millsart wrote:
For what its worth, I do think the 14-24 is a bit of a better idea because it can give your images something those other shooters can't duplicate with a 16-35.
The difference in FOV between those lens is pretty big even though its only a few mllimeters and the corner sharpness of the 14-24 is just unmatched by anything, even the 14mm primes.
You can either spend a lot of money on a 17-35 and be able to duplicate the same as "the other guys" or you can spend a lot of money on a the 14-24 and be able to get shots they can't (unless they are shooting Nikon! lol)
17-35 ins't bad but its nothing special either. 14-24 is a reason a bunch of people actually have switched to Nikon. That type of UWA performance and from a zoom! Unimaginable but they did it.
The FOV may be different, but 14mm is all but worthless for most concert photography. I don't think a lens allows someone to "images something those other shooters can't duplicate with a 16-35." most of the time. I think that has much more to do with their eye, composition, timing, photographic knowledge and pp. The 17-35 is AWESOME. And has a much more usable FL than the 14-24, as well as being cheaper.
Opinions are simply that but I've personally been thrilled with the 14-24 for concert photography since switching to Nikon. I used to shoot with a 16-35 and a 5D and now a D3 and 14-24 and it definatly yields better images, at least for my shooting. I do about 100 shows a year as well as I've the photo editor of an arts/entertainment newspaper so we have a good deal of music coverage.
I suppose if I had to have ONLY one lens, I would take a 17-35, but as long as you've got a 24-70 or similar as well, the 14-24 is an all around better lens than the 17-35 in my book.
Not sure its cheaper though My 14-24 was $1599 and the time I looked at the 17-35 prices it was $1769 at B&H Photo
Really? When we bought our 17-35 earlier this year I could've sworn it wasn't as expensive as the 14-24mm and we felt the FL was much more suitable for a one lens package for PJ work. Could we see some of your photos with the 14-24mm from concerts? I'll see that I post some of mine with my Sigma 28mm 1.8. I love that guy, I do wish it had HSM though since Nikon doesn't seem to care about AF-S primes.
Take a look at this web site by Chris Owyoung, a very successful concert photographer. Read through as many articles as you can. He switched to Nikon last year. Seems to use the 24-70 and 70-200 the most, but tries to use the 14-24 as much as possible. I think he's producing the kind of pictures you're after.
Well, after not too long deliberation, I took my D700 down to the local photostore, and tried both the 14-24 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8. The 17-35 wasn't an alternative, as it simply was not available at this time.
I drooled over the 14-24, it just seemed like an awesome lens, I haven't really got anything that wide. But in the end, I walked out with 24-70, simply because I thought it would have more overall usefulness for more than concertshooting.
I had nagging regrets even as I walked out, thinking that the 14-24 was "...really fun..."
Oh well, I'm on a budget, so that is what I got....get back home you t**t, no point regreting anything now, it's a terrific lens, you'll be happy....stop being childish...
Got back home, checked my emails, noted that the power company had sent me an email that I was due for reading off the power meter (I recently registered to get email reminders for that)....ooops. Haven't really done too much of that the last 4 years, been outta country on the job too much...scary!
Logged into my online account at Power, and found that I had been doing a bit of "advanced savings" for the last 4 years, paying quite a bit more than I should have. Being away for most of the time, the electronically stipulated power bill did not really match what had been used. Sooo....suddenly I had $2650 USD extra....
Ended up going back to the store, 5 mins before closing time, and got the 14-24 as well...
Note: we really should get a "sheepish" smiley as well...
Can't go wrong with either of those. The 24-70 will see more use, but when you can use the 14-24 you will love what it can do. I use it maybe 10% of the time but it sure gives a unique shot. I love being able to get so much of the stage enviroment along with the performer into the frame.
Now no more looking jealousy at anyones else gear!
ulrikft:
Well, it's Japan Foto these days, after Fotovideo had their troubles some time back, but yeah....think they're pretty happy. Specially considering I bought the D700 at the same shop last week...
millsart:
I'm pretty happy now, been annoying the hell outta my family tonite, walking around the house taking close-in pics of'em @14mm...
That might be a real problem the next few days. I mean, this is the widest lens I have ever had, and I'll probably be walking around all over town taking pictures of buildings, churches, the sky, trees, people and whatnot for a week. I love it already, awesome as the 24-70 is, the 14-24 is simply hillarious. I'm getting pictures that I've never been able to take before, and just testing this lens out is like getting a brand new camera. Errmm....ok, I HAVE a brand new camera, but you know what I mean...
My 14-24 was $1599 and the time I looked at the 17-35 prices it was $1769 at B&H Photo
