Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G

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.

 

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

 

Have a look at the Sigma 10-20mm,I've got one on a D80.The reviews are very
good.

 

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?

 

except it's a dx lens and not a constant f/2.8. not quite the same.

 

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

 

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

 

If you have one on your camera why would you care about "reviews"?

 

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.

 

Except the Nikon is a FX (full-frame) lens and the Sigma is a DX crop lens.
It's like comparing apples to eggs...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

99% of Sigma buyers will neither see any difference, nor care.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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