I have a 14mm 2.8 and do enjoy the quality and IQ from the lens. I'm debating weather to trade it up for the new 14-24mm. I guess what I'm saying is that is it worth to switch for flexibility.
Asking for those who have or used both lenses and what would you recommend.
Naturally evaluations are subjective however since the 14-24mm was "only" a couple hundred more so I went for the newer technology and versatility (10mm zoom range has been helpful at times for composition but not to everyone).
If I already had the 14mm prime I'm not sure if I would have upgraded. The reviews are right about the 14-24mm, truly amazing wide angle lens. The 14mm does have an advantage due to its smaller size and potential travel usage. Optically many say the zoom is on par or surpasses the prime but that's subjective too.
Considerations...
1. How much can you get for the 14mm f/2.8?
2. Will you use the extra 10mm of focal length?
3. Optically how much better is the zoom? Maybe rent the 14-24mm
4. Do you mind a big wide angle zoom? I don't, many do
Thanks for your input Jack. I guess I like the flexibility between 14-24mm. I was comfortable with Canon's 16-35mm and seem to use all focal range when I was using Canon gear. If the 14-24 IQ is not as good as prime I wouldn't bother with it but from what I have been seeing from various sources/web site I just wonder if I should try it.
From what I've heard, in terms of shear performance the 14-24mm is pretty much the best ultra-wide angle lens (zoom or prime) ever made. It's a big bastard though - the 14mm f/2.8 is pretty managable size-wise (for a lens with a protruding front element).
Personally I'd go for the lens that will spend more time on the camera - for me that would be the lighter prime. I'd suggest you keep it.
I think the 14-24's strength is really on the new D3. But as for IQ, I have yet to hear anything that would suggest that the prime is better than the zoom - in fact the zoom is supposed to be better. I had previously wanted the prime, but I've changed my focus to the zoom. It would work great on the film cameras I currently have, and someday I may go for the D3 or other FX frame camera.
Mark does have a good point - the one that will get the most use would be your best bet. In my case that would be the zoom. Also make sure you have handled that beast - as Jack said it is quite heavy.
My wife and I enjoy creative photography, and this lens provides some great opportunities for that. I base that on my using the 14mm prime for a weekend at Yosemite, during which I had an absolute blast with that lens. For that reason, and for giving f/2.8 lenses all the way down to 14mm, I suspect it will work its way into my bag before too long.
If I already had the 14 prime I would go for the 17-35 2.8. Wonderful lens, much smaller than the 14-24, accepts 77 MM filters and all in all a much better general purpose solution. You lose 3mm at the wide end but if you can live with that you would end up with a great wide kit.
Never thought about combo with 17-35mm but probably wanted just one lens. I just didn't want to have to sell 17-35 down the road. I am saving up for a D3 and do want to take advantage of the new lens and the 14-24 would compliment my new 24-70 & 70-200 vr. Weight is not a problem (been lifting weight lately :o) since I don't take picture for a living since I'm just taking photos as a hobby.
I think I'm spending too much time dreaming of owing these expensive gear and I should take more pictures and fine tune the art of photography.
I have a 14mm F/2.8 too. The corners aren't anything to sing about, whereas 14-24mm photos I've seen online are very sharp across the board. Though personally I'm thinking about getting the Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 since I use DX only.
