What lens - Nikon 14-24 2.8 or Nikon 17-35 2.8

[Dangleman]

As title says really. I'm looking for a wide angle lens to go on the full frame D3. I was thinking about going the cheap route (tamron 17-35) but I've made a nice bit of extra cash this month and am now thinking I should go Nikon (long term investment and all that).

I've therefore narrowed it down to the 14-24 or 17-35. The 14-24 is the obvious choice as it gets amazing reviews across the board. However, and this is a big let down for me - you can't use filters on it and I use a circular polarizer quite a lot, and would resent not being able to on this lens.

The 17-35 can take filters, is a bit cheaper which is an added bonus, and is also meant to be very good.

What should I go for? Anyone have experience of either/ both?

 

[StewartR]

We have both at LensesForHire, but I wouldn't say I have any real experience of them... (No time to take photos these days...)

Personally I find the 14-24 a bit scary. It's got that huge convex front element and I'm sure I'd be worried that it was going to get scratched or marked or touched by greasy fingers or something. And of course there's absolutely nothing you can do to prevent it. On the other hand, the image quality is supposed to be amazing...

At the risk of sounding like a pimp, I would honestly say that the 14-24 is a lens that may be particularly worth trying before you buy. It's horrendously expensive, and I can imagine a lot of people really being put off by the ergonomics of it. Think hard before you plonk down the cash for this one.

 

[Dangleman]

Personally I find the 14-24 a bit scary. It's got that huge convex front element and I'm sure I'd be worried that it was going to get scratched or marked or touched by greasy fingers or something.

That's the other thing that puts me off too. The Nikon 17-35 isn't exactly cheap either (about £800 new still) so price wise there's not a world of difference in it.

Is the extra 3mm and the super duper image quality worth it, or does the risk of damage and no creative filter use cancel it out. I just don't know.

And I will hire a lens from you one day, I promise. And don't worry about pimping yourself mate, I feel like a 2 dollar whore at the moment with my photography

 

[Dangleman]

Any more views folks? I really can't decide and this is an important purchase for me, and I don't want to be in that awful position where you feel like you've bought the 'wrong one'....

 

[fracster]

I had a poke around a 14-24 whilst over at LeeP`s the other day, whilst i`m sure it is an amazing lens,and it should be at the price, it would scare the hell out of me having that huge piece of glass so open and liable to damage.

The inability to use filters, especially a CPL would also put me off. Saying that, the vast majority of my photography is outdoors, I guess it depends on what your going to use it for.In my case, it would be a .....:thumbsdown:

 

[Dangleman]

Have gone for the 14-24! I just can't get past the image quality reviews everyone bangs on about. I figure if I really want to polarize something I'll just use the 28-70 (if/ when i get it back).

Have ordered from purelygadgets.co.uk who have the best uk price at the moment and free delivery, and 18 an months warranty offer.