Question on filters and nikon lenses...

Hi everyone, I recently purchased a used nikon d3, and I have some questions about the two nikon lenses I'm thinking about investing in for landscape photography. I'm thinking about either getting the 14-24 f2.8, or the 17-35 f2.8. I have used the 14-24 on two photo trips, and it's an incredible lens, but I've never used it on a full frame camera. The 17-35 I have the least experience with, but from what I've been reading, the ability to use filters with this lens would make it better for landscape photography, but wouldn't it be easy enough to just hold a filter in front of the 14-24 with your hand? Is there anyone that has experience with these lenses that can give me some advice? Thanks. Joe

Hand holding can be tricky, especially with grads--I tried it a few times and gave up even with a solid ND filter. I use filters with my 10-22mm all the time so I can't understand why you couldn't do it with a 14-24mm unless its because the full frame sensor picks up that much more of the edge of the lens. At any rate I use a Z size filter holder to avoid the vignetting issue with this and my 24-105mm.

I have the 17-35 f2.8 and use a "slimline" polarizer on it. I think you'd have vignetting problems hand holding a filter in front of the lens. I find the 17-35 to a fine lens.

There is no "Z" filter holder for the 14-24mm because the lens has no filter threads. Lee supposedly has come up with a filter holder solution for the 14-24mm. Expensive, though.

The other problem with the 14-24 and filters is that the built in lens hood is a flower design. When you hold a filter up to it there is some light that can creep in from the sides which can have an effect. I'd go with the 17-35.

Guess I'll stick with Canon

It's my understanding that a the 17-55 which is a DX lens would vignette badly on a full frame body because the FX sensor would reach beyond the coverage of the DX lens. Check out the responses to my post "Digital only lenses" in this forum from last April.

Hey Joe,

Have you considered the new 16-35 f4 VR? It's pretty much as sharp as the 14-24 and accepts filters. And, it out-performs the 17-35 on the D3 (the "strength" of the venerable 17-35 is, sadly, lost on the FX cameras). The VR isn't essential, but it does come in handy at times. I recently acquired the 16-35 and quite like the results I've been getting on both the D3s/D700 and on a D3x. Just another thing to consider...

Cheers...

Brad

PS: Both dpreview.com and slrgear.com recently reviewed the 16-35 if your interested in seeing independent tests.

Thanks for the comments everyone. Although the 14-24 is a great lens, I really think I'll be using filters more and more as I advance in landscape photography, so I'll have to rule that one out for now. I haven't considered the 16-35 f4 yet, but I'm glad to hear that it actually performs better on fx than the 17-35. This morning we reserved the 17-35 f2.8 to rent for the weekend (we're going on our annual Apostle Islands trip), but now I'll see if its possible to rent the 16-35 f4 instead. I'll make sure to read the reviews tonight. Thanks again!

Hi there

on 14-24mm lens, you cannot use front filters either for protection or for artistic effect.

If you insist to use filter like UV filter or polarize, get either Tokia 11-16mm or 24mm 2.8



you better be careful with this lens + I don;t recommend you to buy used 14-24 ;)

I bot the 16-35 after listening to a podcast review on the Nikonians podcast. I have been happy with it. It does have some barrel distortion.

Brad not sure what you mean by the 17-35 being not good for full frame. It was designed and came out before digital DX cameras were being made, so it is a great FX lens. That being said, the new 16-35 is going to be much better, since it is a new design, with the N coating.