I was very excited about the anouncement of the two new wide angle zoms from nikon, to go with the D3. I know eventually, I will move up to a full frame sensor. I need to upgrade my current lense anyway. I was considering the 14-24 lense. I read that the optics, and image quality are very good. I was taken back a little about the fixed lens hood. Has anyone purchased this lense, and had any success handholding GND filters in front of it. It seems to me that the space between the glass and the filter would be bigger than Ideal. If this isn't a problem, I will probably purchase it. If it is, I will go with the 24-70, or the old standard, 17-55. Sharpness and quality are my main concerns.But I do use filters a lot. Is the fixed lense hood a deal breaker for those of you that also use a lot of filtration.?
From what I could find online, which wasn't much, people seem to think that even the 4x6 grads will not work at 14mm. But it seems like they would work fine at 24mm...so the big question is at what focal length do you start to see the edges of the grads.
Andrew, I never even thought of that. I was mainly concerned with flare, and wierd stuff going on with light reflecting off the grads due to the gap between the glass and the filter. I just replaced my filters with the 4x6 inch ones from Singh Ray, Ouch! I had to buy the bigger z-pro filter holder, the lense adapter, and 4 filters. Not a small chunk of change. I still need at least two filters, and would like the 5 stop solid "more slow" as well. Oh, and now I can't use my sprocket ring polarizer any more. It's always somthing, I guess.
All the reviews I've seen on the 14-24 have been great, but I haven't seen any mention of successful methods of circumventing the fixed hood problem. The old 17-35 lens may be the best answer in the long run.
I guess the question is whether you really need the 14 mm FX field of view & perspective.
If you do, there's no other choice than the 14-24/2.8 (well, there's the Sigma 12-24, and the Nikon 14/2.8 prime, but they don't solve the filter problem and the latter is very expensive but not better than the new f/2.8 zoom).
If you don't, and filters are important, the good old 17-35/2.8 may be worth a look, particularly if you shoot stopped down a lot (the new lens is reported to be better wide open, but once you pass f/8, the differences become smaller).
Good topic, Chris. I'll be keeping an eye on this one. I've been scared of that lens too. I know polarizers are not such a good idea on wide's, but I had in the back of my mind I could still use grads. Hmmm.
I played with both the 14 24 and the 24 70, deciding on the 24 70 for several reasons. I can screw on a filter but you will need a thin ring filter as regular thickness will vignette wider than 28 mm. However, with thin ring there is no interior thread on the filter to accept the grad holder so, when polarizing and gradding you need to use regular polarizer and shoot between 28 and 70. For shots wider than 24 just shoot vertical and stitch two or three images together. I have a fixed 14 and find that the image is all foreground with little sky or all sky with some horizon. In both cases, it is easier to grad in PS than struggle with handheld filters which, in my books, is practically impossible. Comes down to what you have in mind for your photography, the 24 70 is a very sharp lens and very practical. Have fun which ever way you head.... Steve
Discussion
6 repliesThanks,
Chris
Chris
If you do, there's no other choice than the 14-24/2.8 (well, there's the Sigma 12-24, and the Nikon 14/2.8 prime, but they don't solve the filter problem and the latter is very expensive but not better than the new f/2.8 zoom).
If you don't, and filters are important, the good old 17-35/2.8 may be worth a look, particularly if you shoot stopped down a lot (the new lens is reported to be better wide open, but once you pass f/8, the differences become smaller).
Basil