Which wide angle Nikon lens? 12-24 or 14-24?

[srennie]

Impressed with the reviews of the 14-24mm Nikkor lens I decided to buy it. Then I checked out Kent Rockwell's review. He gives it a rave, but includes the following comment: "I love these things, but would suggest the 17-35mm AFS for normal people." I guess at this stage I would consider myself a "normal" person — a dedicated photographer with one exhibition last year in a Los Angeles gallery, and another scheduled for later this year. But I am still a learner, and far from the proficiency of professionals.

Should I buy the 14-24mm — all two lbs of it; or should I go with the 17-35mm.

I am currently shooting with a Nikon D200.

Advice would be greatly appreciated.

[duraace]

Impressed with the reviews of the 14-24mm Nikkor lens I decided to buy it. Then I checked out Kent Rockwell's review. He gives it a rave, but includes the following comment: "I love these things, but would suggest the 17-35mm AFS for normal people." I guess at this stage I would consider myself a "normal" person — a dedicated photographer with one exhibition last year in a Los Angeles gallery, and another scheduled for later this year. But I am still a learner, and far from the proficiency of professionals.

Should I buy the 14-24mm — all two lbs of it; or should I go with the 17-35mm.

I am currently shooting with a Nikon D200.

Advice would be greatly appreciated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188322\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you want the ultimate line of lenses, then Nikon's plan is to sell you on the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and the 70-200mm VR.  These lenses are upward compatible to a FF camera, once it becomes viable to make that move.

[Conner999]

Take KR with a BIG grain of salt. He has some value here and there, but some, no many, no, pretty well most of his comments seem more designed to generate controversy-driven site visits than to be sage advice. At least I hope so..;> This is the same photog who considers RAW a waste of time.

I'd no more buy a lens that 9/10 people hated and 1 person loved than I'd turn away from a lens that 9/10 loved and 1 person didn't like. Take all the opinions at face value, weigh them by how credible the speaker is (or the tests done) and go from there.

To answer your question? If the funds permit, the 14-24 without question - and I shoot Leica/Zeiss on a 1Ds2, so I'm far from a Nikon (or Canon glass) 'fanboy' as they say.

If the wad of green left over in your jeans is thick enough, a lot of the shortcomings of a lesser of two lens choices can be overlooked.  However there is simply not yet enough of a price gap between a used (and while good, far from perfect and prone to sample variation) 17-35mm and the new (knock-your socks off) 14-24mm IMHO to consider the lesser lens.  

The flip-side is the famous Zeiss 21mm vs. the 'lesser' 14-24. The 21 may still be kind of the hill in terms of res across the frame (and has that famous Zeiss IQ), but the 14-24 is VERY VERY close, costs 1/2 as much new vs. used, is AF and has a wider FL range yet doesn't have the 21mm's mustache distortion. Makes the 21 harder to justify and I expect the reason we are seeing more 21s on the market and prices slipping accordingly.

As for pro vs. amateur - only difference is one gets paid and the other doesn't. Quality of resulting images is NOT determined by what your tax return states.  As many pros make $$ selling abysmal  #$% as amateurs with stellar product don't.

Congrats on the showing -- and the pending one.

[DonWeston]

Things to remember - you got your shows with out either of these two lenses. Ultimate sharpness is not the only parameter to use to sell successful artistic images. You may need the resolution and other improvements of the 14-24mm lens or not. If not, you will pay the premium of having the best without garnering the advantages. What do you consider pluses? Does the cost, weight, and lack of filter use mean anything to you? Only you can answer these questions, not me, not Ken Rockwell or anyone else on a board. Is having the BEST, and I use the term figuratively, push the issue. I have wealthy friends who buy stuff to just have, nothing wrong with that at all, but the two most talked about images I have were shot with either a FM and cheap Tokina zoom 20+ yrs ago, or a Canon Pro 1, about 4 yrs ago, both printed large to 16x20 or 20x30. That didn't stop me from getting a 5D etc. It all comes down to what you want and can afford, no one will think less of you if you use a 17-35mm instead of a 14-24.

Other factors, do you have other lenses in this range, are you happy with them, do you NEED a 14mm lens for your work, do you make large prints and look at them from 6 in. ?


This man's opinion is if I was thinking some day of a FF camera, I would go 17-35, it is wide enough and convenient enough, sharp enough to use. I would have a fear long term of an exposed front element, that is just me, but shit happens...
If I knew I was staying with APS-C format, the 12-24, is adequate at a fraction of a cost, sometimes I just go for GOOD value, cause the most important part  of the equation is what is between your ears......