New Lens Decision (Page 2): Two points: 1. you don't need the higher (24-35) end of the 16-35 lens, that's already covered @ f/2.8 by your 24-70; 2. you don't need a slower lens. Off...

joealdrich Loc: Texas

Two points:
1. you don't need the higher (24-35) end of the 16-35 lens, that's already covered @ f/2.8 by your 24-70;
2. you don't need a slower lens.

Off topic: unfortunate you're not open to considering even faster lenses in that range :(

amehta Loc: Boston

joealdrich wrote:

Two points:
1. you don't need the higher (24-35) end of the 16-35 lens, that's already covered @ f/2.8 by your 24-70;
2. you don't need a slower lens.

Off topic: unfortunate you're not open to considering even faster lenses in that range :(

There are no faster zoom option in that range. And other than the 24mm f/1.4, are there many faster primes in the 14-24mm range? The 14-24mm is a really special beast!

Glider Loc: Austin

I am astonished that anyone who is serious about image quality and being a better photographer reads Rockwell. His advice is universally bad. If you want good information, read DXO and Thom Hogan (no typo).
As to the lens, no comparison...14-24mm. Nothing else comes close.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

The 14-24 is, being faster and with a wider angle of view, a bit more flexible to use, though it does have that extra weight and bulk (and bulgy front element) - but that might impress some folks!). I sold my 17-35 f2.8 after getting the 14-24 because I always felt it worth the extra hassle.

Also, Fotodiox actually makes an adapter that enables you to attach their 145MM diameter filter (polarizer and ND) to the front of the 14-24 (they make adapters for other super-wide lenses as well) - and it works pretty well. If you want to achieve slow shutter speeds to create that blurry motion effect (of water, of instance) on a bright day and even at ISO100 you end up having to shoot at 1/60th second at f22, an ND filter can give you more flexibility in terms of slowing the shutter.

dtparker Loc: Small Town, NC

LOL!!

amehta wrote:

See! The story about being chased by a moose had to be connected to one of the two lenses. If I had talked about the Canon 17-40mm, it would have been a foul. But this was clearly relevant to the discussion! :-P

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

You already have the 24-70. Get the 14-24. I have the 24-70 and the 14-24. They compliment each other. The 16-35 will over lap the 24-70. The 14-24 is by far one of the sharpest of the Nikon lenses.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

f8lee wrote:

The 14-24 is, being faster and with a wider angle ... (show quote)

I have the Fotodiox. The polarizer does not work. It does not polarize the whole frame. It also vignettes at 14mm, which requires cropping. The manufacturer acknowledges the problem. The ND holder is terrible. Lee makes a 150 mm and does a better job.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Mark7829 wrote:

I have the Fotodiox. The polarizer does not work. It does not polarize the whole frame. It also vignettes at 14mm, which requires cropping. The manufacturer acknowledges the problem. The ND holder is terrible. Lee makes a 150 mm and does a better job.

The polarizer cannot work across the entire frame of the field of view due to the angles (between sun/subject and lens) being so different from one end of the scene to the other, but it can help in a section of the image. I haven't found the vignetting to be a big issue, though.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

f8lee wrote:

The polarizer cannot work across the entire frame of the field of view due to the angles (between sun/subject and lens) being so different from one end of the scene to the other, but it can help in a section of the image. I haven't found the vignetting to be a big issue, though.

Well they did not state that when I made the purchase. I have seen the effect only in the middle of the frame which makes the image useless. The vignetting is an issue only at the widest angle.
Had they gone to 150 mm like Lee instead of 145 mm they would have avoided the problem.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

Mark7829 wrote:

Well they did not state that when I made the purchase. I have seen the effect only in the middle of the frame which makes the image useless. The vignetting is an issue only at the widest angle.
Had they gone to 150 mm like Lee instead of 145 mm they would have avoided the problem.

Okay, I get it! There are issues with filters on the 14-24 mm. Thank you.

JJ Imagery

If money is no object... the 14-24mm Nikkor.... Tokina makes a very good one as well... MUCH LESS $$, almost the same quality....

PhotoGenesis131 Loc: Michigan

I have the nikon 2.8 in the 70-200. If you have the dollars get that 14-24. It is heavy and should a moose be after you, you may want to have heard about avoidance methods. I own ghe nikon 18-35. Somewhat suitable fircwslking around and can switch. The D600 into dx crop mode for about 50mm.

JJ Imagery

I don't mean to be cheapo here.... I shoot professionally. Sometimes with other photographers who use Nikon and Canon lenses. I'l be damned if anyone can tell the difference between a Sigma or Tokina lens as opposed to Nikon or Canon.... If money were no object, I'd probably buy the Nikon lens, however, I can't justify the expense. A Nikon 24-70, 2.8 new costs $2,100, the same lens in Sigma $1,200... Sorry, but c'mon.

joealdrich Loc: Texas

amehta wrote:

There are no faster zoom option in that range. And other than the 24mm f/1.4, are there many faster primes in the 14-24mm range? The 14-24mm is a really special beast!

What about Sigma 16-35 f/1.8 zoom?

dragonswing Loc: Pa

amehta wrote:

The 16-35mm takes filters.

Any reasoning to why a company would not make all their lens capable of accepting filters?
Does this Sigma lens gives as good quality as the Nikon?