Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 G IF ED

Patrick_D

Dear NR users

I've been waiting for a while for the Nikon to lower the price of its 14-24 in Canada.

It is now 1674 $CAD (+-1550$USD) in a few stores.

At this price point, am I missing something (14-24 update)? It seems very low compared to the usual 2k price tag.

Thank you,

Patrick

haroldp

I cannot comment on the price, it is a remarkable lens, and achievement in optical design. It is also big, heavy, and does not take filters.

I have used it extensively in places like slot canyons and love it, but if an F4 version at much lower size/weight came out I would buy it.

The 16-35 F4 VR is an option, but in tight quarters, 16mm is not 14mm.

I would also consider a 14mm prime if Nikon were to be so kind, as my 14-24 is always at 14.

Regards .... H

henrik1963

What haroldp said. And I will add that it is a difficult lens to master - you need a different approach to taking pictures - but maybe you know that :-) I like mine but I do not use it very much.

You can get filters for the lens - it is just more expensive :-(

Golf007sd

The 14-24 2.8 is simply amazing. I do not see it being replaced anytime soon. I love mine and would highly recommend getting one.

SquamishPhoto

The lens has been priced much lower in the past, I got mine new for $1450 5 years ago. Either way I'd jump on it if its something that you really want.

kanuck

Yes it truly is a marvel and I absolutely love mine. I took the plunge last February and bought the Lee SW-150 Filter system so that I can finally use filters with it. I have been happy with the results. I bought a Singh Ray Reverse 3 stop graduated soft ND filter, a 3 stop grad filter and the system came with a 2 stop hard graduated ND filter.

I still consider the 14-24mm as a specialty lens and I don't think it will be replaced anytime soon as Golf said. They might come out with a new 17-35 or 16-35 2.8 lens I would imagine. Probably not with VR though like the current 16-35mm F4.

Golf007sd

One of their better reviews :

Symphotic

"Bombous-faced freakoid of a lens". Kai pegged it.

But worth every cent.

Now i'll be all nostalgic for the rest of the day about when I used to live in Hongkong.

Patrick_D

Thank you all for your inputs. They were greatly appreciated.

I will give myself another 2 months before (maybe) jumping on it.

Best regards,

Patrick

JJ_SO

This lens I also like very much as it's great value for the money.

However, I'd be more happy if it was not that big a collector of flares when it comes to front light and even side light. It's very tough to shield it against direct light. And it' still tough to shield against light beams coming from top or side.

I'm pretty sure, the Zeiss 15/2.8 does better in this aspect. It should - at double the price, no AF, no zoom and the filter thread useless for filter holders. So, for the price difference we can afford the very expensive Lee solution if we need to use graduate filters.

proudgeek

I have shot with lens exactly twice. Once while looking at a D800 at the counter at B&H (it just happened to be on the body), and once in Maine last spring at Golf's insistence. It's a superb lens no doubt; I just wonder whether I'd use it enough to justify it. I have a 17-35 that does MOST of what this lens does, although its greater range makes it slightly more versatile. The no-filter thing (or at least no filter without a pricey workaround), is also a negative for me. Not just optically, but from a protection standpoint as well.

Golf007sd

I can tell you without a single hesitation that this lens will give any prime a run for its money...bet it at 14mm or 24mm...it is just that good. In fact, as you all known, the 24 1.4G is one of my most beloved lens, but if I do not need 1.4 (ie. night time), the 14-24 is my go to lens for all types of photography (i.e. landscapes, architecture, sport)...Period. I have also found that this lens is much faster than most primes in AF speed. It is however not without its challenges: 1) If you want to travel light this is not the lens to carry on a day's shoot. 2) It is so wide, that you really have to make sure you look at the edge of your frame to make sure you do not have unwanted subjects in it. 3) Close-up of subject will have some "fish-eye" look to them, specially at the wide-end. If that is the intent, then it is great (sport close-up shots come to mind); but for facial or portraits it does distort. 4) Filters....not a big deal. Yes it is a bit more, BUT the things you can do with this lens is just so much fun....so get it and goto town. Adamz and I had a blast this year playing with the WonderPana FreeArc by Fotodiox.

In short, Patrick, Nikon did an amazing job on this lens; will have a great time using it.

Vipmediastar_JZ

This is one of the lens that I do no regret occupying a slot in the bag.
at 14mm it is fun to shoot and at 24 it comes in handy when I want to shoot at 24mm.
It is Sharp and well built. Im working on a DIY and doing my own filter holder. I't in the works for a several weeks now but I'll get to it.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I have yet to process most of my photos since mid may but I can tell you that this lens delivers.
I have buildings from about six blocks away in the same frame lookung up like the shot below sharp and in focus.
I like the negative space, its is fun to shoot with, it is not really heavy.

I did a landscape with the D800 that if time permits ill edit tonight otherwise many have posted awesome shots with the lens before.
It makes my 24-70 look like a chump.

With your talents you can do so much with it.
Dont delay buy one today.

This is why I like the 14mm end

Golf007sd

@PitchBlack: Your level of creative shots will be very well rewarded. You should hit the buy button ASAP.

JJ_SO

Somebody needs to talk me into buying this lens.

As I said, great lens as long as you don't have to deal with it's massive flaring. Thanks to Nanocrystal coating the contrast doesn't suffer, but those little rainbows which are not that obvious in the finder can really crash an otherwise nice shot.

However, in Scottish cloudy sky and especially interior with it's low distorsion at 18mm and the fast aperture makes it absolutely worth the price. I wouldn't give away mine. But am tempted to borrow a Zeiss 15/2.8 just to get an own impression how T* coating at this lens works.

paulr

Vipmediaster JZ If you think the 24-70 look like a chump. I am sure there will be plenty of photographers more than willing to take it off your hands!

Golf007sd

Here are some examples of the lens pointed right at the sun and different angles in relation to its bulb-face. I have yet to see a ultra-wide angle lens deliver anything to the caliber of this lens. Moreover, I think the little flair that is in these shots, gives the shot real character and a level for realism.

All these shots where taken hand-held:



f/11 @ 24MM



f/14 @ 24mm

Wide-open @ 2.8 14mm



1/25 ISO 12,800!!!



1/60 ISO 8000!!!

PB_PM

Most of the formal reviews said that the similarly bulb faced Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 handles flare better than the 14-24mm Nikkor, but it isn't as wide, so that means nothing.

Personally I dislike any flare in my images, which is one of the reasons I opted for the 16-35mm F4 Nikkor over the 14-24mm. The former simply handles flare much better under most conditions. Most of the worst flaring I've seen in 14-24mm shots occurred when the sun was not even in the frame, to me that was a real turn off.

JJ_SO

@PB_PM it happens when there are dark parts in the foreground. And when it happens, the shot goes usually directly into bin. Only 5 survived but I recall the ones which went very bad. The lens still is great and for interior or on cloudy days absolutely stunning. But bright sunny landscapes could become tricky.







Better to know before buying.

Benji2505

Just as an addition/remark: the lens does not have a filter thread, but there are filter solution available on the market. Overall an excellent lens, but a specialty.

kanuck

The Lee SW-150 filter system works very well although it is a pain in the neck at times especially when you are in a hurry and it is pricey. Overall though, I am quite happy with the purchase and have been pleased with the results.

Bokeh_Hunter

As I don't work with ultra wides (UWA) often and when I do, I'm at F4+. I opted for the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8. It is 95% of the 14-24 at 1/3 the price ($649). At 2.8 the Nikkor is slightly sharper. At f4 on up they are almost identical. CA, Flare, are the same and Distortion is better on the Tokina. Build quality is everything if not more than the Nikkor.

The video that pushed me over the edge to go this route.


Looking back, just because of the filters issue, and the addition to VR I many times wish I went with the 16-35vr. This feeling bounces back and fourth constantly though. As an all around lens, I think the 16-35vr would be a better choice. If you really enjoy shooting UWA shots, the Nikkor or Tokina is as good as it gets.

haroldp

16mm is not 14mm

Symphotic

.... We'll see if I can manage to do anything interesting with it.

My bet is that you can!

Bokeh_Hunter

16mm is not 14mm

That statement is just a platitude and holds as much water as a thimbal.

114° (Nikkor) vs 107° (Tokina) (published angles)

In practice that equals about 1 foot more on the sides of an image. Moving the camera back a few inches gives the same view at those angles.

This is Nikon's lens simulator where you can select your lens and body and move a slider to simulate the field of view.
NIKKOR Lens Simulator