I know a couple of days ago i posted a thread on dealing with dust, well lets not go to that just yet. I've a dilemma (again.)
I found a 17-35mm f2.8 fr $800USD the other day, but i moved too slow and the lens was sold. I've never been a wide guy, and the 24mm f1.4 is phenomenal, i've never seen such refreshing wideangle portraits and shots i've taken with it. And it's plenty sharp. I love shooting with it wide open, i can't remember a shot with it taken beyond f4. Anyway so after i was tempted by the 17-35mm, i went to have a look at a few 2nd hand stores and then the 14-24mm came to mind.
I've gone through threads on various forums, including here, and decided the 14-24mm was the lens for me because i've always thought that if i went wide, then i should go as wide as i can (the sigma 12-24mm is out though cause it's not fast enough and its a sigma, as much as i like the sigma 50 and 85, and their macros). I'm sure the 17-35mm is a great lens for walkabouts, I do miss something in between 24mm and 50mm and i was looking for a leica-r summicron 35 or a ziess35mm f2 recently. But price aside the 14-24mm is just amazing, shooting at 14mm would be a breath of fresh air. One of the things i told myself was to buy gear only if it improve my shooting, and the 24G introduced me to wideangle, and i have a feeling the 14-24mm would take me down that path a little further. I've always wanted to fool around with a 70-200VR, but since i have an 85 1.4, 105VR and 70-300VR there's no way i'm buying another tele for a wide. But i'm just wondering if the 14-24mm would "replace" the 24G in any way. Not in terms of thin dof but just how it compliments my kit?
If you had both lenses, or do have both, how would you use them all to accommodate such a great lens into an already full lineup? I'm thinking if i wanted low-light, thin dof, i'd bring the 24, 50 and 85 (or skip the 50 ) out, and if i wanted greater coverage it'd be the 14-24 and 70-300VR, etc. I know the 14-24mm has its place because it can go from 14-23mm, and the 24G can go from f1.4 to 2.5 and up..but i'm not sure if my head is leading me down the right path.
Part of me wants to wait for a 16-35mm VR f2.8 (not so keen on the f4). I read the nikon patent, but waiting for one might end up waiting for "vaporware". VR would be useful though doing slightly long-sigh exposures handheld and going from wide to more normal focal length, a great lens to walk streets with. But the 14-24mm is stellar and 14mm on fx just makes me drool. SO thats probably one point holding me back.
btw i did read the archived thread on the 14-24mm and/or 24mm 1.4, i don't plan to sell the 24G though.
I had a 24G and loved it but once I compared it to my 14-24 at 24, I couldn't see a difference between 1.4 and 2.8 once some distance between the lens and the subject was added. At MFD, yes, the 24G kills the 14-24 but add 5' and well, no real difference that I cared about. So in the end, I sold the 24G, got the 35G with my 14-24 and was more than satisfied.
I have both and one of the main reasons for the 24 1.4 is its ability to take filters. Add the F1.4 (great for star trails / exposures) and I have some pretty good reasons for keeping it in my kit. (It might be sharper than the 14-24 at 24mm as well - but I haven't done any formal testing to determine it - it's crazy good either way)
I have both and rarely pack the 14-24mm. The 24mm 1.4 is way more fun to use on a regular basis. The 14-24mm comes out only when I definitely need the wiiiiide.
If you’ve “never been a wide guy” consider if you really want to be one and shoot at 14mm, otherwise the lens is going to sit at home a lot! Personally it’s my favorite lens, and I specifically went FX in order to use it, but getting the hang of it didn’t come instantly.
I have and use both, and don't think one can replace the other. The 14-24mm is better for landscapes because you'll be shooting stopped down and the zoom gives you better control over composition. The 24mm has the magical ability to isolate a center subject in a wide angle shot via shallow DOF at f1.4. So if you use wide angle lenses for a central subject with wide angle perspective, then the 24mm gives you more creative flexibility because of f1.4. If you use wide angle lenses for panoramas, then the 14-24mm is better because you can better control composition and also you shoot significantly wider.
I have the 14-24, to me it is the ultimate landscape lens. I always use it stopped down, in fact I wish it were f/4, lighter and less expensive.
The 24mm f/1.4 just seems like a totally different lens to me. You'd be crazy to spend that kind of money and then stop it down for landscapes. Street shooting isn't my thing but that seems like what the 24 was made for. And general available light "artsy" shallow DoF stuff. If you've never been a "wide guy" than the 14-24 is for sure diving straight in to the deep end, but it definitely does different things than the 24 f/1.4.
I've always just used my 105mm, then after i got the 85mm the 85, and nowadays i play around with the different lenses i got and use them almost equally, especially for the 24 and 85 (not so much equally but they all get some use). I'm thinking of some creative uses for the 14-24mm, and i don't have a tripod OR filters so i don't think the lack of filter use (that being remedied by the Lee holder which i find ridiculously expensive) is an issue. I might try GNDs sometime, as for a tripod i don't know yet. I've pretty much placed an order for the lens...we'll see how it goes.
Would love to hear how people juggle their lineups though, i don't really like the idea of leaving some lenses to sit around for too long. Good point on the "extra" lowlight capability of the 24mm, and the street photography bit, cause i do streets too.
I went with the 35 1.4 G, very useful focal length, more so than the 24. Also have 16-35 and 24-70, so I am well covered. Use the zooms for landscape, hiking; the prime for PJ work and weddings.
ja_joyce wrote:
You'd be crazy to spend that kind of money and then stop it down for landscapes.
I certainly would not buy the 24/1.4G for the sole purpose of shooting landscapes, but since I own the lens I have tried and it beats the 14-24, especially when there is any sort of light source in the frame. Not to mention that it's more practical to carry around and takes filters. And, oh, yes, it doubles as a shallow DOF lens, too.
The 24 1.4 is way more portable than the 14-24.. it's lighter, smaller, and fits into smaller bags. I gave up my 16-35 for the 24 1.4 and I have no regrets. This means I can use smaller bags like the Retro 5 and I can go further on looooong hikes. The 1.4 is also very helpful for astrophotography. Stopping down a 1.4 lens is not crazy at all... if it's there then why not use it?
I've used the 14-24 too... way too big, too heavy, and too restricted, IMO.
