Nikon 14-24mm owners and wannabe owners

Here's a link to an article I thought some of you might be interested in. If you've been holding back on getting one of these great lenses because of the filter issue, your worries are over.

I've been using almost the same setup for nearly two years now - I think Steve may have gleaned this info from one of my posts on FM a while back where the design was discussed at great length. I don't think he mentions that the Schneider polarizer is more than $300. And the way he has his filter holder attached to the lens takes a very long time to attach - not something you do on the spur of the moment. The one I've been using will slip on in about two seconds using velcro. I hear that Lee Filters has been working on a solution as well that may be easier and cheaper, but who knows when. In the meantime my Cokin/Schneider rig has been working well for me, although it is a bit ugly!

Tim didn't you break one of those expensive filters with that velcro system? I think it was on the MF camera though.

Yes, but that was with the friction system that I first had with the Phase One system and 35mm lens. I switched to the velcro system when I got the 14-24 - works better and has not come off yet. It is one of the very best lenses of any length made by anyone ever, and I always laugh when I hear folks say they don't use it because of the filter issue. It is just a matter of getting the right tools for the job...

I know the 14-24, it sounds awesome. I assume all these night shots you aren't using filters anyway.

OK, Bill, I've been trying to find a deal on a Nikkor 28 mm f/1.4 but these lenses are out of sight.

The 14-24 is highly rated. Zooms don't do as well as primes usually.

What's your opinion between these two lenses? Light gathering--critical? weight? Filters? Quality of photo?

the fisch

Fisch, I've never owned one of the 28 1.4's so I don't know much about them. You should be able to find some reviews on the web that would be much more informative. Or, maybe someone else here has used one.

As far as the 14-24 goes, it is a highly regarded lens by both Nikon and Canon users. I doubt that you'll find a better wide lens - prime or zoom, including the german glass.

Bill,

By out of sight I meant price. They are highly rated but, as you say, so it the 14-24.

And the 14-24 is cheaper...???!!! How about that! It is smaller and one f-stop larger.

the fisch

You can't really compare a 28mm with a 14-24mm - kind of like comparing apples to grapes. The reason the 28mm is expensive is not that it is so good, but rather that it is f1.4 and there were never very many made and it has been out of production for a while. It is just so-so on high-res fullframe sensors, and it not sharp out to the edges when used wide open (better on crop cameras though, obviously), but if you've got to shoot at f1.4 at that range there is no substitute. These days the really fast lenses are becoming a thing of the past since you can shoot at such high ISO to compensate with little or no image quality loss - if shooting Velvia at 28mm the f1.4 is a terrific lens, with a D3x it is just not worth very much to most folks (the Zeiss 28mm f2 is better edge-to-edge). The 14-24 is better than any other prime lenses in that range, with the possible exception of the Zeiss 21mm, and even it is just a hair better in some situations (and the Nikkor zoom has less distortion).

The 28mm 1.4 is mainly just rare and also the only 1.4 wide that Nikon's made.

The 14-24 beats Canon's:
14mm 2.8
17mm f/4 TS
24mm 1.4 II (very sharp stop down to 2.8, but wide open it SO much vignetting)
24mm 2.8
24mm f/3.5 TS (probably Canon's sharpest wide)
16-35 2.8 II
17-40 f/4
24-70 2.8 and so on......

The Zeiss 21mm looks good, but you might as well buy the 14-24 Nikon and adapt it to Canon with the Nikon G to EOS for $300.00, but you will wait several months waiting for them to make it and ship it (www.16-9.net/nikon_g/)

I think it took 6 months or more for Tim Buchanan's.

Yup, not much reason for companies to invest in fast primes any more since high-iso digital is so good, and of course, the 14-24. I'm still kind of surprised that Canon has never come up with anything even close, even now after two years Canon's wides have always been a weak link. I can understand using Contax Zeiss lenses on Canon like I used to do many moons ago, but it is really funny to see NIKON lenses on Canons - ha! I thought the Zeiss 21 for Canon mount was available last year?