Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Buy_Sell, Jul 24, 2008.

  1. Buy_Sell

    Buy_Sell Guest

    Anybody tried this lens? I'd like some feedback before considering a
    purchase.

    Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens

    How does it compare to the 17-35mm f/2.8 ?
    I'm looking for people who have actually used it and not information
    that someone found on the net.
     
    Buy_Sell, Jul 24, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Buy_Sell

    Me Guest

    It's not very good at all. *All* the detailed reviews and subjective
    opinions on the net are wrong.
     
    Me, Jul 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Buy_Sell

    Bruce Guest

    Have a look at the Sigma 10-20mm,I've got one on a D80.The reviews are very
    good.
     
    Bruce, Jul 24, 2008
    #3
  4. Buy_Sell

    Guest Guest

    It's not very good at all. *All* the detailed reviews and subjective
    opinions on the net are wrong.[/QUOTE]

    really? based on what evidence?
     
    Guest, Jul 24, 2008
    #4
  5. Buy_Sell

    Guest Guest

    except it's a dx lens and not a constant f/2.8. not quite the same.
     
    Guest, Jul 24, 2008
    #5

  6. Amazing. Used it twice, on D300 and then on D3, and my son now has one
    for his D3. There's no other lens made which can match it.

    David

    --
    Icon Publications Ltd, Maxwell Place, Maxwell Lane, Kelso TD5 7BB
    Company Registered in England No 2122711. Registered Office 12 Exchange
    St, Retford, Notts DN22 6BL
    VAT Reg No GB458101463
    Trading as Icon Publications Ltd, Photoworld Club and Troubadour.uk.com
    www.iconpublications.com - www.troubadour.uk.com - www.f2photo.co.uk -
    www.photoclubalpha.com - www.minoltaclub.co.uk
    Tel +44 1573 226032
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jul 24, 2008
    #6
  7. Buy_Sell

    Ray Paseur Guest

    Not sure where you're located, but if you want some hand-on experience, the
    camera shops in many larger towns offer rentals. You can take these things
    out for a day or two and try them in your own hands. That's why I DO NOT
    own quite a few lenses, like tilt-shift things -- it costs very little to
    pick one up for the occasion when I'm going to need it, and I conserve
    capital.

    Even if you're not near a big city, you might be able to rent. Good luck! ~Ray
     
    Ray Paseur, Jul 24, 2008
    #7
  8. Buy_Sell

    Frank Arthur Guest

    If you have one on your camera why would you care about "reviews"?
     
    Frank Arthur, Jul 24, 2008
    #8
  9. Buy_Sell

    Andy Guest

    I use one with my D3.... fabulous lens.. I think is is actually better
    than the prime 14mm 2.8 Canon I used to use, and certainly as good as if
    not better than the latest Canon 16-35 I bought just before I moved over
    to Nikon early this year.
     
    Andy, Jul 24, 2008
    #9
  10. Buy_Sell

    Dev/Null Guest

    Except the Nikon is a FX (full-frame) lens and the Sigma is a DX crop lens.
    It's like comparing apples to eggs...
     
    Dev/Null, Jul 24, 2008
    #10
  11. Buy_Sell

    Richard Guest

    Which one? The one they made on Monday or the one on Wed? Sigma doesn't
    seem to be able to turn out two lenses the same quality to save their lives.
     
    Richard, Jul 25, 2008
    #11
  12. Buy_Sell

    Andy Hall Guest

    I have the 14-24 and it's a superb lens. I haven't tried the other one.

    There is a limitation, however. That is that there is not an official
    or 3rd party filter solution for it. Having said that, there are a
    few articles around where people have managed to fit a Lee filter frame
    to the lens hood.
     
    Andy Hall, Jul 25, 2008
    #12
  13. The 17-35/2.8 is a killer good lens.
    Yes, this is a big turnoff for me since I'm rough on equipment and won't buy
    a lens I can't put a filter on.



    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jul 26, 2008
    #13
  14. Buy_Sell

    Andy Hall Guest



    I did also look at the 12-24 DX. This has some appeal in that it can
    take filters. However, it didn't appear to produce quite such good
    images towards the ends of the range as the 14-24 did.

    At some point, I may want to add a full frame body to use in addition
    to my D300 so have generally avoided DX lenses.
     
    Andy Hall, Jul 26, 2008
    #14
  15. I bought one of them to get a couple of jobs done when I was shooting some
    small interiors in my DX days. It sits in its original packaging collecting
    dust after those two uses. While it is an OK lens to use if you're in a
    pinch, I would pass on it now since you have ambitions of going full frame.
    That is a good strategy as I did the same. Nikon has some really sweet FF
    lenses, especially the older ones.



    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jul 26, 2008
    #15
  16. Buy_Sell

    Bruce Guest


    99% of Sigma buyers will neither see any difference, nor care.
     
    Bruce, Jul 29, 2008
    #16
  17. Buy_Sell

    Try It Guest

    Rita,
    You don't know what your missing, I've owned the 14-24mm for about 3 months
    now and it is my primary shooting lens on my D3. I've tried all the nikon
    wide lenses and some of the aftermarket lenses and nothing even comes close
    to it. I had the 14mm f2.8 nikkor and it is a poor second in image quality
    compared to the 14-24mm. I wouldn't give it up for anything. Corner to
    corner sharpness is second to none.

    Franc
     
    Try It, Jul 29, 2008
    #17
  18. I'll probably get it one day when one makes itself available at a desirable
    price I want to pay. The lack of front element protection is a big problem
    for me. The 17-35/2.8 is a super lens and I get a lot of use out of it. If
    I didn't have the 17-35/2.8 I would definitely be more excited about the
    14-24/2.8.



    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jul 29, 2008
    #18
  19. Buy_Sell

    Me Guest

    In the meantime, perhaps Nikon would be so kind as to make some f4
    zooms. Perhaps something close to as wide could be made with
    possibility for a filter.
    The weight is also a problem as it's quite often that you need to use
    one hand to shield sunlight from the front element - body & 14-24 is
    pretty heavy to hold in one hand, and a tripod just not possible with
    some of the angles I use uwa for. A D3 with 14-24 is a very big chunk
    of kit.
     
    Me, Jul 30, 2008
    #19

  20. All living in the past (a reputation Sigma got in the 1970s and
    successfully carried through to the 1990s). Since you don't know who
    Sigma makes lenses for, or DSLRs for, or parts of lenses, or parts of
    DSLRs, it's really silly to take snipes at them. Without Sigma you
    probably wouldn't have the DSLR you are using today. They are a valued
    and respected contractor to some of the names you might think see them
    as just a competitor, and have been for some time.

    David
     
    David Kilpatrick, Jul 30, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.