Hello,
I read a quote from Thom Hogan where he said the 14-24 is his least used favorite lens. For those of you who have it do you find that to be accurate? I had this lens for a brief period when it first came out and found it saw little use because it is so wide. When I put it on my D3 I had to look for unique perspectives to shoot with it. Which can be a good thing because it makes you more creative. Lately, I've been thinking of picking up a copy of it again. So now that it's been out for over a year do you find it gets much use or is it in the bag most of the time? This is for those with a D700 or D3 (FX sensor) Thank you.
That was true for me. My least used lens. Every time I mounted it, it just seemed to not fit the situation. I found myself moving to the 24-70 much more. Now, 2.8 just doesn't cut it so I'm using primes.
Before I could say this was true as I mostly used the 24-70, but lately I have been using the 14-24 a lot on the D3. It is an amazing lens and you will be more creative using it. Go for it!
Semi-true for me. I LOVE the lens. From an IQ viewpoint it may be the best zoom ever made - by anyone. Every time I use it I am reminded just how good it is, and that makes me want to use it even more. However, the ultra wide persepctive it offers is usually not my thing, so I have to remind myself to look for opportunities to use it. That said, even if it were the least used lens in my collection, I would not sell it because when I do need it nothing else comes close to what it can do. My only caveat to the above comments is that I'm using it on a D300, so if/when I go FX I may sell it as the 24-70 would, in effect, cover 80% of what the 14-24 does for me now.
My leased-used lens also, but it is my MOST-used lens for nighttime work, which is the reason I bought it - to shoot a sky full of pinpoint stars with the landscape at 14-16mm and 2.8. I may only use it once or twice a month, but there is nothing else that can match it so I would be (and used to be) SOL without it.
I never even thought it would be worth purchasing since it was so wide, so big, and doesn't accept filters. I feel the 17-35/2.8 is much more useful on FX. The IQ is not as good as the 14-24, but it is a more useful focal length range and accepts filters to boot. For now, I make do with the Sigma 15-30 as my WA zoom until I can find the 17-35 not only in stock (which is difficult in Canada), but also for a good price, which has shot up more than 15% in the past half year.
Same for me, but it is because it can't take filters. Working on a filter system using Cokin X-Pro holder and Lee X-Pro sized filters, once that is working okay then I see this lens getting a lot more use.
When I had it...I took it with my D90 and a 18-200 vr...to Las Vegas...I actually left the 14-24 on the camera more...very sharp...and I can always crop down the image...and it is still sharp....
I traded mine for a 70-200 VR....and actually don't use this lens as much as I used the 14-24mm
onaujee wrote:
It is an amazing lens and you will be more creative using it. Go for it!
Same for me... amazing lens. I suspect most people aren't used to composing with their mind's eye at 14mm. You have to prepare to change your thinking.
IMO, Tom is stating the obvious. I think most shooters go with the truism, "Go long or go home." Wides have never been my go-to lenses. The same is true with my 24-70. Much lower percentage shot at 24.
A lot depends on what you shoot. I am slowly moving my kit to fx and haven't purchased it yet. However, I used the 12-24 frequently on dx and wouldn't expect that to change. From a composition standpoint it can be a tough lens to use but I wish I'd had something wider than 24mm today.
This lens on the D700/D3x is awsome but it's not my every-day lens. When shooting landscapes like AZ, UT and NM, I use the 14-24 much more. It resides in my kit for the times I want or need a wide lens. Couldn't imaging not having it, but I spend more time with th 24-70.
I'm in agreement with Thom, and with many of the comments already expressed in this thread.
I got the 14-24 lens to shoot night-time landscape/skyscape for a trip to Fairbanks, Alaska to capture the Aurora Borealis, despite having it on my D300. I also have the 12-24 DX lens, and I still use that lens with the D300 when I want to use GND filters, but most of my landscape shots are done with the D700/14-24 combination. The problem is, however, I don't shoot landscapes as often I do other stuff.
That said, next week I'll be Arches and Canyonlands NPs (by way of Hunt's Mesa) next week and I expect to put the landscape gear to work. I hope to capture Landscape Arch as well as Joshua did in the post above.
If they bring out a 14mm prime f2.8. for a reasonable price, I'd go for it over the 14-24. The fact that the 14mm f2.8 prime goes for near enough the same sort of price as the 14-24 is a joke.
Chris,
A tidbit but somwhat OT - I stayed in Moab. It took me 45 minutes from the lodge to get to the trail parking lot. Plus a 15-minute hike to the spot in the dark/dusk. Bring a flashlight with you, just in case. I was about No. 4 to get there to set up my tripod, etc. and in total there were about 20 photographers that morning. A little tight but not too crowded and a bunch of friendly folks. Enjoy!
Thanks Joshua, I'm very excited to get this trip started. I also need to correct myself with regard to your shot . . . that's Mesa Arch, not Landscape Arch. I gotta get that stuff straight before I make my posts.
My Arches/Canyonlands portion of the trip is with the Mentor Series photo workshop group. No matter what, I'll be with a crowd. Thanks for the tips!
Wow, I didn't expect so many responses on this. But it seems most of you are confirming my concerns. No question it's a great lens, but how much use will it see. Thanks for your input. By the way anyone else who wants to post up images from this gem of a lens like AgeoJo above please do.
Jack
