nikon 14-24mm 2.8
Aug 15, 2014 11:20:44 #
Mickey Mantle wrote:
Ken Rockwell favors the 16-35 over the 14-24
And he is a trolling, contrarian fool. There is a reason why most amateurs like him, and most pros find him amusing at best.
Aug 15, 2014 11:38:28 #
Gene51 wrote:
And he is a trolling, contrarian fool. There is a reason why most amateurs like him, and most pros find him amusing at best.
If Ken favors the 16-35 then that is why you should get the 14-24!!
Aug 15, 2014 11:40:04 #
f8lee wrote:
As this has absolutely nothing to do with what the original poster asked, I can only thank you for your superfluous comment!
Wf8leee who appointed you moderator?
Aug 15, 2014 12:38:25 #
pego99 wrote:
Wf8leee who appointed you moderator?
Simple common sense and courtesy on forums seems to have been lost these days - all too often I see responses to a question that have nothing whatever to do with what was being asked. If the OP asked "I'm not sure if I should but a Chevy Volt or a Nissan Leaf", a response of "I ride a bicycle and like that" is just useless and pointless (other than to feed the ego of that responder, who evidently feels the need to chime in even when he or she has nothing to offer).
Had the OP asked something about making a choice between numerous ultra-side zoom lenses, that would be something else - but the specific query was about this particular lens and other owners' opinions/concerns, etc. This just adds chaff to the "conversation" and does not help the OP, which is allegedly the purpose of these kinds of forums. But your experience, spiffy as it may be, with something completely different than what the poster was asking about is rather useless and just adds to the tedium of trying to get real answers from others who can help.
I know this will ruffle your delicate feathers and all, but when I try to help someone on this forum I first read through what has already been posted, and if what I was going to say was already stated I see no need to prove to the world I can say "me too". And I certainly don't see the value is tossing in something that has no bearing on the original question.
Aug 15, 2014 12:44:43 #
pego99 wrote:
If Ken favors the 16-35 then that is why you should get the 14-24!!
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Aug 15, 2014 12:49:56 #
I don't agree. My suggesting the very sharp and inexpensive Tokina 12-24 F4 is more relevant than the 16-35 detour.
f8lee wrote:
Simple common sense and courtesy on forums seems t... (show quote)
Aug 15, 2014 12:52:42 #
Mickey Mantle wrote:
It seems that the Lee system is he way to go if you want the protection and piece of mind. Do you have to take the system off or can you permanently leave it on the lens? I am confused about using filters on my lenses. Some professional photographers have told me they never use filters. They do not like a cheap filter covering an expensive piece of glass.
Two schools on that. My 300 F2.8 14-24 F2.8 and 600mm F4 do not have provision for filters on the front of the lens. I just care in handling and just clean with an alcohol-soaked lens wipe, but only after blowing all loose debris off the lens. I do not use microfiber cloths, because after you've used them once or twice, you run the risk of creating "cleaning marks" on the lenses. Besides, the cost of a lens cover for the 14-24 is only slightly less than a front element replacement, and there are no such reasonable options for the bigger lenses. The smaller, more frequently used lenses all have Hoya HMC filters on them, and there is no issue of image degradation, as long as I keep them clean.
Aug 15, 2014 13:00:38 #
pego99 wrote:
I don't agree. My suggesting the very sharp and inexpensive Tokina 12-24 F4 is more relevant than the 16-35 detour.
The Tokina can be used down to about 18mm without vignetting on a full frame, and possibly a little wider if you stop down to F11. And yes, it is a great lens at a good value, a nice alternative if you need to use a wide lens with a filter.
Aug 15, 2014 13:02:34 #
That was my point and why I didn't sell it when I moved to full frame.
Gene51 wrote:
The Tokina can be used down to about 18mm without vignetting on a full frame, and possibly a little wider if you stop down to F11. And yes, it is a great lens at a good value, a nice alternative if you need to use a wide lens with a filter.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.