Nikon 14-24mm on a DX?


Lingkang

New Member
Jan 22, 2011
81
0
0
Singapore
#1
Hey Guys,

So an offer has come up recently for me to buy a 2nd hand Nikon 14-24 f2.8 for a really good price. Problem is, i'm using a D7000 and dont think i'll be upgrading to FX anytime soon. I'm really into landscape photography, and have been quite satisfied with a Tokina 12-24mm and Nikkor 17-55mm.

Anyone here has experience with using the nikon 14-24 on a DX body? Ive read about its legendary sharpness, but also read a review which said that the performance on DX suffers when you stop it down greater than f8. Any ideas on that?

So basically, if we put the issue of money aside, would I get a greater performance out of the Nikon 14-24 as compared to my Tokina? Also aware that you cant use filters on the nikon, so thats a slight drawback as well
 

Last edited:

SneakerX

New Member
Oct 5, 2010
285
0
0
www.flickr.com
#2
your 14-24 should be sharper of course. the question would be, is 14mm wide enough for your needs?
 

wdEvA

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2006
6,284
0
36
etanphotography.com
#3
no experience with both of those lenses.
but the 14-24 2.8 on a DX would be a waste
it would perform better than the tokina though
 

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#4
if 14mm is wide enough for u then it's fine. it's the best wide angle zoom in the whole market if i'm not wrong, get it if u can afford it.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#5
As long as you believe that you are comfortable with the focal range this lens provides, I don't see a problem with your proposed combo.
 

K S Kong

Senior Member
Dec 11, 2007
762
1
18
www.flickr.com
#6
This is the best Ultra-wide-angle zoom before the 16-35mm f4 VR being introduce.
use it on the DX camera, this lens becomes only 21mm-36mm no longer Ultra-wide,
so even if cheap, but so huge and bulky to use it on a DX camera,
the biggest drawback is can not fit on filters.
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,697
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#7
The 14-24mm is a big lens, close to 1kg. It doesn't feel balanced on the D7000. It will not take screw-in filters which can be critical for some landscape work. There's no reason for this lens to deteriorate on a DX body. If anything, FX bodies demand more from lenses. Don't get it just because you are offered a good deal. Think about what you really need.
 

Apr 9, 2010
10
0
0
#8
If u really wan a UWA lens on ur D7000 so far as i know tokina 11-16 is the best for dx
 

Legoz

New Member
Mar 7, 2008
1,003
0
0
#9
The 14-24mm is a big lens, close to 1kg. It doesn't feel balanced on the D7000. It will not take screw-in filters which can be critical for some landscape work. There's no reason for this lens to deteriorate on a DX body. If anything, FX bodies demand more from lenses. Don't get it just because you are offered a good deal. Think about what you really need.
On the same note, what kind of body would you recommend to balance a 600mm? :)
 

Jul 9, 2009
849
1
0
Singapore
#10
Hey Guys,

So an offer has come up recently for me to buy a 2nd hand Nikon 14-24 f2.8 for a really good price. Problem is, i'm using a D7000 and dont think i'll be upgrading to FX anytime soon. I'm really into landscape photography, and have been quite satisfied with a Tokina 12-24mm and Nikkor 17-55mm.

Anyone here has experience with using the nikon 14-24 on a DX body? Ive read about its legendary sharpness, but also read a review which said that the performance on DX suffers when you stop it down greater than f8. Any ideas on that?

So basically, if we put the issue of money aside, would I get a greater performance out of the Nikon 14-24 as compared to my Tokina? Also aware that you cant use filters on the nikon, so thats a slight drawback as well
hi, I have tried the 14-24 on my D90, not for landscape tho but for Thaipusam. Works out just fine, the sharpness is quite amazing but its quite heavy seriously.. Just to share:








 

Dec 26, 2008
514
1
0
Lakeside
#12
I'm currently pairing D90 with 14-24.. It is gd for me 90% of the time although i wished it could be wider at times..

 

Last edited:

dardar

New Member
Oct 6, 2010
168
0
0
#13
anyone Tried tokina 12-24 f4 on DX or d90 be4 how is it compare to 11-16
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#14
anyone Tried tokina 12-24 f4 on DX or d90 be4 how is it compare to 11-16
It's sharp enough, especially if you stop down a little (eg. f/5.6 or f/8), which you would likely be doing if you're shooting landscapes.
I like the focal range, which is quite practical. Can use for a greater variety of situations/shots.
11-16 is a fast f/2.8 though. You may need the light-gathering ability on certain occasions.
 

Cowseye

Senior Member
Mar 7, 2010
3,786
0
0
Singapore
www.ttlo-cowseye.com
#15
wenbin0215 said:
I'm currently pairing D90 with 14-24.. It is gd for me 90% of the time although i wished it could be wider at times..
This is the kind of pic that I would be crying for a GND filter.... While Lee's SW150 is charging the he'll out of our pockets to get it fixed onto this lens....
 

Lingkang

New Member
Jan 22, 2011
81
0
0
Singapore
#16
Thanks for all the replies guys!

I'm actually using the Tokina 12-24 DX as I mentioned in the initial post, and i'm generally quite pleased and contented with its performance. Shot tons of landscapes during my recent trip to the UK with it and a CPL...nice colours, stayed above f8 most of the time so it was well sharp. When i moved indoors i changed over to the 17-55mm f2.8 so i didn't use it much in lowlight.

Problem with hanging around forums though is you keep getting poisoned by the purported legendary sharpness and performance of things like tokina 11-16 and nikon's 14-24... sigh.

Been trying around, and still can't quite decide if that 2mm difference is worth sacrificing for the move to the 14-24mm. might just get it to try for awhile, and then sell it if it doesnt suit me... still deciding
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#17
Lingkang said:
Thanks for all the replies guys!

I'm actually using the Tokina 12-24 DX as I mentioned in the initial post, and i'm generally quite pleased and contented with its performance. Shot tons of landscapes during my recent trip to the UK with it and a CPL...nice colours, stayed above f8 most of the time so it was well sharp. When i moved indoors i changed over to the 17-55mm f2.8 so i didn't use it much in lowlight.

Problem with hanging around forums though is you keep getting poisoned by the purported legendary sharpness and performance of things like tokina 11-16 and nikon's 14-24... sigh.

Been trying around, and still can't quite decide if that 2mm difference is worth sacrificing for the move to the 14-24mm. might just get it to try for awhile, and then sell it if it doesnt suit me... still deciding
I really feel that using a 14-24 on a DX camera is a waste.
14mm is not nearly as wide as the widest DX UWA lenses out there. It's also helluva expensive and heavy.
Sharpness... well I don't know if you'd really notice the difference. Maybe (only maybe) if you printed really large :)

If you need the large aperture for your UWA, can consider seriously the 11-16.
 

nickzkcin

New Member
Dec 24, 2009
220
0
0
#18
Would it be a waste? You're still shooting within the sweet spot of the lens, so in my opinion, no it wouldn't be a waste.

The question you should be asking though is does it fit what your needs? i'm going to go out on a limb and say no. Unless your upgrade path will land you on a fx body, a dx lens will suit you much better. Don't get lens because they have the 'ooh new toy sparkley sparkley' appeal to them, get them because you actually need it. You already have a Tokina 12-24, stick with that if it produces images you are happy with.

14-24 despite its legendary optics has drawbacks, namely the lack of filter threads. You would require the Lee filter adapter for the 14-24 to use filters, and even then, you'll find massive vignetting under 18-19mm(on fx, not sure about dx though). Additionally, have you seen the warnings on certain car mirrors? "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear"... Its even more pronounced with this lens at 14mm. The front element protruding is kinda scary too. I borrowed a friend's 14-24 for a week and decided against getting it.
 

Last edited:

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#19
nickzkcin said:
Would it be a waste? You're still shooting within the sweet spot of the lens, so in my opinion, no it wouldn't be a waste.

The question you should be asking though is does it fit what your needs? i'm going to go out on a limb and say no. Unless your upgrade path will land you on a fx body, a dx lens will suit you much better. Don't get lens because they have the 'ooh new toy sparkley sparkley' appeal to them, get them because you actually need it. You already have a Tokina 12-24, stick with that if it produces images you are happy with.

14-24 despite its legendary optics has drawbacks, namely the lack of filter threads. You would require the Lee filter adapter for the 14-24 to use filters, and even then, you'll find massive vignetting under 18-19mm(on fx, not sure about dx though). Additionally, have you seen the warnings on certain car mirrors? "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear"... Its even more pronounced with this lens at 14mm. The front element protruding is kinda scary too. I borrowed a friend's 14-24 for a week and decided against getting it.
Well, if you think that getting a lens which is narrower (FOV), much heavier, and much more expensive than the alternatives is not a waste, than so be it :)
To me, the sharpness difference is imperceptible at the 'usual' sizes that people view/print, so I can't see the point of getting this lens for a DX camera.

Just ask yourself: if this lens were just as sharp, heavy and expensive, but the image circle were only sufficient for DX, how many people would buy it?
 

nickzkcin

New Member
Dec 24, 2009
220
0
0
#20
My point is that the lens itself(without doing comparisons) is not a waste. When comparisons come in, that's when you decide if the lens suits your needs better than alternatives can.
 

Last edited:
Top Bottom