Well my Nikon hearsay continues because last week I inquired some opinions on my thoughts of perhaps selling my 200 f2 and now this week its the 14-24. lol
Another simply amazing optic and what I consider the finest UWA lens on the market. The very fact its a) a zoom, b) 14mm on the wide end, and c) f2.8 all would be a great feat on their own but Nikon achieved all that in one lens, wow
That praise all out of the way, has anyone who had one and sold it regretted it ? I hate to do the sell and rebuy game, especially with Nikon's prices going up all the time.
Here is the thing though, like the 200, I'm honestly not really using the 14-24 that much.
Most of my PJ work is done with the 24-70 and 24mm is pretty wide on FX, plus you have to watch out for getting some wide angle distortion which makes wider than 24mm a bit tough for some people shots. No one wants to be stretched out and distorted because they are near the corners.
The lens that I've actually been carrying is the Tokina 17mm f3.5 AT-X Pro instead. Its pretty sharp, resist flare and its very compact. Weights only about 1lb and frankly the f2.8 isn't that big of deal over f3.5.
I've just been leaving the 14-24 at home so much because its rather big and heavy and really doesn't fit in a bag well at all.
I'm really giving some thought of maybe selling it and before I do, was curious if anyone else has done so ?
I know of course that tons of people list this as a great lens they really don't use that much, but, having a great lens you don't use but thats still there when you might need it vs actually parting ways with it are two very different things
I've been wondering about this as I rework my kit to include my D700. I'll keep my D300, at least until I can afford a D700x or whatever comes out that I can use on birds. Presently the widest FX lens I own is my 35 f/2. This includes my old AI/AIS glass, I'm ashamed to admit.
I've been saving and considering the 14-24, but many claim it to be the best lens they never use. I'm wondering if I'd be in that same boat. Maybe a 20 AFD f/2.8 would be the wiser choice in that stopped down a bit, should be close enough in IQ maybe.
With regards to the 70-200 f/2.8, that's a totally different story, I believe. It is so much smaller than the 300 f/2.8 VR that I know I'd use it a lot when I don't need the extra length. My problem is do I need the 70-200 when I already like my 70-300vr? I think so, but not sure.
That 300 f/2.8 is way too big and heavy for me to hand hold and carry around too much, but I'm a wimp and getting too old. I will always keep that lens, but it stays on some kind of support mostly whereas I could walk around at the park with a 70-200 with no issue.
Yesterday out birding at Merrit Island, FL. As you can see, it's a lot of weight and size for this old fart.
Just made the jump to FX with the D700 myself and ressisted the urge to get the 14-24. I used the tokina 12-24 on DX a lot for real estate, waterfalls etc but struggled with it for "flat" distant landscapes as it was too wide for me.
I couldn't see how a 14-24 would be practical unless you live in the Alps or somewhere so have gone with a 24mm 2.8 AIs. Thought about the 18-35 f3.5-4.5 but that's not so good in the corners and isn't pro quality.
What about 17-35 2.8 ? more useable FL on FX.
I've recently sold 300/2.8 and going to make do with a 300/4 on my D300 for birding and have stocked up on AIs glass - 105 2.8, 135 f2, kiron 70-210 macro f4.
Never had MF before and quite enjoying it on the D700.
I've considered the 17-35 but its a rather pricey lens as well, around $1500 or so new and a bit redundant with the 24-70.
It would be useful for some PJ work, but then I might miss not having more reach than 35mm, especially if I'm working with just one body
Seems the 17mm F3.5 prime and the 24-70 2.8 make for a pretty good combo far as I can figure but nothing really touches the 14-24 in terms of IQ though
If you dont use the 14-24 much sell it now and hope the 16-35 f/4VR materializes and its priced at around $1200ish. It should be smaller than the 14-24 and hopefully it will take filters.
I use my 14-24 for real estate photography and could not be with out it for that. Everything else the 24-70 does the trick. I dont use the 70-200 as much but would not want to be without it.
If you need 14-24 2.8 then you've got it. Its just like my 8mm 2.8 AiS circular fisheye. When I need it on a trip, I've got it in the bag safely housed in its hardcase. I'd never consider selling the 14-24mm 2.8. Its the reason I bought my first Nikon body, D700. Those $1,489 purchase price days are gone for good. It was a steal at that price.
If you can afford it, keep it. If you cannot, sell it. I agree with Mr. Lindy, sometimes when you need something, you'll give anything to have it. If you ever get a job that needs a super sharp, fast, low-distortion lens, Nikon doesn't have anything else as an answer.
man, you only live once, do it and stop posting about it :P
more seriously: the 14-24 is amazing, it really is. The glass is just spectacular in what it is capable of.... but it is a huge valuable piece of optical real estate. If i had one, i would always be worried about it.
