14-24 lens for Nikon (Page 2): For landscape you generally want f16 or higher. So why worry about f2.8 for that? For closeup don't you want a macro lens? Maybe I don't know what you...

MtnMan Loc: ID

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.

For landscape you generally want f16 or higher.

So why worry about f2.8 for that?

For closeup don't you want a macro lens? Maybe I don't know what you mean by that.

DavidNikonD800UK

MtnMan wrote:

For landscape you generally want f16 or higher.

So why worry about f2.8 for that?

For closeup don't you want a macro lens? Maybe I don't know what you mean by that.

For landscape work do not matter to have F2.8 or F4 lenses but F2.8 lenses normally have better optically however F2.8 gives a better brightness in viewfinder when you to focus especially in manual lenses or switch to manual. I remember I use canon 17-40 F4 L. I have trouble focusing at nighttime!!!

Landscape work use F8 or F11 or F16 depends what are you doing for your landscape work.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

In my photography, I only use the 14-24 about 5% of the time, but it is a great lens, tack sharp and is worth the money in my opinion.

DavidNikonD800UK

Interesting, I can see many 14-24 F2.8 in second hand market more then 17-35 F2.8 or 16-35 VR oe 18-35 Old version.

MtnMan Loc: ID

DavidNikonD800UK wrote:

Interesting, I can see many 14-24 F2.8 in second hand market more then 17-35 F2.8 or 16-35 VR oe 18-35 Old version.

BTW since for landscape you want high f-stop (16 or higher) for depth of field and low ISO (for low noise quality) you need long exposure times. Long exposure times demand a tripod. So you don't need VR either...since with most lenses you need to turn it off when using a tripod anyway.

Likewise with high f-stop and thus large depth of field you can focus at 6 feet and have everything in focus. This means you also don't need autofocus.

So IMHO the older lenses provide a great buy for this purpose.

When I get my full frame camera and pass on my 10-24 to my wife (she already has dibs on it) that's what I'm going to look for.

John Singh Loc: Atlanta, Ga.

Db7423 wrote:

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... ;)

I have 14-24mm and 16-35 mm. Nikon D 700 and D 800 Cameras. I tend to keep my 16-35 on most of the time, it is also excellent lens and you can use filters, even though I do have filters and holder for 14-24, just the size of 14-24 mm discourages me more or less for landscapes. That is just me. Don't take me wrong, I like both lens. John

Robeng Loc: California

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.

Hi Pat,

This is one of Nikon's primo lenses. But, in the last couple of years a lot of pros I know have switch to the Nikor 16mm-35mm. Because its sharper (Ken Rockwell also said so), its takes filters (very important), has VR, only one F stop difference and its cheaper. Something to think about.

Patw28 Loc: PORT JERVIS, NY

MtnMan wrote:

For landscape you generally want f16 or higher.

So why worry about f2.8 for that?

For closeup don't you want a macro lens? Maybe I don't know what you mean by that.

Yes, closed down apertures for daylight landscapes. Why pay the price penalty for f2.8? (OK, assured quality in any Nikon f2.8.) However I mentioned I seldom print over 8x10 so I doubt I'll see $1500 difference.

Close ups. I have the nikon 105 for macro work. what i want with WAcloseups is DOF. See how Bryan fills about one-third of his landscapes with a dominant closeup object. Wondrous! With a 12mm focal on an FX body at f11 the hyper focal distance is about one and a half feet for a DOF of inches to infinity.

Manual focus would be ok but I presume (mistakenly?) that the D and G lenses would have seen some optical improvement since the days of the AI and AIS lenses. Same for third parties.

Almost all the newer Lenses in this range seem to be DX.

Thanks to everyone for an interesting thread!

jstar Loc: Western MA

I was looking for a wide anngle and after talking to B&H and reading Ken Rockwell, I ended up buying the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 Less than 1/2 the price and a fantastic lens. Tack sharp. Worth looking into.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

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.

Nice shots. How did you get he camera so low in the last shot? I don't mind getting down flat on my belly, but not in that situation.

DavidNikonD800UK

Hi all

I have bought second hand in mint- condition nikon 17-35 F2.8 for slightly less for brand new 16-35 VR, I am very happy with this lens for my landscape work also wedding. I like zoom which is useful, refer to Ken Rockwell that this lens is sharper then prime lens!!!

perpoto

this is a workhorse for professionals

DavidNikonD800UK wrote:

Hi all

I have bought second hand in mint- condition nikon 17-35 F2.8 for slightly less for brand new 16-35 VR, I am very happy with this lens for my landscape work also wedding. I like zoom which is useful, refer to Ken Rockwell that this lens is sharper then prime lens!!!

DavidNikonD800UK

perpoto wrote:

this is a workhorse for professionals

Agreed, one thing 17-35 is Freedom from flare and ghosting is excellent.
Used properly, 17-35mm is super sharp.
The only stupid thing you can do, as with all other similar lenses from Nikon and Canon, is to shoot at 17mm at f/2.8 in broad daylight and then look in the farthest corners of FX with a microscope. If you do all this, they will will be soft, just like Canon's newest 16-35mm L II. Nikon confirms this in their MTF curves. Shoot at f/5.6 or longer focal lengths, and it's super-sharp everywhere in the frame.

You have to do a combination of six things at once to make it look bad, so don't worry. I can only see this stuff when I go out of my way to make a lens look bad in the process of testing it.

I've tested both a new 2008 lens, and a lens bought new in 2001. They are identical.

If you need perfect sharpness at f/2.8 in the corners in daylight on FX at 17mm when seen through a microscope, buy the 14-24mm instead. By Ken Rockwell

tommyf Loc: Vero Beach, FL

h2 wrote:

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.

Wow, I have never read nor had anyone say something like this to anyone...ever....and being disguised with "Friendly advice". These shots are wonderful, great DOF, composition and color. "Frendly Advice" is always a statement of judgement. And who are you to make statements regarding someone else's processing or camera settings (whoops, now I'm being the judgemental one).

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

h2 wrote:

...but I feel you need to re-evaluate your processing or check in camera settings.

Can you be more specific? What corrections are needed?