Nikkor 14-24 mm FX Lens: I'm considering buying this lens. Any Hoggers have experience with it?

jmcgloth Loc: Ocean Park, WA

I'm considering buying this lens. Any Hoggers have experience with it?

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

Yes, I have one and I think you will find it to be one of your favorite lenses. It truly is a fantastic piece of glass!

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I have one. Excellent lens.

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

I also have one. Works super with my D-800. Lovely sharp pictures when you do your job. No V/R and needs special filters, but I did not let that stop me.

MtnMan Loc: ID

Why not 16-35?

There is already distortion at 16 so unlikely you would use less. For landscape 35mm often works best.

VR and normal filter threads. Awesome image quality.

And cheaper?

Robeng Loc: California

MtnMan wrote:

Why not 16-35?

There is already distortion at 16 so unlikely you would use less. For landscape 35mm often works best.

VR and normal filter threads. Awesome image quality.

And cheaper?

MtnMan,

I have the 16mm-35mm VR and its a great lens. But if you're shooting night photography say the Milky Way you want the wider and faster lens. Jmcgloth never mentioned what he was going to shoot.

Rob

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Robeng wrote:

MtnMan,

I have the 16mm-35mm VR and its a great lens. But if you're shooting night photography say the Milky Way you want the wider and faster lens. Jmcgloth never mentioned what he was going to shoot.

Rob

I did a night sky shoot a couple of years ago with a group, and several photographers had that 16-35mm lens. I was using my Tokina 16-28mm, not quite as pricey.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

jmcgloth wrote:

I'm considering buying this lens. Any Hoggers have experience with it?

i had one of these lenses, great lens. I found that within a short amount of time I was not using the lens at all. The main reason is because you cannot use conventional filters with this lens, you have to buy a rather expensive filter system and using this filter system requires time to assemble it. The filter systems available for this lens work fine but they are expensive and bulky. I do a lot of Infra Red photography and if you need to use Infra Red filters they will not be able to fit this lens. If you want to use a converted Infra Red camera this lens works well, no hot spot. This is a great lens, some really like it and some have difficulty. There are alternatives, the 16-35 is a great lens that accepts filters and the older 17-35, a legendary Nikon lens. If you have the cash this lens is a great performer.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

jmcgloth wrote:

I'm considering buying this lens. Any Hoggers have experience with it?

I use this lens for landscape photography. If you are going to use filters with it, they are expensive to buy and LEE filters are super, but expensive. If you need something almost as good that you can use less expensive filters consider the Nikon 16-35 F4 lens. Also very sharp but not quite as wide. And yes, their is quite a difference between 14 and 16 mm, but not a game changer. The 14-24 is monster heavy but WOW sharp. But then again, so is the 16-35. Happy hunting.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am not actually a super wide angle guy. I "discovered" that with my D610 my 12-24 f4 AF-S DX Nikon lens is very capable of using focal lengths between 16 and 24mm. This was a godsend for me. I have to assume that the same lens made by Tokina will do exactly the same at a more reasonable price.
It is not a 14-24 that is an excellent optics but it takes care of those wide vistas for me when I need to go that wide.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

billnikon wrote:

...filters ... are expensive to buy and LEE filters are super, but expensive.

This is a good point, but if you are not big on using filters, not something to worry about. At least there IS a system available if you decide you need them.

billnikon wrote:

If you need something almost as good that you can use less expensive filters consider the Nikon 16-35 F4 lens. Also very sharp but not quite as wide.

The important phrase here is "almost as good"! The 14-24 is an f/2.8 lens, which increases its light-gathering ability, whereas the 16-35 is an f/4 lens, so you are starting out with decreased ability to shoot in low-light situations. For some, this is not important, for me that is the game-changer...

billnikon wrote:

The 14-24 is monster heavy but WOW sharp. But then again, so is the 16-35.

If weight is an issue, then a smaller lighter camera and lens would be more important. But most of us with Nikon DSLR cameras are willing to bear the burden!

My philosophy of buying photography gear is to get the best you can afford. And in my world, faster glass is better than slower glass. Also, the 14-24 f/2.8 is considered to be one of Nikon's "Golden Trio" of lenses. One of the best for sharpness, etc. I do not own one, but it is on my wish list - it will be the next lens I purchase. (Already have the 24-70 f/2.8.)

Good luck with making your decision. Here is my vote for the 14-24:

MtnMan Loc: ID

Robeng wrote:

MtnMan,

I have the 16mm-35mm VR and its a great lens. But if you're shooting night photography say the Milky Way you want the wider and faster lens. Jmcgloth never mentioned what he was going to shoot.

Rob

Yes, I see it is f2.8. Although my 16-35 does great on night sky shots because I live where skies are dark and the D800 is great at high ISO.

But I mostly use it for Landscapes at f16 plus. And that is when the VR and filter threads (CP) kick in because I want low ISO.

Deecee

I have owned my 14-24 for about two years now, it is an excellent lens. Super wide and super sharp. I use it mainly for night sky photography, but it works well for indoor architecture photography as well. You will not be disappointed!

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

I was in your boat a couple of years ago and came to UHH as you have. At the time I got the results you're getting: the majority said, "Buy the 14-24!" But the thing about filters and the need for special filters got me to thinking. I did more research and learned that while the 14-24 is an excellent lens, for my shooting--I'm primarily a landscape/garden photographer--it made more sense to go with a 16-35. I bought the 16-35 and have never regretted it.

Quixdraw Loc: x

I believe the key thing with any very wide or wide zoom, is that you use it a lot. Understanding the capabilities and limitations is the key. I make a point of going shooting with just a wide prime or 18-35. I have found it to be a useful exercise. As to filters, how important they are depends on your usage, if just a protective filter (if that is your preference) not a big deal. Generally, unlike film days, with high ISOs available, except at the extremes of usage, though fast lenses are great, it comes down to price / value.