Nikkor 14-24 mm FX Lens (Page 2): The OP asked for responses from people with experiences with Nikkor 14-24 mm FX Lens. So how would your response help him?

SwedeUSA2

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?

The OP asked for responses from people with experiences with Nikkor 14-24 mm FX Lens. So how would your response
help him?

raferrelljr Loc: CHARLOTTE, NC

It is a great lens but also consider the 16-35 or the Tamron 15-30.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I have the 14-24 and it is my most-used lens. Compared to the 16-35 you get much better corner sharpness, if that is important to you. It is to me. I don't care about filters, so no problem for me there. That being said, if you are considering this lens you owe it to yourself to check out test reports on the Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 lens. Not only is it half the price of the Nikon, it is sharper across the field, and it has VR to boot. If I were doing this again I would most probably choose the Tamron. You do lose one millimeter at the wide end, but you gain six at the long end.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I've owned the 14-24 since it was released and consider it to be as fine a lens as Nikon has ever made and fully worth its price. Shortly after I bought it, I sold my Nikon 14/2.8 as I consider this one, the zoom, superior. It has seen a lot of use with me and now I am using it for Real Estate work. Filters are a pain, but I have learned to work with that due to the quality of the output. I would not hesitate to highly recommend this lens.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

cjc2 wrote:

I've owned the 14-24 since it was released and consider it to be as fine a lens as Nikon has ever made and fully worth its price. Shortly after I bought it, I sold my Nikon 14/2.8 as I consider this one, the zoom, superior. It has seen a lot of use with me and now I am using it for Real Estate work. Filters are a pain, but I have learned to work with that due to the quality of the output. I would not hesitate to highly recommend this lens.

Hmmmm.... You've reawakened my interest.

ralfstinson Loc: SF Bay Area

I bought that lens for taking pictures and time-laps photography in Fairbanks of the Northern Lights. Worked great! One of the best Aurora photographers is a confirmed Canon user and his favorite lens is the Nikkor 14-24 with an adapter! That says it right there! Of course he loses some of the auto features using the Nikkor lens on Canon (w/adapter), but for shooting the Lights, you want the system (lens & camera) as manual as possible! Also, for the Aurora, you don't want to use filters, they can create an interference pattern with the often monochrome light. So there is not a filter problem, just the weight and cost.

GregWCIL Loc: Illinois

Many of us have pondered this choice - 14-24 vs. 16-35 vs 15-30. I went with the 16-35 and have been very pleased. A good friend has the 14-24 and produces some awesome results.

I would ask what your main uses will be? Filters are an issue but when that wide a circular polarizer produces variable sky colors across such a wide angle. The biggest issue for me would be the weight. It is a monster. I went with the 16-35, then opted to add the 20mm 1.8 lens in addition. I often travel (and hike) and take one or the other. The zoom gives flexibility but the 20mm is lighter. Plus, for astro or aurora photography it lets in 233% more light than even the f2.8. Sometimes when I only have the 20mm I simply stitch several shots together and can go as wide as I desire.

It really comes down to your intended uses.

ralfstinson Loc: SF Bay Area

The 20mm 1.8 sounds very nice, and maybe my next trip north I will have it. (If my wife lets me.)

Eagle Eye Loc: Huntington, NY

I have the lens and love it! It's great!!