I'm hesitating between 3 models, could use opinions and tips!

G

Gladiator

Senior Member
Hello,

my widest lens for now is my Nikon 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 D. I'm saving for a wider one but i'm hesitating between those 3 and was wondering if anyone used them.

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S Love the speed, great optics with nano-crystal coating but not being able to fit a filter makes me think twice, especially for protection. Great for bragging rights too...

Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR AF-S A bit slow for low light, even sharper than the 14-24mm, has nano-crystal coating, however is has nasty distortion at 16mm (16mm would be the main reason i'd buy such a lens to it defeats the purpose), only one that has VR.

Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S Speed is there too, built like a tank and less distortion than the 16-35mm, sharp at all apertures. No nano-crystal coating.

So far, i'm kind of aiming for the 17-35mm (the huge difference in speed alone with my 28mm is a reason to upgrade) will a difference from 17mm to my actual 28mm be quite noticeable? I'm using a D700 and tend to be short when using my 28mm in a church or when shooting architectural photos.

Any opinions or other suggestions out there i might have missed, i do want to stick with Nikon lenses, unless there's a Zeiss lens out there footing the bill :)

Is there a site where i can see the difference of coverage between sizes, like 14mm, 16mm28mm and so on?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
C

Carolina Photo Guy

Senior Member
If I were between 3 models, I would choose the blonde, then the redhead and then...

Wait a minute. You were talking about LENSES?!!??

Had my heart going for nuthin"!


Pete
 
ohkphoto

ohkphoto

Snow White
If I were between 3 models, I would choose the blonde, then the redhead and then...

Wait a minute. You were talking about LENSES?!!??

Had my heart going for nuthin"!
Click to expand...

Aw, Pete, I'm glad to see you back in good form!

Gladiator, when I'm faced with "choosing" I've resorted to renting 1 or more of the lenses first before buying especially given the high cost of nikkor glass. I think borrowlenses has all 3 models; their prices are reasonable and they're very easy to deal with. It has saved me bucks and spared me poor decisions.

Good luck and best regards
 
G

Gladiator

Senior Member
ohkphoto said:
Aw, Pete, I'm glad to see you back in good form!

Gladiator, when I'm faced with "choosing" I've resorted to renting 1 or more of the lenses first before buying especially given the high cost of nikkor glass. I think borrowlenses has all 3 models; their prices are reasonable and they're very easy to deal with. It has saved me bucks and spared me poor decisions.

Good luck and best regards
Click to expand...

Thank for the tip, i'll try to find a place here in Canada since they don't deal up North :)
 
F

fotojack

Senior Member
Gladiator, whereabouts in Canada are you? Your avatar just shows a picture, but nothing else about you. It would help us help you with questions such as these.
 
J

Joseph Bautsch

New member
Gladiator, all three are quality lenses. All three are pretty much in the same zoom range. So it all depends on what you are going to use it for, low light, I would rule out the 16-35mm f/4. But then again that one is about $500 USD less expensive than the other two. So I would take Helene's advice and rent them and see which one sets your heart beating faster, is there a brunet on that list... oh that's right this is about LENESE!!! :eek: lol ;)
 
L

LensWork

Senior Member
Gladiator said:
Is there a site where i can see the difference of coverage between sizes, like 14mm, 16mm28mm and so on?
Click to expand...

NIKKOR Lenses Simulator | Nikon

My .02 - 14-24mm; superb lens, but that bulbous front element is asking to be damaged; no thank you.

16-35mm; Less expensive than the other two, VR; my second choice

17-35mm; f/2.8, mechanical aperture ring (not a "G" lens) for use on any Nikon body since '77, plentiful used for about the same price (or less) as the 16-35mm new; my 1st choice.
 
Last edited:
F

Fen

New member
I've got the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 and it's hardly ever off my camera! It's a superb lens, nothing else compares to it. As for the bulbous front end, not a problem. The tulip shaped protector thingy is more than adequate cover. Plus it has a huge lens cap!

Other than that... Go for the red-head ;)
 
L

LensWork

Senior Member
Fen said:
As for the bulbous front end, not a problem. The tulip shaped protector thingy is more than adequate cover. Plus it has a huge lens cap!
Click to expand...

I guess that would depend upon what kind of photography you do; Nikon sent me a 14-24mm f/2.8 to try out, and I was quite uncomfortable having that huge front-end unprotected in the hustle & bustle of pit road and the garage area of a NASCAR race. By the end of the race, the front element was covered with small bits of rubber. And since you can't shoot through the lens cap, it's either leave it unprotected, or potentially miss a shot while messing around taking the cap off.

The images were nothing less than stellar, but when I returned the lens to Nikon, I informed them that I would be sticking with my AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8.
 
Last edited:
J

johnwartjr

Senior Member
Just picked up the 14-24 2.8 today myself. Well, yesterday, it's 3 AM here!

Didn't hurt that Nikon had a special right now for $400 off the 14-24 and a D7000.. my Dad wanted a D7000, I wanted a 14-24.. :)
 
Top