Question about Nikon 14-24mm lens

Alistair

Senior Member
Good morning all.

So, on Saturday I’ll be purchasing the D810 (trading in my D7100), and have had wonderful use out of my 10-24mm lens, and while I know this DX lens can be used on the D810 it’s obviously not going to make the most out of the new piece of kit.

My question is thus: what’s the overall real-world opinion of the 14-24? Even though it looks to be a superior lens, I’m a little worried by the fact that it is not compatible with ND filters(and I do nearly all of my slow-shutter work with my 10-24), because it’s so large in diameter.

So, to those who have the 14-24, how can I get around the ND issue?

Thank you in advance.

P.S – If you can suggest an alternative piece of glass to the 14-24, please do! I’m fully aware that a camera as great as the D810 really needs the best glass to get the most out of it.
 
Last edited:

FastGlass

Senior Member
I feel your pain as I have the same lens and find myself using other glass if filters are needed. Although Lee filters and Fotodiox both have systems for this lens. There maybe others but I'm not aware of them. Lee has the SW150 filter kit. Runs about $400.00 and does come with one filter. Fotodiox has the Wonderpana 145 kit and offers a few more filters for a bit less.
 

Alistair

Senior Member
I’m stuck! The lens is so expensive that I begrudge paying a huge amount of money for a filter solution. What I was thinking of doing is buying the plastic slot-in-type ND filters and simply blu-tacking in front of the lens, when required. But then, will one of these filters cover the enormous bit of glass on the front of the lens? I’m not sure it would.

On the one hand the 14-24 seems like a superb bit of glass, but on the other that (very expensive) glass shall be exposed to damage and scratches without the ability to cover it.

I have been reading up on the Nikon 16-35mm lens, which has a diameter of 77mm, like the 10-24 I’ll be selling (wooohoo, can use my ND filters!), but the thing that puts me off that camera is the huge distortion at 16mm. And, considering the price, that’s quite unforgiveable. I nearly always shoot my wide-angles at their minimum range.
 

Alistair

Senior Member
I’ve been doing some reading-up on that lens and, once again, for the high price, it doesn’t seem to do very well at 17mm. Considering the whole point of wide-angle lenses is that you get as much in the frame as possible, to have poor results at the widest setting is rubbish and doesn’t show any value for money.

This is the only reason I’m interested in the 14-24. From what I’ve read it seems to perform superbly throughout its range, and on a camera like the D810 that is exactly what I need.

BUT…

…it has the performance, and not the practicality. Grrrrrr……!!!
 

Thumper_6119

Senior Member
Contributor
I love my 10-24mm, and I use it a lot. (In fact, I used it exclusively to shoot my first car show over the weekend). I have been looking at the 14-24mm to take advantage of the FX, but I just don't have the cash for that right now. Plus, I lose the ability to use all of my threaded filters, of which, I really like my CP and IR filters. Based on those two factors (both rather major for me and my petty photography attempts as a hobbyist) are why I don't have a 14-24mm right at this moment. I probably will eventually, but my 10-24mm is still working fine for me right now. And like Alistair, I use the wider aspect of this lens, and I rarely use the more narrow range, even when I still was primarily using a DX body.
 

Alistair

Senior Member
As they say; there’s a positive to every negative, and wide-angle lenses seem to amplify this.

Despite the flaws of the 16-35 lens I think this is the one I’m going to have to go for. The 10-24 is a very good lens, but it too has distortion problems at 10mm. I can’t image the 16-35 is going be any worse than that at 16mm.

PROS:


I have the Nikon 24-70mm lens, so can still use my 77mm ND filters on it, so at a push I could do all my slow shutter stuff with that, and just buy the 14-24 for its obvious benefits in general landscape photography.

CONS:


While the 24-70 is a superb lens, it isn’t wide-angle and won’t capture the drama that wide-angles can with slow shutter speed stuff.

What would you guys do in my situation? Thanks for your input, by the way. Very helpful.
 
Last edited:

singlerosa_RIP

Senior Member
The 14-24 is an amazing lens. I've never seen such sharpness from corner to corner as I get from this lens. Never! Lack of screw on filter doesn't bother me, but I don't shoot a lot of stuff requiring ND. If I do want to slow things down, I'll use the 24-70 with ND.
 

Alistair

Senior Member
Well that’s swayed things a little in the favour of the 14-24, for me. As you’ve got one of the same lenses as me (the 24-70) it’s good to know you use that for ND work.

As I said above, wide-angles give a stunning ‘look’ to slow shutter landscapes and I certainly won’t get the same effect with the 24-70, unfortunately.

I’m beginning to think I should just stick with my D7100 and not have to worry about any of this, haha!
 

wornish

Senior Member
I agree with everything Singlerosa says about this lens.

I have one and it constantly delivers superb results on my D800.
The distortion you get with all wide angle lens can be easily fixed in Lightroom with a single click.

My entry for this weeks challenge Fall Colors was taken with it.
 

Alistair

Senior Member
Well that's not a bad idea. The D7100 is cool.

It is indeed a great DX camera, but then that's also a part of the problem: It's a DX. And there's only so much they can do in terms of low-light and ISO. Infact that's the only disappointment I have with the D7100: the noise at low ISO levels. This will all but be eradicated with the D810.

I also love doing a lot of photo editing, and I've come to realise that the more information in a photo, the better. The 24 megapixels of the D7100 copes very well, but I sometimes find that blown-out skies don't have enough retrievable information, and neither do some of the darker shadows. You could argue that I should expose my photos better, but sometimes this is difficult when you're grabbing a sunrise (or whatever) that's unfolding quickly before your eyes.


I've had about six years of experience with DX cameras (and before that, point-and-shoot cameras), my first DSLR being the D80, and I think it's about time I upgraded to FX. I've got to do it sometime and when I read the reviews and researched the D810, I couldn't imagine a better time to do it.


Still mulling over the lens. I'd say I'm about 70% in favour of the 14-24mm lens at the moment, but I do love my wide-angle ND shots.
 

Alistair

Senior Member
The deal is sorted. After a load of research last night and this morning I've finally decided upon the Nikon 16-35mm lens.

I’ll be able to carry over my 77mm ND and UV filters, continue doing wide-angle slow shutter shots, and the reviews for it seem very favourable, compared to the 14-24 (but without the obvious downsides of that particular lens). I just wouldn’t feel comfortable using the 14-24 knowing the glass is so exposed to the elements, and potential damage.

Thanks for all your input. Great forum!
 

aroy

Senior Member
How about getting the Zeiss 15mm, that is another fantastic lense, but it is MF and quite expensive. May be a pre-owned one will be affordable.
 

Alistair

Senior Member
Thanks aroy, any suggestions are welcome for future lens purchases. I'll do some research online now, see what's what with that lens! :)
 

OverTemp

Senior Member
I just got my 14-24 2.8 from UPS. Holy SMOKES. I haven't taken a single photo with it, but I'm honored just to be holding it. WOW.
 
Top