Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
17-35mm F/2.8D Nikkor vs. 14-24mm F/2.8G Nikkor lens
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="LensWork" data-source="post: 47610" data-attributes="member: 1283"><p>$1300 for an AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 is high, especially with a squeaky AF-S motor. Used this lens commonly sells for $900. I have shot with the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 and while it is an awesome lens that produces spectacular images, I sent the sample back to Nikon after shooting on pit road during a NASCAR race because all day I was terrified that the bulbous front element was going to get damaged (you cannot put a UV filter on the lens). I'll keep my 17-35.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LensWork, post: 47610, member: 1283"] $1300 for an AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 is high, especially with a squeaky AF-S motor. Used this lens commonly sells for $900. I have shot with the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 and while it is an awesome lens that produces spectacular images, I sent the sample back to Nikon after shooting on pit road during a NASCAR race because all day I was terrified that the bulbous front element was going to get damaged (you cannot put a UV filter on the lens). I'll keep my 17-35. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
17-35mm F/2.8D Nikkor vs. 14-24mm F/2.8G Nikkor lens
Top
