When I had a D300 I found that it was an "essential" tool and produced exemplary results. When I switched over to the D700 I sold it as I felt with my style it was no longer essential and I found myself shooting with the 24-70 f2.8 70% or more of the time. No doubt for some applications it is THE tool to use. However it just turned out that way for me, but IMHO there is NO lens capable of such wide angle shooting with so few foibles.
I am using the lens and I like it, but this is by far not my most used lens...
The 24-70 2.8 is wide enough for normal stuff. When I was using the Tamron 28-75 (the Nikkor was not easily available), I used the 14-24 much more to get wider than the 28mm.
But even if I don't use it that much, I don't think I could live without the 14-24 in my bag.
Not true for me.
I have both the 14-24 and the 24-70 and I use the 14-24 all the time. Heck now that I think of it, I'm not even sure I've used the 24-70 Maybe time to mount that lens on the D700 and give it a whirl.
I use the 14-24mm about 95% of the time. I shoot primarily landscapes and I find the ability to go ultra wide essential to my work. And by the way, you CAN use filters on this lens, albeit with some minor difficulty. I am using the Cokin X Pro filter system, jury rigged to fit the lens. Yes it is enormous and makes other shooters giggle when they see it, but it works (mostly)!
For those who are interested, here's a review I did describing my filter set-up:
Chris Noyes wrote:
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!
I did that trip two years ago with mentorseries, it was in March and for most of our stay the weather was atrocious. But on the day that everyone was headed to the airport, a few of us ventured to Mesa Arch on our own in the cold, IT WAS MAGIC! Have a great time and post some shots.
probably true for a lot of people. but when they use it it is fine i think. Same goes for my 10.5 fisheye. i 'never' use it. But when i do i like it and it fits the situation... my most used lenses are 17-55, 24-70 and 70-200... i think a lot of people do their thing in that range. Either with primes or zooms.
Wow, I'm fascinated by the responses here. Of course, I don't expect it will be the 'most' used, but seems a lot of people hardly use it.
Having a D300, this lens is kinda perfect for me. I adore shooting in the 20mm equiv range. But that's probably because of some of the photojournalism stuff I'm doing.
I think the most for most people I talk to used be 17-50/55 range and 24-70.
In fact, for the money, I would be pretty tempted to say get the Sigma 10-20 or Tamron 11-18 if you're looking for a good afordable wide angle lens. If you really don't think you're going to use the 14-24 a whole lot.
Just FYI, you can use a polarizer with the X-Pro setup at 14mm on a fullframe camera with no dark corners. This Schneider filter is not cheap but it does work - http://www.filmtools.com/schneidoptru1.html
You either have to tape it to the front of the holder or just hold it there - like your NDs it will only work straight up and down or sideways, not rotated or you will get dark corners, but I have found I always get max polarization this way anyway. As you know this rig does take up a lot of space in a camera bag but really allows full use of this amazing lens...
First off, Joshua... amazing job with the exposure on that beautiful (but difficult) shot!
Secondly, yeah I'd agree with the original post... but only for ME. I have some top glass in the 300VR and 70-200VR and 24-70, etc... but I bought the Siggy 12-24 EX for FF and DX use. Not because I think the 14-24 isn't the best lens in the category, but because for how often I actually use that focal range, it didn't make financial sense for me. I might use it ever so slightly more if I owned the Nikkor, but only because I'd be forcing myself to. For the amount I need it, the Siggy is pretty capable, and to have such an expensive piece of glass sitting on my shelf wouldn't make sense for me at all.
YMMV though, because as you can tell from this thread, everybody uses different focal ranges differently. For me, I need more of the long stuff.
I would love to have the problem of finding ways to use 14-24 more though if I had a lot more money...
All of the above were shot with the D300 and 14-24 mm @ 14 mm. The first two were taken wide-open, the 3rd was f4.
These were taken in Fairbanks, Alaska in early March, 2008. I really need to work on these images again now that I'm a little bit better with my PP skills. I'd love to go back and try this again with the D700.
I have this lens and love it. Hardly use it but it is a specialized lens too. Just as much as my 400 2.8 is for sports. I hardly use that except when I shoot sports but makes it no less important to have. I know this sounds wrong but if I can afford it, it is better to have and not need than to need and not have.
The one statement I see on these forums all the time is the word heavy. I don't find any of my bodies heavy or lenses they just are what they are. I will walk around with the 14-24 or 70-200 as my walk around lens on a D3 or D700 just depends what I expect to need that time.
tc95 wrote:
Chris....WOW...I love the third image...
Tony C.
Thanks Tony!
That was shot straight up, over my head. The Aurora is an amazing sight. I had 3 good nights of viewing over the week I was there. I was dog tired when I got home . . . I didn't get much sleep that week.
I'm about to get this lens for the second time....I sold it cause the 24-70 is so dang good....but lately i've been tending to grab my primes...cause 2.8 isnt really fast...nor is the bokeh anywhere close to the look you get from fast primes....so i'm revisiting the 14-24 or 17-35....
one problem....i use my 24-70 for the formals every week...what to replace that with is one of my key questions.....
It all depends on what you shoot. I do a lot of architectural interiors—so on both the D3 and the D700 now it is my most-used lens, without a doubt.
In ultra-wides, bokeh is not part of the look, IMHO.
Brad, the 35–70/2.8 is an excellent lens and can replace the 24–70. It is my next most-used lens, then the 60/2.8 AF-S (Nikon's best lens, I believe) and the 105/2.8 VR.
Maybe time to mount that lens on the D700 and give it a whirl.
