Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8

[Colorado David]

If you own the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens and have used it enough to develop an opinion, please share it.  I am especially interested in those photographers who use it on both DX and FX bodies.  Thanks very much.

[idenford]

If you own the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens and have used it enough to develop an opinion, please share it.  I am especially interested in those photographers who use it on both DX and FX bodies.  Thanks very much.

I have a Nikon D3 and a D300. The lens is flawless and if you are shooting Landscapes, you should not be without.
Some samples are here http://www.idenfordphotography.com/landscape.html

[aaykay]

An interesting point that Thom Hogan mentioned in his review of the D3X is as below:


http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xreview.htm

Quoting from the above link:
=============
That said, yes, in general the D3x does highly reveal the faults in a lens if it has any. Even the vaunted 14-24mm and 24-70mm on the D3x reveal that they're not perfect into the corners as some have thought using D3 and D700 bodies.
=============

Seems like the high resolution of the D3X is stretching even these newer Nikkors.

[BernardLanguillier]

If you own the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens and have used it enough to develop an opinion, please share it.  I am especially interested in those photographers who use it on both DX and FX bodies.  Thanks very much.

I have been using the 14-24 f2.8 a bit with both the D3 and D3x for a bit more than a year.

It is for sure a brilliant performer (the best wide I have ever used), but I end up not using it much:

- it is very large and heavy,
- most of its range is a bit too wide for my taste
- it is not very suitable for stitching due to its entrance pupil being located very near the front of the end

It is for sure a lens that is good to own, but I see it as a bit of a niche tool for my shooting. I would probably feel different if I didn't do so much stitching.

Cheers,
Bernard

[brianrpatterson]

An interesting point that Thom Hogan mentioned in his review of the D3X is as below:


http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xreview.htm

Quoting from the above link:
=============
That said, yes, in general the D3x does highly reveal the faults in a lens if it has any. Even the vaunted 14-24mm and 24-70mm on the D3x reveal that they're not perfect into the corners as some have thought using D3 and D700 bodies.
=============

Seems like the high resolution of the D3X is stretching even these newer Nikkors.

Just for the record, there is no such thing as a perfect lens, but the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor is a great substitute for any perfect lens you might find... it's my best lens hands down. Just not perfect.

[OldRoy]

"- it is not very suitable for stitching due to its entrance pupil being located very near the front of the end"
I have this lens too but haven't had sufficient chance to use it in a few weeks to offer a worthwhile opinion. I too would like to use this, amongst other things, for stitching (VR panos; overkill I know - I also have a 10.5 fe which I normally use on a DX body.) I did briefly set the 14-24 up with my D700 on a Nodal Ninja 3 panhead - a completely unsuitable device for this combination, but it's what I have at present. Using the T-piece to extend the camera backward on the upper rail I was able to find a position for the entrance pupil which eliminates parallax errors adequately. I didn't bother to fine tune the setup as the combination is so long that it's impossible to shoot at -90 deg for the nadir shot(s) off the tripod. Most people don't bother with these anyway.
Using this lens @ 14mm for VRs involves shooting 6-round @ +30 and -30 deg, plus zenith. The overlaps are not very big and auto cp placement tends to cluster around the centres so you have to place quite a few by hand. Makes a very big file!
Roy

[PeterAit]

- it is not very suitable for stitching due to its entrance pupil being located very near the front of the end

Can you please explain?  I have not done any serious stitching, but my impression is that to do so you would use a tripod head that lets you position the lens's nodal point at the axis of rotation. Is there any reason you could not do this with the 14-24?

Thanks,

Peter

[Philip Weber]

If you own the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens and have used it enough to develop an opinion, please share it.  I am especially interested in those photographers who use it on both DX and FX bodies.  Thanks very much.

I shoot with a D700 and D300 and have found the 14-24 to be nothing short of AMAZING. Having said that, about 99% of the time I use it on the FX body (D700) as the D300 is my back up body. Generally, I only use the D300 for birds and wildlife, where I need the reach and hence, the 14-24 isn't getting used on it. However, I used it quite a bit on the D300 before buying the D700 and found it to be a great lens on a DX body.

While I love the lens, I have found for most of my landscape work on the D700, that the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 is what I use the most by far. I also like the Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 a lot and use it when I want to go wider with a filter. I've found the 14-24 to be a bit of a luxury "really wanted one" rather than an everyday workhorse lens, so you'll have to look at your shooting style and budget. For anyone who can afford it and thinks they would use it enough, I could not recommend it more highly.

Phil

[OldRoy]

Can you please explain?  I have not done any serious stitching, but my impression is that to do so you would use a tripod head that lets you position the lens's nodal point at the axis of rotation. Is there any reason you could not do this with the 14-24?

Thanks,

Peter

The NPP is near the very front of what is a long and heavy lens (for w/a, anyway). This means that when mounted on a pano head the centre of gravitity of the lens is a long way behind the axis of rotation.
Roy

[Colorado David]

The NPP is near the very front of what is a long and heavy lens (for w/a, anyway). This means that when mounted on a pano head the centre of gravitity of the lens is a long way behind the axis of rotation.
Roy

I don't do stitched pano's, but couldn't the problem be somewhat ameliorated by using a very rigid plate and putting counterweight in front?  It would seem to me that the nodal point forward creating a rearward center of gravity produces a situation where motion could be introduced into the shots.  Rigidity and counterweight could solve this, right?

[BernardLanguillier]

The NPP is near the very front of what is a long and heavy lens (for w/a, anyway). This means that when mounted on a pano head the centre of gravitity of the lens is a long way behind the axis of rotation.

Correct.

Counterbalancing this isn't super easy... because the counterweight would have to stay outside the very wide image cone of the lens.

Anyway, there are better options for stitching wide in most cases if you don't mind doing multi-row.

Cheers,
Bernard