14-24 lens for Nikon: If I'm primarily interested in using this lens for landscape and closeup photography, is the f2.8 really worth the steep price? I'm leaning towards a third party...

Patw28 Loc: PORT JERVIS, NY

If I'm primarily interested in using this lens for landscape and closeup photography, is the f2.8 really worth the steep price?
I'm leaning towards a third party search in the f3.5 range, zoom in the approximate 14-24 range.
I seldom print over 8x10. D600 is the camera. I have the Sigma 17-28.

Db7423 Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

The Nikon 14-24 is a truly great lens. Perhaps none better, but have you looked into the Nikon 16-35? F4 is hardly a compromise for a landscape lens. Check Ken Rockwell and others... ;)

treadwl Loc: South Florida

Patw28 wrote:

If I'm primarily interested in using this lens for landscape and closeup photography, is the f2.8 really worth the steep price?
I'm leaning towards a third party search in the f3.5 range, zoom in the approximate 14-24 range.
I seldom print over 8x10. D600 is the camera. I have the Sigma 17-28.

This lens is just plain wickedly sharp throughout the range. Even the corners are amazingly crisp. It does not have a thread for screwing on filers so you have to use a filter holder if you want to use filters--especially a polarizer. I have fund that Nikon top level glass is always a good choice and the photos I take bear this out. If the print you are making is only 8-10 I doubt you will notice much difference with ANY lens. Personally I love my Nikon glass.

Larry

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Patw28 wrote:

If I'm primarily interested in using this lens for landscape and closeup photography, is the f2.8 really worth the steep price?
I'm leaning towards a third party search in the f3.5 range, zoom in the approximate 14-24 range.
I seldom print over 8x10. D600 is the camera. I have the Sigma 17-28.

I truly believe that if a zoom lens is capable of f/2.8 across the spectrum, it has to have quality glass in it. It is the glass that determines the quality of the eventual photo, all other things being equal.

I'm a bit confused why you might be looking, since you already have the focal range covered with your 17-28, or nearly so. Are you not satisfied with that lens? If not, then I would suggest that you get the 14-24 because of the known quality of it. The 16-85 is also a viable lens, even though it's f/4.0. It's simply hard to beat quality Nikon glass. One other that you might look at is the Nikon 17-35, which is also f/2.8 glass.

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

I have only had my Nikon 14-24 2.8,for a few weeks. I fine it a truly amazing piece of glass. Super sharp at all swettings.

Patw28 Loc: PORT JERVIS, NY

brucewells wrote:

I truly believe that if a zoom lens is capable of ... (show quote)

Patw28 Loc: PORT JERVIS, NY

brucewells wrote:

I truly believe that if a zoom lens is capable of ... (show quote)

It's the price differential for the f2.8 that I resist. For daylight landscape or closeup work, I would not expect that much demand for the less than a full stop improvement over the more commonly available f3.5 in that focal length range.

Also, I seldom print larger than 8x10 so would not expect to see that much difference between Nikon and third party. (I do have a bushel of Nikon lenses just because I " gotta have it!")

And, yes, I do want to extend my range beyond 17mm. (I'm a sucker for Bryan Peterson and what he does below17mm.)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Patw28 wrote:

It's the price differential for the f2.8 that I re... (show quote)

All of the great Nikon lenses are going to be f2.8 (at least the zooms) right through the 300mm prime lens which is known to be one of the most awesome lenses in Nikon's lineup. The better the lens, the more light it's going to capture. Even the 600mm is an f4. The eye-popping photos that you see are made with these lenses. Once you get a good camera, put your money into these lenses: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 300. However, I understand budgetary considerations. I'm shooting with the 28-300mm lens, which I've been told is an excellent lens in conjunction with my D800. The others are on my long term acquisition list.

I'm not going to say that there are not other outstanding lenses. SwampGator shoots with a 300mm f4 Canon lens and quite often uses a 1.4 extender and his results pop. Of course, he has been a professional photographer for years. He should hold a UHH photo seminar in the spring (Phil, are you listening????)

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

I borrowed a Nikon 12-24 for a while & ended up buying a Tokina 12-24 f4 about 2 months ago. Very well made & super sharp-don't have to rob a bank to buy one either.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

DOOK wrote:

I borrowed a Nikon 12-24 for a while & ended up buying a Tokina 12-24 f4 about 2 months ago. Very well made & super sharp-don't have to rob a bank to buy one either.

Could you post some photos from your Tokina? I know Tokina makes quality lenses.

DOOK Loc: Maclean, Australia

SteveR wrote:

Could you post some photos from your Tokina? I know Tokina makes quality lenses.

Steve..Here are three examples from my Tokina. I have recently posted dozens of pics from it, including three today. Taken with a D7100.

Zero_Equals_Infinity Loc: Canada

My favourite lens for lansscape photography is my 24mm tilt-shift lens. If you love the idea of being able to tilt and shift to get near-far focus without the demon of diffraction getting in the way, this is the must have lens. (And I read the Samyang has a very respectible 24 tilt shift just about to be released, which will be substantially less than the Nikon.)

h2 Loc: Glasgow, Scotland.

DOOK wrote:

Steve..Here are three examples from my Tokina. I have recently posted dozens of pics from it, including three today. Taken with a D7100.

Hi Dook
Just looking in on this as I'd love to get hold of the 14-24 - unfortunately unlikely for the foreseeable future.

Friendly advice ...
I'm not too taken with the shots you've posted and had a look at other shots of yours.
Hope you take this as helpful, but I feel you need to re-evaluate your processing or check in camera settings.

Happy to give advice (assuming I have expertise there) if you feel you need help in a particular area.

perpoto

go for Tokina 16/28 ,2.8 u want regret

Patw28 wrote:

If I'm primarily interested in using this lens for landscape and closeup photography, is the f2.8 really worth the steep price?
I'm leaning towards a third party search in the f3.5 range, zoom in the approximate 14-24 range.
I seldom print over 8x10. D600 is the camera. I have the Sigma 17-28.

DavidNikonD800UK

Hi all

Trouble is with 14-24 lens, need expensive filter holder by Lee if you can afford!!!!!

Try nikon 17-35 F2.8 is brilliant lens otherwise 16-35 VR. I think 16-35 have more softer edges then 17-35, read reviews.

Sigma 12-24 is good. Tokina 16-28 is good but problem with holder like 14-24.

Most put off with 14-24.

Wont much difference in image with 17-35 or 16-35 or 12-24