ahmsalvador

Looking for a lens in these focal ranges. The Nikkor 14-24 appears to be somewhat old in design, according to some. The Tamron has variable revues (nothing new here) but mostly good. Any other suggestions?
Your opinion would be mostly appreciated.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

I wish you luck on your search for the lens.

I guess you are correct that the Nikon 14-24 is probably old in design. But as it is still touted as one of the best and sharpest lenses sold today, I cannot help but wonder what difference it’s age could make. Perhaps Nikon got it right from the start.

I am not looking to start a new thread with this, just asking the OP a question based on his post.

Dennis

ELNikkor

get the Nikon

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

i have the tamron 15-30 g2.. Outstanding lens, used properly, your pictures will be tack sharp from 10 feet to infinity. you can get closer like for flowers but a macro might be better for closeups, . it is a wide angle so you will likely do some cropping in post particularly in for full frame. aperture, very sharp at f8. dont expect a lot of bokeh, at least with how i shoot, ie not with aperture wide open. it is a very big, weighty lens, as for distortion, photoshop does a ver good job correcting, i assume lightroom will do the same. i have a Canon. i used to use a an old model 17-40 which is a goo lens, i like the tamron.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

In what way is the lens "old in design"? What did "some" have to say about it?

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

Check out the Nikkor 18-35. Very sharp lens, reasonably compact, and available for less than $750. DXOMark rates it's sharpness equal to the 14-24.

CWGordon

The 14-24 Nikon lens is still considered a classic, it is that good. I was told there was even an adaptor available so Canon shooters could use it! It is that good! That said, I rarely use it and prefer smaller and lighter gear unless I hafta have that ultimate quality. Helluva lens. Expensive unless u use it a lot and can justify its’ use.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The 14-24 Nikon lens is of excellent quality, I have seen many images made with it. It is heavy, it is very expensive.
I agree that the 18-35 could be a more practical buy.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Either of those lenses are excellent.... The Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 "Art" is another option.

However, you first should be asking yourself if you really need an f/2.8 ultrawide that's bigger, heavier, more expensive than some alternatives... plus can't use standard filters.

Personally, I have little need for an f.2.8 ultrawide. That type of lens I'm almost always stopping down to a middle aperture anyway. For that reason I'd take a hard look at the $300 to $600 cheaper, up to 1 lb. lighter Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm f/4 VR, which uses standard 77mm filters.

I can see where someone doing night photography... say astral photography or aurora borealis.... may want f/2.8 for a brighter viewfinder. Maybe photojournalists too. But the rest of us can get by "just fine" with f/4 or even slower. Especially when a lens has VR image stabilization that allows hand holding a couple stops slower shutter speeds than the already slow speeds possible with wide lenses.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Tamron_SP_15-30mm_f_2.8_Di_VC_USD_G2_Lens_for_Nikon_F_vs_Sigma_14-24mm_f_2.8_DG_HSM_Art_Lens_for_Nikon_F_vs_Nikon_AF-S_NIKKOR_16-35mm_f_4G_ED_VR_Lens_vs_Nikon_AF-S_NIKKOR_14-24mm_f_2.8G_ED_Lens/BHitems/1432500-REG_1390819-REG_675838-USA_520635-USA

Ken Rockwell says about the AF-S 16-35mm f/4 lens:

"The Nikon 16-35mm VR is the sharpest Nikon ultrawide lens I've ever used. Under test conditions, it's even slightly sharper than the old king, the beastly Nikon 14-24mm.

This Nikon 16-35mm is so good that there isn't much to write about. It's ultra-sharp, it has no significant light falloff in the corners, distortion is reasonable from 20-35mm, focus and zooming are easy and perfect, and it focuses to within just inches in front of the lens.

The 16-35mm's weakest points are its heinous, but easy-to-correct, distortion at 16mm, and it's giant size; five inches (125mm) long. Nikon's first ultrawide zoom, the 20-35mm f/2.8 AF-D (1993-2001), is a stop faster, built pro-tough (unlike this 16-35mm), and is still smaller and lighter, but the 20-35mm has nowhere near the optical performance of this new 16-35mm f/4.

The 16-35mm is Nikon's newest ultrawide zoom. It covers the full FX frame for use with both FX and 35mm RealRaw cameras.

The 16-35mm VR is also Nikon's widest FX lens ever that works with front-mounted filters. The older 15mm f/3.5, 15mm f/5.6, 14mm f/2.8 AF-D and 13mm f/5.6 had such bulbous fronts that no filter could cover them. The front element of this Nikon 16-35mm lens is tiny by comparison.

This new 16-35mm is a huge step up from the 14-24mm because it's much smaller and lighter, has a much more useful zoom range, takes filters both for protection and for use with RealRaw, and is even a little sharper. There's no question that it's time to sell your 14-24mm and get this smaller, lighter and far more practical 16-35mm instead.

VR isn't a big deal. It only gets a stop or two of improvement for hand-held low-light shots of still subjects, which makes it about even with an f/2.8 lens. I do prefer shooting at f/4 with VR over f/2.8 without VR for depth-of-field, but for low light wide angle shots, nothing today compares with the new Nikon 24mm f/1.4 AF-S.

Compared to the hard-to-get professional 17-35mm f/2.8, this 16-35mm VR is $500 less expensive and otherwise similar in size and weight. This 16-35mm VR is however a little lighter, a little longer, and it's sharper if you're picky.

This 16-35mm f/4 VR just became my top recommendation for an FX ultrawide zoom.

Bravo, Nikon!" Full review: https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-35mm.htm

Regarding the one weakness he notes... Most ultrawide zooms have strong wide angle distortion at their widest focal length settings.

I'm not a big fan of Rockwell... But there don't appear to be a lot of in-depth reviews of this particular lens. Still, on the B&H website it's gotten five stars from almost 500 buyers.

You'll have to do further research yourself. But I wouldn't be surprised if the f/4 lens is also sharper from corner to corner and has less distortion than any of the f/2.8 lenses. It's often the case that ultrawides... the "slower" lenses perform better optically than faster lenses.

All this assumes you will be using the lens on an FX camera. If you are using a DX camera, these don't make sense. You'd essentially be paying extra for FX lens capabilities that you won't be using and you should be looking at some of the DX ultrawide lens options, instead.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

There was an adapter... years ago. But now there are Canon and other ultrawides that are it's equal or superior.... and give you full aperture control and auto focus (which the adapted lens doesn't).

CWGordon

Always good to know progress continues. Maybe I will look at some of the newer wide angle lenses; that 14-24 I have mostly collects dust as I rarely need a lens that wide that weighs that much.

Haydon

Don't you know, newer stoves bake better cakes :)

raferrelljr Loc: CHARLOTTE, NC

I have the Nikon 16 - 35.

tcthome Loc: NJ

The color is still a great lens but the tampons getting great reviews. If you have a camera shop near you, call them & see if you can test 1 out.

ahmsalvador

I have no idea.
It was a very blant statement; thank God that they did not go into complicated optics that most likely would be way over my head.
All I am intersted is in the final result.