 |
|
|
Pertinax222
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jun 20, 2014
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 14, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
It's lighter and smaller than the 14-24
|
|
Cons:
|
Less sharp than 14-24
|
|
When you want to go ultra ultra wide with nikkor, 2 lenses comes to mind. 14mm and 14-24mm. With similar prices, not an easy choice. As always when it comes to lenses, everyone has its pro and cons. As a professional wedding photographer, I use only the 14-24mm zoom for it's flexibility, fast focus and absence of distortion at 24mm.
http://sharingphotographyfineart.wordpress.com
http://creativeview.ch
|
|
 Jan 14, 2015
|
|
Oskar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 16, 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 9, 2012
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
It's wide ,sharp above 5.6 only.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy. Not sharp under 5.6 , easy to scratch
Not what it cracked up to be.
Why bother making a 2.8 when it is very soft
At that setting but really it is a landscape lens
So F8 up it is great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 9, 2012
|
|
Digital Gold
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 17, 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Ultra Wide (on FF), Fast Motor, Drop in rear filters.
|
|
Cons:
|
a bit soft at wide open.
|
|
So I purchased this lens for a lot of my hotel photography shot before I bought the 14-24mm zoom version of this lens. To be perfectly honest, I dont notice much of a difference in sharpness and image quality between the 14-24mm and this 14mm prime. For that reason I would recommend spending the money on the zoom version of this lens. Also, 14mm on a full frame sensor is mega wide and may be too wide for most.
To see some examples of photos taken with this lens please visit my website and photography blog: http://digitalgoldphotography.com
Feel free to reach out to me with any specific questions.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2011
|
|
GreenTeaSuicid
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 158
|
|
Review Date: Jun 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing angles, fast, fancy pants
|
|
Cons:
|
the constant fear of scratching the bubble of glass, the lens cover thing...
|
|
|
Ok so let me start off by saying that I did not pay for this lens, well not entirely...
A fellow on Craigslist had it paired with his D300 and was asking to trade with someone for a 17-55mm 2.8. I had recently moved up to the D700 so the trade was an easy and a well worth one at that.
So the lens...
-I never shot that wide, even at 17mm the crop frame of the DX was a bit limiting and you didn't always get that wide feeling. With this lens it is amazing. The lens picks up so much in such a small distance. You can literally hold the lens inches from the face of your subject and get an awesome portrait.
-The build quality is amazing, It feels like a "tank" as soon as it is on, and the metal hood is a plus. The "bubble" is still scary at times since I do carry my camera around everywhere.
-All in all, the straight lines stay straight and the curved lines stay curved. If your on a full frame body and want a wide lens that is going to not only shock and awe your views but is a blast to shoot with also...get this lens. I would have paid the full price for this lens hands down. it is just right...
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2009
|
|
avfoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2007
Location: Spain
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Mar 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide enough on my crop bodies, sharp side to side.
Flareless.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
I get a nice wide view on my 1.5 bodies which is OK at the moment, I would like to see it work on the FF bodies Nikon will have to do.
Martin
www.avfotografia.es
|
|
|
Mar 13, 2007
|
|
Doug Quance
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3039
|
|
Review Date: Nov 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
As a rectilinear lens, it performs extremely well particularly when shooting architecture. Sharp corner to corner. Very good with flare - I've shot into the sun many times with amazing results. Built like a tank. You could drive nails with this lens!
|
|
Cons:
|
It is expensive, and it is heavy.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens as a wide angle to do architectural interiors and exteriors. On a 1.5 crop factor digital, I wish it was just a little wider... but it does all that I need it to do.
The build quality is very good, and you can get so close to the subject - you have to be careful not to bump into the subject with that big bubble front lens.
It controls flare very well for a superwide, though as some angles you will get to flare. Into the sun it performs very well.
This lens isn't as fun as a fish... but it is still fun to use. Because of the cost, you may have to justify your need/want for this lens. I needed it - therefore I could justify it... but if I didn't, I would've bought the 12-24 instead.
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2005
|
|
phiggys
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 25
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Ultra-wide field of view on 35mm film camera and good on digital.
Superb build and optical quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Big,Heavy and expensive.
But quality usually is !
|
|
|
Purchased this lens as I missed not having a real wide angle for my digital SLR.
Have since purchased Nikons AFD 16mm f2.8 fisheye and the 14mm has stayed at home since :-(
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2004
|
|
JonCanfield
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 15, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2940
|
|
Review Date: Apr 25, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Awesome coverage on 35mm, true wide angle on digital. Great build quality, very little flair problem, good corner sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, expensive
|
|
|
I looked at the Nikon and the Sigma 14mm before buying. The Nikon was so much better with flair and edge sharpness. Even though it cost twice as much, it's worth it. The lens is big and heavy. If you shoot exclusively digital, it might be worth waiting for the 12-24 DX lens. If you shoot wide angle, for now this is the best thing out there!
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
8
|
107305
|
Jan 14, 2015
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
88% of reviewers
|
$1,440.00
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.67
|
8.67
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
