 |
Page: 1 · 2 · 3
|
|
|
|
robinng
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 47
|
|
Review Date: Feb 26, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,720.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
14mm, f2.8, nice design and build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
no filter can protect the front element. heavy when combo with D3.
|
|
|
i bought this lense because of its 14mm. Good for my D3 and D300 (21mm when on d300). just in case my d3 fail, i still can use this lense on my d300 to use 21mm for my wide angle shot. and i love the f2.8 too.....use 12-24mm f4 before....but only give me 18mm on 1.5x crop body.
14-24mm is a good investment! but have to take extra care!
|
|
 Feb 26, 2008
|
|
lextalionis
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1076
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp and the lowest distortion and image aberation lens I've come across. This will become a renownded Nikon lens for sure!
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit heavy on the $$ side, but you REALLY get what you pay for in this lens!
|
|
The sharpest Nikon wide-angle zooms lens available today IMHO. I can't believe the sharpness wide-open with this lens.
Here's a set of sample shots taken with D40 and D300 (note, the first photo was taken with a filter, so it is possible to use filters):
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S Sample Photos
-Roy
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2008
|
|
lnorton
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 244
|
|
Review Date: Feb 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,549.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, beautiful colors
|
|
Cons:
|
Huge
|
|
|
I have to echo that this is the sharpest wide angle lens I've ever used. I was a canon shooter, and bought this and the D3 to compare with the 16-35 and 5D.
Setup a few tests - opened the images and my jaw dropped. This lens is amazing.
While expensive, it is a bargain at this price for what you get.
While the exposed curved front element is a bit concerning at first, it hasn't yet proved to be an issue. The cover for the lens is actually very practical and provides good protection.
|
|
|
Feb 15, 2008
|
|
Gary Gray
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 6, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 403
|
|
Review Date: Jan 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp-Sharp-Sharp-Clean-Fast-Sharp-Wide-Sharp...did I say sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
can't find one
|
|
|
This is without a doubt the best wide angle zoom lens I've ever used.
It is worth every dollar.
Did I mention how sharp it is? Corner to corner at f/2.8.
I tried to find something wrong with it, so I pointed it directly into the bright afternoon sunlight just to see if maybe I could get it to flare. Yeah, I got a tiny flare out of it. About the best flare control I've ever seen on a wide angle lens.
Did I mention how sharp this lens is?
|
|
|
Jan 25, 2008
|
|
traveler
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3234
|
|
Review Date: Jan 18, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,725.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Unreal sharpness from center to all corners wide open. Contrast and color is top of the line. Focus is instant. Build is "Pro" all the way
|
|
Cons:
|
Large but not unbalanced. Huge front element not for the faint of heart nor those that abuse their gear as there's no place for a filter to protect it.
|
|
|
This is one big guy, but surprisingly NOT unbalanced. Actually on a gripped D300 is near perfect in its balance and no issue to shoot with handheld. Sure, it is not real light, but I've held heavier lenses to be sure. It is amazingly sharp all over the image. I tested this lens extensively against a 12-24 and it blew it out of the water for edge sharpness and contrast. I would agree this may be classified as a "specialty" lens. I may not take it out of the bag daily, but I can tell you this, If I am going to a National Park, or shooting landscape this WILL be my first choice. The image on screen full size or in print will flat blow you away. This is the new "King of the Hill" in wides As far as I'm concerned. It's the ONLY way you could get me to part with that kind of $$... it DOES deliver.........so I'd recommend you NOT try it at your dealer unless you are prepared to BUY. Trust me.....I was warned........and walked out with it.....
|
|
|
Jan 18, 2008
|
|
Marco
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 21, 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 1415
|
|
Review Date: Jan 10, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazingly sharp at any aperture and focal lenght, solid build, it handles nicely despite the weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
No filter thread and not a small lens, due to the 14mm superwide setting, although probably this "no compromise" design allows for the stunning performances.
Slight distortion at 14mm.
|
|
|
This is not only by far the best wideangle zoom, but it's among the best wideangle primes I ever used (along with the Zeiss 21 and Leica 19).
On the D3 it performs flawlessly right into the corners, even wide open.
Flare is well controlled, although not totally absent especially when strong spotlights are into the frame.
Despite the weight and dimensions it handles very nicely, especially on D3/D2X.
Compared to the 17-35 it's much sharper at wider apertures at any setting and stopped down from 17 to 20 mm.
At 24mm f/8 - f/11 probably the 17-35 is a hair better in the corners.
Contrast and "colors luminosity" are always higher in the 14-24.
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2008
|
|
Chefdaniel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1201
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid!! Well damped focus Ring. Sharpness wide open, Fixed lens hood and cap. Smokes the ten plus copies of the Canon 16-35 mark1 and two. Really there is no comparison betwwen the two. This lens is really that good
|
|
Cons:
|
Color and contrast seem a bit subdued compared to my L lenses. Front element is huuuuge.
|
|
|
Overal this lens just blows me away. As mentioned above the resolution is amazing even wide open. Flair control is amazing and is very welcome. This lens just feels right in your hands. My 14-24 has only been used on d300 so I do not know it's full frame capabilities until my d3 arrives. But all I can tell you is this lens is amazing. It is so freekin sharp I can see the veins in subjects eyes and the hair roots of by baby at 14-24. The big kicker for me was finding that the lens is sharp throughout the range and is tack tack sharp wide open. Being a first time Nikon user, I welcome this to my bag. It's almost as sharp as my 24-70 and equally as sharp as my 70-200VR. Price should come down in a few months so if you can hold out go get it.. Happy shooting
Daniel
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2008
|
|
Film_Ruled
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 653
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Actually sharper than any prime in the range by *any* maker. Seriously...
|
|
Cons:
|
This ain't yo grandma'a 17-35. This is a very specialized lens that requires more care than the average lens. It is also big and heavy.
|
|
|
I had major hesitations in getting this lens as it is large and heavy *and* the front element is very exposed needing more care. I own all kinds of wide angle glass from Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, Leica and Hasselblad and this lens smokes all of them in anything comparable in the range. From 14-24 is is tack sharp all the way to the corners at 5.6 and beyond with very little difference from Center to edge. This lens is simply the best way to go if you need to go wider than 28mm. Wide open it simply sets a lofty new standard that nothing can touch. Handling is great, manual focus is smooth.
The zooming mechanism is most likely more delicate than most would imagine as it is moving the entire front element group to and fro in the zoom range so regular maintenance under pro use should be strongly considered to keep the tight tolerances of an ultra wide in play at all times.
This lens in no way replaces the 17-35 as it is much larger, heavy, more exposed and far more specialized. I intend on using this lens for aerial work, ultra wide advertising or anything in which there is low risk for scratches, inclement weather or hard environment PJ work.
Considering how much the Canon 14mm 2.8-II and the Nikon 14mm 2.8 are in price, this lens is a bargain as it simply blows away anything in the same focal lengths with ease at any aperture.
While it won't be going with me to the summit of Mt. Everest, I will be using it for a lot of things when practical to do so.
So Canon fanboys take heed: This lens is only the start from Nikon. One by one, Canon's optical lead will fall as each new well thought out and crafted Nikkor emerges.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2007
|
|
DavidWEGS
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3520
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast to lock focus, sharp results at all apertures, great build, wide aperture.
|
|
Cons:
|
distorting a little a 14, minor but thought it worth mentioning.
|
|
|
Great fast(ish) wide zoom for quick work at parties. On the crop bodies it seems a great lens to replace the Nikon 12-24, or Tokina 12-24. I do think you need to be prepared to deal with the weight, though not like a 70-200.
There is no chance to use a polarizer as it won't take a filter.
I thought I would try it, and assumed it would be going back for a refund. Well, it's staying and I expect to start using it for work by early spring. Gives me time to adjust to it...
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
41
|
111728
|
Nov 11, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
$1,782.17
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.90
|
9.27
|
9.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
