Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Which lens to buy? Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 lens or 17-35mm F2.8 lens

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    • «
    • 1
    • »
    zcbts28
    zcbts28  6 United Kingdom
    2 May 2011 - 3:27 PM

    I am interested in buying either one of these two lenses for my Nikon D300s. I currently have the sigma 10-20mm lens which is fun to play around with but I would like to upgrade it and have a professional quality lens. My main uses would be for landscape and low-light/night photography. I know that the nikon 17-35mm lens is quite old and probably will not be as great as the 14-24mm lens, but I would like to know if anyone has experience with these two lenses and could offer some advice about the image quality and which lens would be the most suitable to purchase. I am currently saving up to by a full frame sensor camera, but for the time being i would be using these lenses on my D300s.

    many thanks

    Yannis

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links 
    2 May 2011 - 3:27 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    jken
    jken  81672 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
    2 May 2011 - 3:37 PM

    Hi Yannis,

    I looked down the same path about 8months ago and went for a 16-35VR, never use the VR as most of my work is shot from a tripod.
    I bought a 2nd hand lens from a site member and saved a fair bit on the new price.

    I know from looking that the 14-24 it's a superb lens, but at the time you couldn't get a filter holder that fitted it, so it put me off, plus that front element looks like it might have got a lot of abuse with everyday use.

    The 17-35's are also superb but they are like hens teeth to get hold of, the only ones i looked for were very late versions as these have a better Silent Wave Motor but these were well over what i paid for the 16-35VR.

    Might be worth a look at a 16-35.

    jken

    Last Modified By jken at 2 May 2011 - 3:42 PM
    thewilliam
    2 May 2011 - 5:11 PM

    I have the 17-35 and it's a fine lens. One advantage is that we can fit a UV filter to protect the front element. I'm careful yet still have to replace the UV every now and again.

    paddyman
    paddyman e2 Member 566 forum postspaddyman vcard United Kingdom
    2 May 2011 - 5:24 PM

    I have a 17-35 and i agree that it is a great lens,i have a nikon nc filter on the front of mine,also use a lee filters hood with wide angle adapter ring which i can use at the 17mm end.
    Alec.

    User_Removed
    2 May 2011 - 5:39 PM

    Like Jken, I opted for the 16-35mm as my w/a lens rather than the 14-24, specifically because I use filters a lot for landscapes and the 14-24 has no filter thread (because the front element is so convex).

    Having said that, I used to use a Sigma 10-20mm on my D300 before moving to an FX body and I honestly think that the quality from that lens was every bit as good as the Nikkor I use now.

    LenShepherd
    LenShepherd e2 Member 62450 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
    3 May 2011 - 2:41 PM

    The 14-24 is optically a little better - but does not accept filters.
    Nikon recently made a new batch of 17-35's. The best prices are over 1,500 - more than the 14-24.

    Nick_w
    Nick_w e2 Member 73846 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
    4 May 2011 - 8:34 AM

    Lee now make a filter holder specifically for the 14-24

    http://www.leefilters.com/camera/products/finder/ref:C4BA0B2B8A73D1/

    zcbts28
    zcbts28  6 United Kingdom
    4 May 2011 - 12:18 PM

    thanks for all the advice. i guess i will try and test these lenses and see which one i prefer. i have read so many good things about the 14-24mm lens that maybe i am leaning towards that. its just that i also enjoy using my big stopper and there is no way i can fit that onto the front of the 14-24mm lens..so was looking at the 17-35mm as an alternative.

    thanks

    yannis

    scottishphototours

    I have the 14-24 f2.8 which I use mostly for weddings these days (have never shot a landscape type image with it yet). The performance is stellar, colours are magnificent, and its built to last - but would I buy another one?? - probably not.

    The distortion is VERY obvious at 14mm and it takes VERY great care to minimise this at the taking stage. I tried another at Calumet and got the same results, so I know I have a good copy. I find this to be the only downside to using this lens (at 24mm its simply wonderful...) and given this issue and the price, I'd probably look at the new 16-35 f4 if I was buying again.

    Andy.

    LenShepherd
    LenShepherd e2 Member 62450 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
    5 May 2011 - 12:25 PM


    Quote: Lee now make a filter holder specifically for the 14-24

    True - but it costs more than several lenses, and is restricted to ND type filters.
    If f4 is acceptable the 16-35 suggested is good.

    Dave_Canon
    5 May 2011 - 5:27 PM

    Some advice from a Canon user. I needed a lens of similar spec for my EOS 5D2 so looked at many reviews. I actually conlcuded that the Nikon 14-24 would have been ideal. I also discovered that you can buy it with a Canon conversion. I was not prepared to buy a Nikon - Canon converted lens but I was certainly convinced that the 14-24 is a superb lens.

    Dave

    Richardtyrrelllandscapes

    I use the 14x24 on my D300 and its a great landscape lens. First class in low light. I'm sure you would love it.

    Richie.

    filmforever
    12 May 2011 - 8:12 PM

    I wonder why you don't consider two single focal length lenses in view of the fact you're interested in available light?.....I used to have the old 17-35mm 2.8 lens, it was very good, but my 35mm f2 lens is better and far far cheaper. You could buy a separate 17 or 20mm 2.8 as your second lens, and probably still have change, from what you'd pay for the zoom. You'd be able to handhold the single focal lengths a lot more easily than you would the zoom at slow speeds.

    scottishphototours


    Quote: I wonder why you don't consider two single focal length lenses in view of the fact you're interested in available light?.....I used to have the old 17-35mm 2.8 lens, it was very good, but my 35mm f2 lens is better and far far cheaper. You could buy a separate 17 or 20mm 2.8 as your second lens, and probably still have change, from what you'd pay for the zoom. You'd be able to handhold the single focal lengths a lot more easily than you would the zoom at slow speeds.

    See now, that there is just a great suggestion.....

    • «
    • 1
    • »

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.