Misty
May 15 2008, 01:43 PM
This is a cool lens. The widest I have in my arsenal is my Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and there is a BIG difference between 14 and 18!! (Shooting on a D300) I'll be shooting a wedding with it this weekend so I'll see how much I end up using it and how I like it. But I have a feeling I will use it a bunch.
Sooooo....anybody actually OWN this lens? Is it worth purchasing? I'm also a freelance photojournalist so I'm thinking it would be awesome for getting me wider for the paper too. It's an awful lot though...$1600. Whew! Any thoughts?
mattcam
May 15 2008, 01:56 PM
If you're not planning on going full frame in the future, you might want to consider the Nikon 12-24 f4. It's not 2.8, but if you don't think you'll need a faster lens it could do the trick. I think B&H sells it for a little over $900.
MikeRichards
May 16 2008, 04:33 AM
I bought the 14-24 just before I sold all of my Nikon gear and went back to Canon. I only had the 14-24 a couple of days so I was able to return it. I didn't really care for the lens much on the D300, now if I had the D3, it would have been probably my favorite lens. But I found the 14-24 to be an area that I didn't use that much, I wanted a tad more reach but the width was okay.
Currently, I have the 16-35 which is a tad wider on my new body (14x1.5=21 vs. 16x1.3=20.8) and the little bit further reach is really nice. I like the suggestion above that if you are NOT going ff, get the 12-24.
Shane Snider
May 16 2008, 04:36 AM
I tried it out on Corey McNabb's D3 and it was siiiiick. Beautiful lens.
Steve D.
May 16 2008, 05:19 AM
Misty your 14 turns to 2 on your dx format D300 (28 with the Sigma) so you can imagine how wide that is on the D3. Lot of money for this lens on a cropped sensor I would consider the Nikon 17-35 - Still very wide, much much cheaper, smaller, and you can use filters and will be great if you pick up a D3 down the road. There is some gossip about a full frame D300 also. The D3X is also going to be released soon and I don't think it is going to drop prices on the D3 as it will be a high MP camera but you never know.
Misty
May 16 2008, 05:42 AM
Thanks for the responses! I was reading Ken Rockwell's reviews on these lenses after reading your responses and he agrees that the 12-24 is a better solution for cropped sensors, however, its not 2.8. Not sure if that bothers me or not. Then, he goes on to compare it to the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and says its much sharper at f/4 than the 12-24 is at f/4 and its cheaper as well. Anyone know anything about that?
I looked at the 17-35 but its just not wide enough for me. I have used a friends Tamron 17-50 and its just not enough. I want wider without going fisheye all the time. I currently have a Sigma 18-50 and 18 ain't cutting it. After playing around with this 14-24 I'm in love with getting so wide, and I can't wait to play with the 12-24 then! haha
Anybody have experience with the Tokina??? EDIT: Apparently its new and not on the market yet. Nevermind....
Steve D.
May 16 2008, 05:57 AM
Yeah the Tokina is really new it miight be better than the 12-24. I am sure you know about the 10.5 DX fisheye now your talking wide! You can use a free PS plug in to take the distortion out too.
Misty
May 16 2008, 07:09 AM
QUOTE(Steve D. @ May 16 2008, 05:57 AM)

Yeah the Tokina is really new it miight be better than the 12-24. I am sure you know about the 10.5 DX fisheye now your talking wide! You can use a free PS plug in to take the distortion out too.
Where is this distortion plug-in you speak of??

I tried removing distortion in Nikon Capture NX and it looks FUNKY. The fisheye is one of my fav lenses at weddings but I also freelance for a paper and they're not always too keen on it LOL. So I need an ultra wide zoom. Definitely interested in the tokina as I read more about it though....hmmm....but I'll play around with this 14-24 while I have it for 2 weeks.
andrew
May 16 2008, 07:28 AM
Misty, I've got the 14-24 2.8 on my D3 and LOVE it... it's been an awesome lens for getting the superwide shots. I didn't know what I was missing until I picked it up and shot a few sessions with it. I have a feeling that it'll stay on my D3 for quite some time. I know it's a bit of change to throw down, but I think it's worth it. (just my two cents).
Brandon Powers
May 30 2008, 01:36 PM
Just to echo what others have already said the 14-24 is DREAMY on my D3! But still a lot of fun on my D200 too.
Hayashi
June 2 2008, 11:07 AM
QUOTE(Steve D. @ May 16 2008, 06:19 AM)

Misty your 14 turns to 2 on your dx format D300 (28 with the Sigma) so you can imagine how wide that is on the D3. Lot of money for this lens on a cropped sensor I would consider the Nikon 17-35 - Still very wide, much much cheaper, smaller, and you can use filters and will be great if you pick up a D3 down the road. There is some gossip about a full frame D300 also. The D3X is also going to be released soon and I don't think it is going to drop prices on the D3 as it will be a high MP camera but you never know.
Ya, I was originally considering the 14-24 2.8, but the fact that you cannot use filters on it turned me off. I will probably try to find a 17-35 and pick up a D300 sized full frame if/when it is released.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.