I love using the 14-24mm. I just wish that Nikon would make a lighter version of this lens. I don't quite understand why it is necessary for a landscape lens to have a 2.8 aperture capability. I mostly shoot at f/8-11 on this lens. I've never use any other aperture outside of this range. I've been into photography for about 2 years and landscape photography for about a year. So I figure I have much to learn.
Would anyone mind sharing what kind of landscape photography they do that would required an aperture outside of f/8-11?
Not true Ben..... I use my 14-24 for landscape work, and UWA does work for landscape, especially when inclusive of a strong foreground. Although I would admit, its not for every situation.
I prefer tele lenses for landscape - I'd use the 14-24 for architecture, street, indoors ... more so than for landscape. That's probably why I never bought one, got the 24-70 instead. If they made a lighter one that took filters, I'd be all over it.
Foto Dude wrote:
I love using the 14-24mm. I just wish that Nikon would make a lighter version of this lens. I don't quite understand why it is necessary for a landscape lens to have a 2.8 aperture capability. I mostly shoot at f/8-11 on this lens. I've never use any other aperture outside of this range. I've been into photography for about 2 years and landscape photography for about a year. So I figure I have much to learn.
Would anyone mind sharing what kind of landscape photography they do that would required an aperture outside of f/8-11?
The New 18-35mm AF-S, Sigma 12-24mm or Tokina 17-35mm are what you may need instead of the 14-24mm.
Do you actually shoot many landscape at the 14mm end? I rarely see those anywhere. If not, then the 16-35 is your "lighter" 14-24, and there are others.
davidnholtjr wrote:
The 16-35 is $510 more if buying new. That's a lot and could buy another lens with that.
Not to mention considering the percentage increase. The 16-35mm is 70% more expensive than the 18-35mm when comparing MSRP. If Nikon announced a new, higher performing 70-200mm at a price point of $2800, would people be saying there's not much price difference? What about a new 500mm f/4 at $14,500? That's the same percentage jump.
Thorsten wrote:
Do you actually shoot many landscape at the 14mm end? I rarely see those anywhere. If not, then the 16-35 is your "lighter" 14-24, and there are others.
About 33% of my shots are at 14mm. With certain scenery, the distortion at this focal range just seem right to me. I don't really know how to explain it.
I'm surprise that no one has mentioned the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8. Is it the manual focus, or the fix focal length, or both that keep this lens from taking up space in your camera bag?
