Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 + 24-70 f2.8 for D300?

[Mitch Alland]

I must say that I'm dazzled by everything I read about the technology of the D300 and the two new Nikkor f/2.8 lenses (14-24mm and 24-70mm). But Ken Rockwell says that it's crazy to use these lenses for a DX camera like the D300 because you don't get what you pay for in terms of money and weight because you don't use the sharpness all the way out to the edges of a full frame that these lenses produces on an FX sensor; instead for a camera like the the D300 he recommends the 12-24mm DX and and the 18-200mm VR, but the maximum apertures of the latter two lenses are only f/4 and f/3.5-5.6.

Do you think these lenses make sense for a D300?

Not that I'm rushing out to get a D300 and these two f/2.8 lenses: the weight of this outfit makes me pause for thought; also I would have liked to have "real" Live View, like on small sensor cameras and on the new Olympus E420.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[Steen]

Sorry if this is too off topic, but apropos Rocky here's a good and funny read
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml

 

[Guy Mancuso]

It's a great question Mitch. I just got a D300 yesterday and i played with a 24-70 and it is a stellar lens but i opted for a older 17-35 for now. One because of money but two because it is smaller and i still get a 2.8. One of the issues i see on the D300 will be good at ISO 1600 but above that i still have question marks. So in a sense the slower lenses will be tougher in low light. So i do see that as a issue for one and getting DX lenses also puts you in a corner a little because they won't be good if you decide to move up to the D3 which is something that may happen for me. So I picked very carefully for the D300 but have to think ahead a little in case i make that move. Right now with what i picked i can move up easily without selling something from my Nikon kit. I did get the 17-35 , 85 1.4 , 105 macro and 180. Now if i had the money i would have just as easily went 14-24 and 24-70 because it's possible to move to the D3 for me. But i can still take the 17-35 along .

Now the 17-35 is a smaller lens than both the new ones. The 24-70 is a big lens and so is the 14-24 . But the Zeiss 50 1.4 is nice and small and there wide's are noted to be very good , so if size and weight are issue that is a alternative and they will work with the FX sensor. Even though there manual focus which i still prefer any day.
Now if your only going to stay D300 than the others are supposed to be very good but you still have that speed issue. I personally also dislike variable aperture lenses at all costs because i do use flash a lot for certain things.

 

[gromitspapa]

I think those lenses are big, heavy, and expensive for a D300. The 14-24 won't mount filters, either. A lot of what Ken Rockwell says has been thoroughly discredited, so you have to be careful following his advice (which I sometimes do). He may be right about the wasted edge-to-edge sharpness. Guy's 17-35 is a killer lens, and I believe a little better than the 17-55 DX that I have as well as full frame. Since I rarely make prints (or even large ones), I don't think I'm missing anything and I like the added range for walk-around. The Tamron 17-50 is 1/3 the cost, smaller, lighter, and probably 95% of the lens the Nikon is performance-wise (but not build quality-wise). I'd add to the short zoom the stellar (full frame) 70-200VR. The upcoming Tokina 11-16 2.8 looks very interesting.

 

[TRSmith]

This is not directly related to the original question, but more of a second big thumbs up for the 70-200VR. Of the 3 lenses I have for my D2Xs, it is clearly the standout. In fact, I'd put it right up there with some of the greatly admired specialized Leica glass that often generates so much swooning enthusiasm. Not to make a direct comparison, but rather to say that in the Nikon world, the 70-200 Vr is a standout lens that draws/paints in a very sweet way. And, it will build your biceps without a membership to a gym!

As much as new gear is tempting, I've decided to wait until full frame becomes the norm instead of a stratospheric special-for-pros-only proposition before I get another Nikon body. I really want Nikon D300 body with FF. At which point I'll sell my DX lenses and keep the 70-200. Until then, there's still a lot of goodness left in my D2Xs.

 

[dfarkas]

Ken Rockwell is also the guy that wrote that his (at the time) newly acquired Nikon D70 produced better images than his 4x5 view camera. The guy is not an authority on IQ or IQ if you know what I mean. In the classes and workshops that I teach, I always seem to get someone who says, "..but Ken Rockwell said...." Then I take the next ten minutes to explain that yes, we do in fact need a light meter in the studio even though Ken says otherwise.

Personally, on a DX size I prefer the 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 VR combo with a 60 macro and maybe 50 or 85 1.4 thrown in. This was the kit I'd carry around when I'd shoot the D2X. Although it is arguably the most popular Nikon lens of all time, I'm not a huge fan of the 18-200. It is a jack of all trades and master of none. Too much distortion at both ends. I took the 18-200 with a D200 to NYC a while back. The only thing that kept going through my head was: Gee, I wish I brought my Leica instead. Bad lens for buildings.

The 17-35 is pretty prone to flare when shooting into the sun. But, so is the 17-55. These ain't 19 Elmarits guys. I also prefer the extra reach which works out to a focal equiv. of 27-90. Great lens for events and whatnots. The 24-70 is just stellar, though. I mean, just in a league of its own. I do like it very much on either the D3 or the D300, where it becomes a 35-105, perfect for studio.

One of my standard pieces of advice has been to invest in better glass that will last you longer than the camera. The 24-70 falls into that category. After Guy tires of the D300 (I'll give him about a week ) he could use the FX lens on the D3.

The 14-24 is a bit big for the D300 but again is a stellar performer. 21-36 is again a great focal range with the option to go to full frame. If someone has a budget choice of going with a D3 and lesser lenses or the D300 with these two new ones, the choice for the better optics is a no-brainer in my book.

Hope this helps.

David

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I agree David i would have jumped all over the 14-24 and 24-70 but need to watch my money here initial but If and when I go to the D3 there on the top of the buy list. That 24-70 i played with was killer looking. i will make do for awhile and actually 3k for two lenses is a bargain coming from leica guy. i just want to make sure i like this Nikon D300 and the system. so i am being careful and also a little tight with my money right now.

 

[Mitch Alland]

Yes, David, I must say I was, and am, attracted by the new 14-24 and 24-70 f/2.8 lenses, as well as by the D300. Assuming that I could deal with the exchequer, however, I'm still left with the fear of the huge weight of these three pieces of equipment.

BTW, if I could deal with the weight of the D3, which I'm sure I cannot, I would get the 24-70 only and a good 21 because that's the widest that I want to go, but the 14-24 may be the best full-frame 21, or isn't it?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Well you could go D300 and the new 14mm which is not as big. Than you get a nice 21mm prime. Just a thought.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/201421-GREY/Nikon_1925_Super_Wide_Angle_AF.html

 

[vieri]

Mitch, I have the 14-24 and use it with a D300 & a D3. While of course on the D3 it has an amazing angle of view, on the D300 you still get 21-36 f2.8 with a great quality; the 12-24 gets you to 18-36, but at f4. Question is, which is more important for you: a 3 mm wider, much slower lens that you wouldn't be able to use eventually on a FF camera and 1000 US in your pocket, or a faster, 3 mm longer lens working fine on FF, and a wallet 1000 USD lighter? Money aside, the question is wide vs fast; the filter issue, while there, is IMHO less fundamental: I wouldn't have a polarizer on such a wide lens (funky effects), and if you want to use a tripod and ND filters you can either hold square filters in front of the lens, or do it digitally.

I come from the 12-24 & 17-35, the latter a remain of my F5 days the 12-24 a necessity for architectural shots in my D2x times; I sold both to get the 14-24 - I didn't use it on a job yet, but my first impressions are very positive.

About the 70-200 VR, nothing to say except it's a stellar performer - best thing since mid-tele-sliced-bread IMHO.

Hope this helps

 

[vieri]

Well you could go D300 and the new 14mm which is not as big. Than you get a nice 21mm prime. Just a thought.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/201421-GREY/Nikon_1925_Super_Wide_Angle_AF.html

The 14 mm is not known to be a stellar performer, though not a bad lens of course; price-wise, a 14, 20 & 24 mm would be more expensive than the zoom, and probably IQ would be overall worse. Nikon's WA zoom (I am talking 17-35, 14-24) are said to be better than equivalent prime in the same focal range... all you would gain, is some grams and some room in the bag: again, if this is important for you, you can sacrify some IQ (not much) in exchange for some weight (not much)...

Tough decisions!

 

[harmsr]

I've had my 24-70 ever since it was released. My first try was on the D300, even though I sold the D300 to get the D3 after about a month.

This lens is probably the best zoom that I have ever seen from Nikon or Canon.

You really need to shoot this lens on these new cameras (either the D300 or D3) and play with the files. I would bet money that you will want one after working the file and printing.

Yes, it is somewhat large but IQ and flexibility really make all the difference.

This is one lens that is going to stay in my bag.

I have played with the 14-24 and was very impressed, but don't own it and therefore don't really feel comfortable making comments on it.

I will say that another recent lens which is just stellar is the 105 VR Macro. It works great in Macro and other distances.

Best,

Ray

 

[Mitch Alland]

The focal lengths that I'm really interested in for street photography are 21, 28 and 40 EFL, for which the 14-24mm lens on the D300 would almost get me there, to 36mm EFL, that is. The trouble, as those who've seen my current photography know, is that my pictures don't depend on resolution or fine gradation and, as I now shoot with the GRD2 using the LCD for framing because it helps achieve a loose, fluid style, I'd have to cross the Rubicons of framing with the viewfinder and carrying the weigh of the 14-24 with the D300. Not sure I can get myself to do that but it's interesting to dream about this kind of outfit, particularly if start changing my current style, which a new radically different camera can encourage one to do.

What I do know is that if I got the 14-24mm lens and the D300 I couldn't resist getting the 24-70mm lens, and would probably also get the 70-200mm lens, which is enticing me because I have to travel to Namibia this weekend for 1-2 week trip...

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[harmsr]

Mitch,

Those 3 zooms would serve you very well to cover everything that you might want to do. I love my 24-70, was impressed playing with the 14-24, and also love my 70-200. Since I opted for the D3, I don't need the 14-24 for my shooting. My third zoom will probably by the 200-400.

Relative to the 70-200, there is a "rumor" that a new version is in the development pipe with the VRII system, a slight change to formula, and the new "N" coatings.

I look forward to seeing what impact a D300 and the new Nikon glass has on your style.

Best,

Ray

 

[harmsr]

Mitch,

One other thing you may want to consider, is the Zeiss 25 or 28 ZF prime on the D300. This makes for a reasonable size package on the D300, which is easy to focus with the factory screen and focus assist light. It would fall into your FL range that you shoot, give you great image quality, good light gathering with the max aperture & ISO performance available. The big advantage is that is much smaller and lighter than using either of the new Nikon Zooms. On the D300, the balance is really nice with the ZF lens.

Best,

Ray

 

[LCT]

...One other thing you may want to consider, is the Zeiss 25 or 28 ZF prime on the D300. This makes for a reasonable size package on the D300, which is easy to focus with the factory screen and focus assist light...

Would you say as easy to focus as with the D3?

 

[harmsr]

Hi LCT,

No not quite as easy on the D3. The D3 screen is a little brighter and the contrast pops into focus more. The D3 also has the arrows on each side of the dot for focus confirmation, plus seems to have a much smaller range of movement for focus which leaves the confirmation light lit.

However, The D300 worked fine for me on the Zeiss lenses up to 50mm focal length. I struggled with the 85 and eventually sold it because of the focussing difficulty even though it was a great lens. (too many misses on focus)

Since the 25 & 28 have more DOF they focus very easily on the D300. Even though these lenses have VERY close minimum focus distances, the screen is good enough at that close and resolution to do the focus without the confirmation light that you use at more distance.

My primes are the Zeiss 25/2.8, Zeiss 50/1.4, Nikon 100/2.8 VR Macro, Zeiss 50/2.0 Macro. The 25/2.8 is a new addition that I really like. The close focus is amazing, along with the resolution at all distances, rendition of colors, and an OOF rendering which suites me well.


Best,

Ray

 

[LCT]

...The D300 worked fine for me on the Zeiss lenses up to 50mm focal length....

Thank you Ray, so no problem at f/1.4 with the ZF 50/1.4?

 

[harmsr]

LCT,

I have no problem with the 50/1.4 even wide open on my since sold D200, sold D300, or the new D3.

FYI only - The ZF 50/1.4 reminds me of the Pre-Asph Lux for the M. You do need to realize that it is soft at 1.4, cleans up at 2.0 significantly, then becomes very sharp at 2.8 and smaller aperture. It does very good on flare resistance, has nice color, great texture rendering, and very pleasing (IMHO) OOF rendering.

Sean had a review about it on his site from a long time ago, which was done on the D200. I don't believe that he had any focus trouble on the D200 either. The D300 does focus easier than the D200.

Best,

Ray

 

[LCT]

..FYI only - The ZF 50/1.4 reminds me of the Pre-Asph Lux for the M. You do need to realize that it is soft at 1.4, cleans up at 2.0 significantly, then becomes very sharp at 2.8 and smaller aperture. It does very good on flare resistance, has nice color, great texture rendering, and very pleasing (IMHO) OOF rendering...

Exactly what i like. I will know what to do if Leica does not launch an R10 to my likings next year. Thanks again.