I was getting all ready to jump in both feet with the full holy trilogy of the 14-24, 24-70 and the 80-200, but I am rethinking the 14-24. I know that it is a great lens and all but I had to ask myself just how much use am I going to get with a lens that wide? How much distortion does it produce? I was thinking the 16-35 might be better as I can put filters on it ( I have been told ), but I just picked up the 24-70 and that is a pretty wide angle for my needs right now. So I might put both those sets of lenses on the back burner for the time being. I am rethinking my needs and have been thinking about the 105 lens as I feel that I will be doing more macro shots than wide angle at this time. What are your thoughts on the 105 or 85?
Rethinking the 14-24
- Thread starter Drew Wat
- Start date
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Going "Ultrawide" is one of that is really up to the photographer. I never thought I'd want one until I played with one and saw what it brought to my photography. I do a lot of landscapes, and the easiest way for me to describe what it adds to my toolbox is the ability to suck everything I'm seeing with my eyes into a single frame. It's not necessarily accurate in its portrayal, but it's super-accurate in its scope. There is always a level of distortion, but that's because there's more there than you are expecting - scope distortion. The lens specific types can be corrected or compensated for in Lightroom or Photoshop.
So if that doesn't suit the type of work you do, then there's no reason to drop that money on a lens you will use only occasionally. I suspect the new 18-35mm G series Nikon just introduced might be more your speed. And it takes filters.
As for the 85 & 105, I believe Rick M may be chiming in on those.
So if that doesn't suit the type of work you do, then there's no reason to drop that money on a lens you will use only occasionally. I suspect the new 18-35mm G series Nikon just introduced might be more your speed. And it takes filters.
As for the 85 & 105, I believe Rick M may be chiming in on those.
Thanks for the info Jake. I went to have a look at the lens that they had in the store but some student came in and bought up the entire trilogy in one shot ( university or college kid) . So will have to have a look at it later. Like I said I am re thinking it but not scraping the idea all together. I seem to prefer landscape and wild life shooting over people and am just rediscovering my love of photography and nature after years of having to put it on the back burner. Just becoming a bit over whelmed at all the choices.
its so apple and oranges.. the 14-24 vs the 24-70, each have their uses.
If I was going to prioritize, I would place the 24-70 first, for wide coverage of a variety of shooting with a start of wide angle, with strong midrange punch and a mild tele photo reach. can cover many situations, and then,, well if you want wide, just shoot overlapping shots (about a 1/3) and stitch and you have your nice wide angle.
that said,, I will be someday getting the 14-24,, too sweet to pass up, awesome balance on a full frame D700 or D800, just feels right. and to have that zoom range... from ultra wide to mild wide.. drool drool..
anyway... life is a compromise,, but reward to waiting is enjoying the product even more... knowing it took a while to get.
If I was going to prioritize, I would place the 24-70 first, for wide coverage of a variety of shooting with a start of wide angle, with strong midrange punch and a mild tele photo reach. can cover many situations, and then,, well if you want wide, just shoot overlapping shots (about a 1/3) and stitch and you have your nice wide angle.
that said,, I will be someday getting the 14-24,, too sweet to pass up, awesome balance on a full frame D700 or D800, just feels right. and to have that zoom range... from ultra wide to mild wide.. drool drool..
anyway... life is a compromise,, but reward to waiting is enjoying the product even more... knowing it took a while to get.
You might be suprised how much you may use VR in Macro. I have used it with every shot so far. If you shot much indoors, it will pay for itself. It's hard to use a flash with macro, so most of my indoor shots are with ambeient light and under 1/80th. Also at 105mm, you are reducing the surrounding light, further slowing your shutter.
On to the 14-24, a wider angle does not always mean more distortion. The front element of the 14-24 is huge inorder to reduce distortion. The 16-35 may actually have more!
Ultra-wide lenses are the bread and butter of landscape photography but they require a different mindset than do normal and telephoto lenses. You really have to pay attention to both the close and the far away in order to maximize your UW's potential. It took me a little time to warm up to my 14-24mm and now that it's integrated in my workflow, I can't imagine being without it.
Hi Rick, Good to know on the 14-24 and the 16-35. I still want to physically see these before making a choice. I trusted the reviews on the 24-70 as I know it was a lens that I wanted. As for the 105 all that I have been reading suggest that ambient light is not the way to go with it and that flash's ( plural ) work better with it or a ring flash. Not that I have any experience with this lens and I am relying on reading several sites for all my info on the benefits and to see if it is really want I want. Most of what I have read is people saying that they do most of the close up work with manual focus and that they turn off the VR. This is the reason why I was thinking about the older 105 over the new one with the VR.
Most of them were shot using my 14-24mm, some are panorama images. If you go to my 365 thread I list the lenses I'm using for each image (at least most of them are listed). You know, UW's are not for everyone and I've often heard people looking to sell theirs because it doesn't get enough use. The bottom line is that UW's are not for everyone. It boils down to style and understanding how to use one. If you try to use it like you would a 50mm lens you will be disappointing with your results. On the plus side, people will rush out and buy the 14-24mm and let it collect dust for a year or two and then sell it at a discount to a brand new lens even though it's about as close to new as you get. I'd be leery buying a used 24-70mm or any other work horse lens like that but you can find near perfect condition UW's all day long.
Good Question. With a tripod you should get the same or better results. It depends if you want to carry a tripod around all the time. I take a lot of pictures of my cat with it also, tripod use is almost impossible, I'd never get the shot. How about while traveling? Or in a crowded spot.
I think you could be limiting your use of the lens without it, but it depends on your style of shooting.
You bring up some interesting points Rick. I know I have 3 cats and fish and various other wild animals that call my house theirs. 
I have already been playing around with what I have to get pictures of them and the 24-70 will be something I will be using lots this coming year. I will be considering everything you have said once I actually get a chance to try out the lens. I see one of the old lenses is available at another store and the new VR will be in when I get back so I will have a chance to try both out.
I have already been playing around with what I have to get pictures of them and the 24-70 will be something I will be using lots this coming year. I will be considering everything you have said once I actually get a chance to try out the lens. I see one of the old lenses is available at another store and the new VR will be in when I get back so I will have a chance to try both out.Drew: please post your own question since this particular thread is about the 14-24mm and not a macro lens. Please try to stay within the original topic discussion.
Last edited: