Any1 using Nikon 14mm prime wide or the 14-24mm wide zoom is better?
- Thread starter javasoup168
- Start date
- Status
javasoup168
New Member
Do u use ur 14-24 more than the 24-70?
sf_kang
Senior Member
You did not mention whether you are using a DX or FX body. If you are serious about landscape shooting, a good wide angle lens is a must.
With DX, 24mm is still not wide enough. You can look for a Nikon 12-24/4.0 DX. I shot with this lens on my D200 earlier on and it works great.
Now I shoot with the D3, and I am using the 14-24/2.8 instead. Although much heavier than the 12-24/4, the pictures coming out of the D3 with this lens is simply awesome.
I complement with the 24-70/2.8. I know these are heavy glass, but really 'no pain, no gain' - you want the best pictures, you have to work for it. I use a backpack camera bag as I also carry the 70-200/2.8 VR, SB800 and spare battery.
Fred
With DX, 24mm is still not wide enough. You can look for a Nikon 12-24/4.0 DX. I shot with this lens on my D200 earlier on and it works great.
Now I shoot with the D3, and I am using the 14-24/2.8 instead. Although much heavier than the 12-24/4, the pictures coming out of the D3 with this lens is simply awesome.
I complement with the 24-70/2.8. I know these are heavy glass, but really 'no pain, no gain' - you want the best pictures, you have to work for it. I use a backpack camera bag as I also carry the 70-200/2.8 VR, SB800 and spare battery.
Fred
javasoup168
New Member
Wow Fred! Hardcore guy u r man!
I m currently using the D700 and only have 1 lens thats the 24-70. The lens is quite a good walk abt lens but i need something wider for landscapes, so from the feedbacks, i assume the 14-24 is a must have as well since the 14mm prime is no longer in production which is kinda sad cos i really would like to take ligher load when travelling.
1 qn: If u're using the 14-24mm, wouldn't u "neglect" the 24-70 somehow? Thats y some pros r using 17-35 etc. Correct me if i'm wrong...Thks!
I m currently using the D700 and only have 1 lens thats the 24-70. The lens is quite a good walk abt lens but i need something wider for landscapes, so from the feedbacks, i assume the 14-24 is a must have as well since the 14mm prime is no longer in production which is kinda sad cos i really would like to take ligher load when travelling.
1 qn: If u're using the 14-24mm, wouldn't u "neglect" the 24-70 somehow? Thats y some pros r using 17-35 etc. Correct me if i'm wrong...Thks!
David Kwok
Senior Member
14-24 is the tool for the best quality job.
Was complementing between 14-24 and 17-35 before I have hands on.
Once you have tried 14-24 and observed how sharp it is at its corners, you will feel 17-35 is not up to it at f/2.8. For sharpness in corners of 17-35, u need to stop down to f/5.6 at least.
Only use 14-24 on FX, if you are on DX, go for Tokina 11-16mm instead. It gives very good IQ on DX too.
Was complementing between 14-24 and 17-35 before I have hands on.
Once you have tried 14-24 and observed how sharp it is at its corners, you will feel 17-35 is not up to it at f/2.8. For sharpness in corners of 17-35, u need to stop down to f/5.6 at least.
Only use 14-24 on FX, if you are on DX, go for Tokina 11-16mm instead. It gives very good IQ on DX too.
Benosaurous
Senior Member
what really differentiate a pro landscape and a everyday landscape, is the knowledge and clever use of filters in your photos.
therefore 14-24 is out of the question. That is why canon still insist with 16-35, but alot of canonist love the nikon 17-35 as it is sharper with better distortion control.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsleep/sets/72157594547064548/with/3039572743/
one of the landscapist i really like.
nevertheless, 14-24 is still the sharpest, uwa zoom lens ever produce, legendary.
therefore 14-24 is out of the question. That is why canon still insist with 16-35, but alot of canonist love the nikon 17-35 as it is sharper with better distortion control.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsleep/sets/72157594547064548/with/3039572743/
one of the landscapist i really like.
nevertheless, 14-24 is still the sharpest, uwa zoom lens ever produce, legendary.
Last edited:
no need to suggest or argue...
just buy both the 14-24mm n 17-35mm ... fit to same body (d3, d700 whatever) and shoot real life stuff ... and decide yourself which is keep n which is rubbish
test yourself is best ... most humans inluding me only give opinions reed elsewhere; never actually try
even those that try both at shop; come on... how long try only, 30 mins at most... fair judgement ; tell me
so best buy both and take your time to test them
if both u like, keep both ... why not?
if like only one, sell off the other ... there's always 2-hand-mkt ... if u selll below market, always a buyer ready
now u have been told
just buy both the 14-24mm n 17-35mm ... fit to same body (d3, d700 whatever) and shoot real life stuff ... and decide yourself which is keep n which is rubbish
test yourself is best ... most humans inluding me only give opinions reed elsewhere; never actually try
even those that try both at shop; come on... how long try only, 30 mins at most... fair judgement ; tell me
so best buy both and take your time to test them
if both u like, keep both ... why not?
if like only one, sell off the other ... there's always 2-hand-mkt ... if u selll below market, always a buyer ready
now u have been told
yyD70S
Senior Member
Based on MTF alone (although MTF tells only some aspects of the whole story), it seems to be. To me, both has it's place in the same camera bag; they serve different purpose but boy, they do add up to slightly below 2kg :sweat:
- Status
Similar threads
