Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: 14-24 or 17-35?

  1. #1

    Default 14-24 or 17-35?

    If you have both Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 and Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8, and you have to let go one, which one will you let go?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,786

    Default

    17-35mm. To me the choice is obvious
    Equipment: D800|D700|11-16|28-75|105 Micro VR|50 F1.4G|85 F1.8G
    Through the Lens of Cowseye

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,571

    Default Re: 14-24 or 17-35?

    Personally I would use 14-24 on FX body seriously for landscape, real estate, indoor/outdoor architectural.

    I would pick 17-35 between the two becos I find it more practical. But I would prefer 24-70 focal length due to the style of shooting.

  4. #4

    Default Re: 14-24 or 17-35?

    do u use filter or no filter?
    Kent Wong Photography |Leica Q & Leica M-P 240 | 75 & 28mm Summilux

  5. #5

    Default Re: 14-24 or 17-35?

    I use Cokin P filters GND, ND8 & CPL. But IQ suffered somewhat when used on 17-35. So I stopped using filters. Using FX body. I was indeed thinking of selling one of them to get 24-70. But can't decide which one.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,786

    Default

    If you are set to buy 24-70, the choice is even more obvious. Why overlap the range? This change nets you 2/3 holy trinity!!
    Equipment: D800|D700|11-16|28-75|105 Micro VR|50 F1.4G|85 F1.8G
    Through the Lens of Cowseye

  7. #7
    Member sf_kang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    642

    Default Re: 14-24 or 17-35?

    My personal opinion based on my own personal experience.

    Lens choice/selection should be made with two major considerations:

    1) What subject you shoot PREDOMINANTLY, i.e. what focal length and aperture are most needed to do what you do most of the time? For example, I do mostly travel scenary and landscape, and also travel portraits of people I encounter on my trips. For the former, I chose the Nikon AF-S 14-24/f2.8 to be able to really capture wide vista views, and the latter, I chose AF-S 70-200/f2.8 VRII to be able to zoom in close for the portraits without having to be too physically near the subject as to become intrusive. For general walk about, I have the AF-S 50mm/f1.4G on my FF body most of the time.

    2) When buying/deciding on a lens, think also a little whether you're building a 'system' with good focal length range and good lens speed. Hence my choice of lens as explained in 1) above.

    3) On trip when I have more time at specific locations, I might bring along 4 primes instead of zooms, e.g. Zeiss ZF Distagon 25mm/f2.8, Makro Planar 50mm/f2, Makro Planar 100mm/f2 and the Nikon AF-D Micro 200mm/f4. These are on trips where I can take time to compose, manually focus, and get the really sharp shots.

    Hope this sharing helps.
    Fred

  8. #8

    Default

    I already have 50 1.4G n 70-200 VR2.
    What I don't like abt 14-24 is no protection to the front element. The IQ seem better than 17-35 by a small margin. Which is why I am not 100% certain.

  9. #9
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: 14-24 or 17-35?

    Quote Originally Posted by shelomoh View Post
    I already have 50 1.4G n 70-200 VR2.
    What I don't like abt 14-24 is no protection to the front element. The IQ seem better than 17-35 by a small margin. Which is why I am not 100% certain.
    But 14mm vs 17mm very hard to ignore. 3mm on the wide end is a very big difference in view angle. So in the end, you have to ask yourself if you really need that wideness. If you shoot only 17mm and tighter, 14-24 will not make sense.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Thomas More's Vision
    Posts
    627

    Default Re: 14-24 or 17-35?

    I will forgo the 14-24mm. The enormous front barrel will make me more paranoid. The 35mm on the 17-35 is also more useful when walking around/holidays.

  11. #11

    Default Re: 14-24 or 17-35?

    Quote Originally Posted by shelomoh View Post
    I already have 50 1.4G n 70-200 VR2.
    What I don't like abt 14-24 is no protection to the front element. The IQ seem better than 17-35 by a small margin. Which is why I am not 100% certain.
    I used the 14-24mm on three overseas trip. I think the front element is pretty well protected by the lens hood if you put it at 24mm.

  12. #12

    Default Re: 14-24 or 17-35?

    So far I only have 1 field test with 14-24. Think I will test it more first.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •