Gobuster Loc: South Florida

If your hands are shaky like mine, I'd pass on the 24-70, it does not have VR. The 24-120 F4 does and is thus the better lens for me. The VR has allowed me to get much sharper photos at lower shutter speeds.

pego99

I thought we were talking about the 12-24 or the 24-70?

Some people are not excited about Ken Rockwell's reviews.

Kalina54 Loc: Flagstaff, AZ

I LOVE my 14-24mm..I use the Fotodiox system as I found the Lee to be a huge pain..google fotodiox wonderpana..I leavi it on the lens all of the time.

loveandpeace Loc: Southeast Iowa

My scenario exactly. The 24-70 lives on my D800, and I finally got a chance to put the 70-200 to use at an air show on Saturday (yesterday). I'm not much of a landscape photographer, but I'll be getting the 14-24 for a workshop in Carmel next April.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

I use the 24-70 most of the time, but when I need the 14-24 it produces very sharp images and I'm very happy with it. I'm also extra careful because of no lens protection.

Deecee

I just bought this lens a couple of months ago and I love it. I bought it primarily for star photography but it works well for indoor shots also. This is a picture of a church I was in a few weeks ago. I love how it captures so much without warping the bottom.

Not being able to put on a filter does not really bother me, which filter would you put on if you could? A polarizer would be useless for any kind of shots with the sky because you would get varying strengths of polarization over the picture. You can buy a filter adapter, but their pretty expensive. Nikon makes a 14mm lens that will accept filters, but it is not as sharp as the 14-24mm lens. I l

If you really feel the need for a filter, you might consider the 18 to 35mm lens that Nikon makes. I have had this lens for about 10 years now, it is still one of my favorite lenses.

The 14-24 is pricey, but if you keep an eye on B&H Photo, you can find it used. I bought mine with the box used for $1600. A word of caution on this lens, it's fragile. While I was researching it, I read several stories of people who dropped the lens for a height of 6" and knocked the elements out of alignment. While I treat all my lenses with care, I am extra careful with this one

1898 Catholic Chruch, The Dalles, Or

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

I had the 14-24 and i sold it because I couldn't use filters with it. Its a great lens but the filter thing really bothered me. I will be getting a 17-35 soon. The 16-35 is a good lens but the 17-35 is a pro level lens and the 16-35 is not. Both are good lenses tho.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Fotodiox also makes a filter kit for the 14-24 that they call the Wonderpana:

http://www.fotodioxpro.com/wonderpana-145-system-holder-core-unit-only.html

I use it when I need to use an ND filter (and sometimes a polarizer) on mine (which I love, by the way). As for "protective" filters - I don't use them anyway.

The lens is certainly big and heavy, but like its brethren in the "holy trinity" of f2.8 Nikkors, it makes excellent images. Or at least, is capable of making them.

pego99

removed as requested

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

As this has absolutely nothing to do with what the original poster asked, I can only thank you for your superfluous comment!

djenrette Loc: Philadelphia

If you are worried about a filter to protect your lens, than maybe this lens is not for you. If driving at above the limits worries you, then the Maserati is not your speed. If sky diving scares you, keep your seat belt fastened. If using a condom is... **never mind** just joking!

I got my first Leica in 1957 and have yet to damage the front elemnt of a lens. And I have covered NFL and college games, protest meetings, and race riots.

Mickey Mantle Loc: New York City

Hi

Shit happens in life. I always plan for the worse.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I own two of them. Love the lens. the 14mm end is nothing short of stunning, considerably better than the corresponding prime lens. And at the 24mm end, to my eye it is still pretty good, even at F2.8, but considerably improved by F5.6.

At first I was concerned about the lack of a reasonable filter solution - so far, after 3 years, it has not proven to be an issue.

This is one of Nikon's best lenses.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I think you will find the 14mm sharper across the field, corner to corner - than the 16-35, especially at F2.8. I suggest you rent or borrow one before you buy.

Shutter Bugger

I rented one for a weekend. If you dont mind the weight and size you will love it.

(Download)


(Download)