14-24 or 17-35?


shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#1
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?
 

wmayeo

New Member
Feb 11, 2008
1,571
0
0
Singapore
#3
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.
 

shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#5
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.
 

sf_kang

New Member
Nov 3, 2004
642
0
0
65
Singapore
#7
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
 

shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#8
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.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#9
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.
 

tehzeh

New Member
Aug 7, 2009
627
0
0
Thomas More's Vision
#10
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.
 

alantkh

Deregistered
Jun 16, 2009
786
0
0
42
#11
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.
 

shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#12
So far I only have 1 field test with 14-24. Think I will test it more first.
 

Top Bottom