Hey Bill Dark

Lee Filters is bringing out a filter holder to the Nikon 14-24

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMX5p9Iwx3Y

Looks like a solid design, but cumbersome to set-up. One problem that I see is not being able to use a Schneider glass filter that is a bit smaller than 150mm design for this holder. Maybe I couldn't find it, but I don't think Lee makes a 150mm glass polarizer.

you could just get the new 16-35 f/4 and not worry about the crazy filter attachment.

That 16-35 is a replacement for the 17-35, and actually not even as good since it is only f4 and not 2.8. The VR is nice for folks who want to shoot without a tripod though, but it is not in the same league as the 14-24, and not meant to be. There is no other lens that even comes close to the 14-24 by any brand. That Lee filter is OK, but gosh, did you watch the video - it takes something like five minutes to put it on and take it off! And as Bill said, so far there is no polarizer announced for it so why bother (you've got millions of graduated NDs in your computer and I find them a waste of time and money). I think Lee will sell some of these filter holders, but until they produce a polarizer they won't sell too many of them - I've got to believe they have one in the works though, they gotta. The 24mm 1.4 is a much more interesting lens, and I'm glad to see Nikon bringing out to many new optics, and also Lee trying to fill the needs for some of these more exotic lenses...

I briefly had in my possession a copy of the 16-35. Initially, I thought it would be a better fit for me than the 14-24. The VR was a nice but not essential feature. Where it missed the mark most noticeably was corner resolution (even after stopping down) and distortion correction. I exchanged it less than 2 weeks later for a copy of the 14-24. It's not that the 16-35 was a bad lens. It's like Tim said, there are no other lenses of any brand that comes close to the 14-24.

I have read that the 16-35 has a lot of distortion. I was sort of hoping/guessing that is would be able to keep up with the 14-24 for resolution just in a slower and cheaper f/4 (not everyone needs f/2.8) package but from what Charles is saying I guess that isn't the case.

I had also read some reviews noting the corner softness and distortion in the 16-35, but have never actually tried one. Always nice to hear first hand knowledge from you guys - thanks.