Nikon 14-24 F2.8 vs 17-35 f2.8

BBR

BBR

Messages
1,546
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently use a 24-70 with my D3. I need to add a wider lens. Main,but not exclusive use, will be house interiors and occasional wedding use.

I am torn between the 14-24m and the 17-35m, the former will not take filters but from what I read gives better IQ.

I would be grateful if anyone who has used either , or both, these lenses could give me their view on which one to go for.
 
Would you need/want to use filters for interiors and occasional wedding photos, if not then the obvious choice of the 2 is the 14-24mm

The 14-24mm will use the Lee filter kit but its quite expensive

Have you considered the 16-35mm f/4 VR
 
I use the 16-35 f4 VR on my D3. I find it excellent for indoor shots. The VR helps to give sharp shots with quite low shutter speeds.
 
The 14-24mm is a cracking lens.

with the 16-35mm and the 17-35mm you are covering a significant amount of the 24-70mm you already own.

If wide angle is critical to you, particularly for interiors, then you'll miss the 2-3mm that the 14-24mm gives you. In a wide angle those 2-3mm make a big difference - far more than on a telephoto zoom, and as has been pointed out above for the two uses you state you don't need to be able to add filters to the front of it.

It would be the 14-24mm from me.
 
Im a soon to be ex 14-24 mm owner due to selling up got to say razor razor sharp lens used it for some road racing on superbikes really a very dynamic lens :)

used it on my d3 with - complaints agree with what meonshore said especially for interiors be spot on
 
The 14-24 is unbelievably good. It's the only zoom lens I own that can actually match the D800's sensor for resolution... especially at the 14mm end... where it's staggering what it can deliver.
 
Last edited:
i've been thinking about the same thing lately. i've been very tempted by the 17-35 but i'm pretty sure its gonna have to be a 14-24 :naughty:
 
As has been said, at the wide end, a few mm makes a big difference! If f/2.8 isn't a must have, the Sigma 12-24 might be of interest to you. The extra 2mm of shortness makes it almost insanely wide at the short end and it's incredibly well corrected in terms of rectilinear distortions so straight lines stay straight. Not easy to use grads or pols on it (although it is possible using BluTack or similar) but others can be used - there's a slot behind the rear element into which the user can slot gels cut to size using the supplied template.

As always with Sigmas, try the copy you'll be getting before payment - some people have reported QC issues.
 
I would love to buy the 17-35 2.8 , but I've tried two second hand copies and both were poor wide open. Noticably less impressive than my 24-70 or sigma 20mm.

I may have just been unlucky but it put me off. The 14-24 would be perfect if it took filters, and the 16-35 would be perfect if it was f2.8.

At the moment I'm going to stick with my 20mm prime ...
 
My 17-35 2.8 was just as good as my 14-24 once down to f/3.5. It was still pin sharp in the centre and was always the to to lens for my wide angle shots (I want to use a CPL when shooting rally cars).

If you can find a good copy expect to pay in excess of £650 (what I just sold mine for) and check for noisy Auto Focus.
 
just went & bought a new 14-24. looks good so far.
can't wait to get out & use it properly :thumbs:

finally rounded out my Trinity :love:
 
No vignetting from mine, even wide open at 12mm and edge sharpness is more than adequate too. As you say, you've never used it so your opinion on it is absolutely worthless (IMO).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top