24mm sharper than the 17-35?
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
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