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

Golf007sd

@Bokeh_Hunter: Great simulator. Nice find...and your point is quite valid; so long as a few inches are available to move back. Some real-estate indoor photographer might find that to be a challenge, if you know what I mean.

haroldp

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

To begin, I would not know, I have never had a thimbal, my wife however has a wonderful collection of thimbles.

following your logic, why not 18mm (move back a little more), or 20 (just a little more) or 24 or 400 (maybe a lot).

I use a 12mm on Leica's and it feels notably wider than 14, I do not compare their qualities (12 and 14mm) to one another because the big difference (focal length / FOV) outweighs the small differences (all of the others).

In places like slot canyons, moving back is not a option and the 14mm image is quite different from the 16mm in impact.

I am not and would not argue that one FL is in general better than another, but they are not identical.

There are proponents of using one prime lens and 'zoom with your feet'. That is certainly a valid artistic viewpoint for those who wish to do so, but the images are not the same as the perspective of multiple FOV's from a vantage point. Equally valid ? absolutely, identical ? not so much.

.... H

SquamishPhoto

Well said, harold.

Bokeh_Hunter

following your logic, why not 18mm (move back a little more), or 20 (just a little more) or 24 or 400 (maybe a lot).

The comparison is with the 14-24 vs 16-28 at the wide end on FX format - not any other lens or focal length. Your argument may be valid only for some idiot suggesting using a 24mm lens - but thankfully they have not shown up.

Facts:
14mm = Subject @ 15ft = Horizontal FOV 38 feet 3 inches.
16mm = Subject @ 15ft = Horizontal FOV 33 feet 9 inches.
Difference = 2 feet 3 inches on either side.
17ft = Horizontal FOV 38 feet 3 inches.
Source: Bob Atkins

My actual logic: Is paying $1,360 worth more than moving 2 feet backwards?
(Nikon 14-24 $2000 & Tokina 16-28 $640 at B&H today)

As I said before, the Nikkor and Tokina are almost identical. If a UWA is your bread and butter, go with the absolute best with Nikon's and never look back. But if you are filling out your available focal range, and/or money is a concern, the Tokina for almost $1,400 less is a no brainer with very minimal compromises. It is only at the very extreme edges/uses of UWAs, that the Nikkor beats out the Tokina. And honestly if you are at that level, 9 times out of 10 it would be better to stitch multiple images.

Bokeh_Hunter

So I got the lens and I went out with it, and let me just say that I have no idea what the hell I'm doing. Shooting wide angle is just... different. Everything I shoot just seems to come out looking weird. It feels completely unnatural. I guess it's just something that you have to develop a feel for...

I'm certainly not the best, but one snippet I have learned closer is better and is to keep the lens level (parallel to the ground) to hold off distortion. Alternatively, if you want it to look wild, tilt like crazy. Other thing I have learned the hard way is to plan on cropping off about 10% on either side due to distortion, or just "muddy" (un-sharp) edges.

Golf007sd

@PitchBlack: I fully understand where you are coming from...it took me sometime as well in order to know when, where and how to properly utilize this lens. It is going to require you to step out of your comfort zone...given your lens line-up, moreover, the manner in which you have been shooting. It is a lens like no other and will yield amazing results once you have an understanding of it. Don't get discouraged...push through.

Have look that the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S Flickr user group. The are over 45,000 images posted, they should offer you some "food for thought."

sevencrossing

guess it's just something that you have to develop a feel for
Our dear friend KR has quite good piece on How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses

Vipmediastar_JZ

I Just processed my first landscape with that lens and the D800 and some cars. I like and dislike the distortion on the cars but you have to know how to use it. I didn't have many keepers vs the car show show shot with the 55 AIS mostly because the 55 fills the frame and no distortion. However I used the lens because I wanted a certain look to the cars such as angles.

For the landscape I love beign in nature and looking at landscape photos but it is a challenge for me to take them.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Well here is my Landscape shot its my first with this lens from 3 months ago.

EiTaro

Once upon a time Canon shooters used to envy this lens. I was hoping for a Sigma Art 12-24 f2.8 but Canon seems to make the surpsise with a 11-24 f2.8 L. I expect many used 14-24 soon and 2018 for the next version of 14-24 is so distant.

scoobysmak

I almost wonder if the rumor could be just a bit off and instead of an EF lens (Canon FX) its an EF-S (Canon DX) lens. If this is a true EF lens then that is impressive to say the least if it has any image quality to go with it.

Bokeh_Hunter

I've seen similar rumors about a few different FX Canon lenses like EiTaro said with the wide end being in the 10mm to 13mm range. There was a 10-18 DX Canon lens that was released so I think that knocked the 10mm off. The 2 numbers I had seen is 11mm and 13mm on the wide end.

JJ_SO

Over at Photorumors.com I read the first rumour about a new Sigma 14-24/4 Art

Could be interesting.

DenverShooter

I have had my 14mm to 24 mm F/2.8 for about three years and it rocks. Great glass, really glad that it occupies a space in my main bag. Don't think I have had any issues with flare as I can't recall it being a problem. Yes its big and yes its heavy. Just consider it your aerobic exercise. Carried it, along with the Nikon 24 mm to 70 mm F/2.8 and the 70 mm to 200 mm F/2.8 along with my D800E and SB-910 all over Germany last May. Shot a lot with it. Would have missed it had I not taken it.

22 Lbs in the backpack with the ancillary gear. I am none the worse for wear as a result.

Denver Shooter

Golf007sd

I find the 14-24 to be an essential tool in my bag. It will not be replace...period.

JJ_SO

I don't think, Sigma tries to convert already existing owners of a 14-24. And even if they introduce it a Photokina at a price of 1100 (rumored bucks are soft cash...), Nikon shooters would still have to wait until Canonistas get theirs first. After all, on the Canon side is such a huge demand for this focal length range that some adapted the Nikkors for their EOSses. Given, it would really contain OS and it would really have a M82 filter thread, Sigma only had to take care to not too big distortions and not too huge flaring.

After their performance with their last products, I've no doubt they will not miss the target group, at least not as Nikon did with the 58/1.4.

And for Nikon people, thinking about getting a new one (not existing owners of the great lens) the calculation is easy:

1100 vs. 1600 (more or less) saves the first 4-500 bucks. Desire for a gradient filter saves another 350 (500 for the existing lee or photodiox vs. maybe 100-150 for an screw version). So, before I'd get such a filter adapter for 500 + filters I rather look at Lee's 100mm system size and save some money.

When I gave up DX, I also gave up polarizer and ND possibilities for the 10-24 with M77 filter thread. I love wide angle and I welcome the addition of choices especially when the current appearance of a great manufacturer offers them at affordable prices. And with the 14-24/2.8 I got some great shots, especially wide open. So it's not first on the list to be replaced, that'd be kind of luxury. As owning three DX bodies was...

paulr

DenverShooter
22 Lbs in the backpack with the ancillary gear. I am none the worse for wear as a result.

Give it time, Weight like Age changes things

Bokeh_Hunter

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 @ $2000
Sigma 14-24mm f/4 with OS @ $1,200
Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 @ $640

The sigma is certainly interesting adding OS and a 82mm filter ring. Considering the Tokina has a 90mm hood at the widest and has some vignetting from 16-19mm, one would have to expect quite a bit of vignetting with filters on the Sigma which would add about another 10deg to bump into them. Optic design can make some of that up, but that will probably be a bit much. It's still almost double the price of the Tokina as well. As good as the Nikkor and Tokina are, Sigma has a hell of a hill to climb.

More options are good for everyone and I like seeing companies putting VR/IS/OS in lenses which pushes Nikon to do so as well.

DenverShooter

DenverShooter
22 Lbs in the backpack with the ancillary gear. I am none the worse for wear as a result.

Give it time, Weight like Age changes things

I am 57 and I look at lifting and carrying as something that help keeps the undertaker away!

Was out shooting the Porsche Club of America Club Race at High Plains Raceway this weekend and hoisted all of the big glass around (800mm F/5.6 and 600mm F/4) and it was a nice workout in the 90 degree heat.

Denver Shooter

Photobug

@DenverShooter: Sounds like a fun outing...hope you got a similar shot to this one:

paulr

Denver Shooter
I am 57 and I look at lifting and carrying as something that help keeps the undertaker away!

Medically at 27 you are at your fittest,at 57 it's a little like Inverse Square Law in photography at 67 you think about what you taking out, at 77 You know your capabilities, at 87 You talk about Film cameras, at 97 You let somebody else take the shots and tell them about the good old days.

Golf007sd

....hope you got a similar shot to this one

Wait a minute here, my good friend; 1) I see you in the reflection 2) Nice hat, 3) Nice shot, 4) I thought this is topic was about the 14-24 2.8...not the 17-55 2.8 :P

Photobug

@Golf007sd: "Guilty as charged!" What can I say except I actually have used the 14-24 2.8 on a D800 and it's a great lens. Nice lens. I had to drop that Porsche photo into the discussion when he mentioned Porsche. You know how we get side tracked...just so one of the admins can reign us back on topic.

The hat is one of those Nikonian hats, keeps the sun out of my eyes and off the neck and face. :-))

Msmoto

@DenverShooter

Yup, Porsches…… but at shorter focal length… like 24mm…..



Getting back to the 14-24mm stuff, although this was the 24mm f/1.4….

JJ_SO

I agree at "there is a certain type of person who likes super wide angle shots" and for me it was worth the money. I also like that lens a lot but because it's weight and size it's left home a bit too often.
Well, we talk again if Sigma really releases a 14-24/4 with very good resolution, well-controlled distortion and hopefully better lens hood and coating. At a lower price, I almost forgot.