17-35 f2.8 to be available in the future

[DavidL]

or so I heard when I picked up a 14-24 f2.8 today.
As I understand it it is the same spec. as before but being kept in the line up for filter users.
Don't hold me to this it's just what I heard.
David

 

[fultonpics]

hey thanks--i'm going to dump my 14-24 asap. dumb design without filter

 

[Ocean]

I have used my 17-35 for several years and been happy with it. After I got my D700 recently, I have been thinking about getting the 14-24. Is the 14-24 that much better in the range from 17 to 24?

Kind regards,

 

[fultonpics]

mine is kinda of sharp but not having a filter is bad--so easy to scratch the front unless you are careful (i am). sort of takes the fun out of having the lens.

 

[DavidL]

I have used my 17-35 for several years and been happy with it. After I got my D700 recently, I have been thinking about getting the 14-24. Is the 14-24 that much better in the range from 17 to 24?

Kind regards,

Can't help with personal comparison but according to the many reviews around the web the 14-24 is as good as it gets. I'm still on crop Nikons so the 14-24 is a 21-36 for me which is what I wanted. If work picks up and I go full frame I'll have a great wide, even ultra wide. The main problem, with that, will be keeping my belly out of the shots
All I was told is the 17-35 is same spec. as the old one. I can't confirm this but I got the impression it was just going back into production due to demand from people wanting to use filters. I am also probably not alone in thinking 17-35 is also more desirable on full frame. Maybe they can put nano coating into the mix.
Must admit the dome on the front of the 14-24 is "Vast and bulbous" which is also how Captain Beefheart would describe it. Possibly the best reason to get it other than it's optical properties:thumbs:.
David

 

[woodyspedden]

I owned the 17-35 for a number of years and thought it to be one of Nikon's best. Best flare control imaginable. It was nice to be able to use filters but on UWA the use of filters, especially polarizers, have marginal value.

So when the 14-24 became available I went for it based on the files I saw from it. And I have never been disappointed. And now, since the max end is only 24 (still SWA) the filter issue is even less important than before.

JMHO

Woody

 

[Rethmeier]

I had the 17-35 and used it with my Canon.
****s all over the Canon 16-35 Mk1. Did not test the MkII version.
Now with my D3x I use the 14-24.
Awesome lens! More usefull for me as the 17-35,mainly that I have the 24PC-E and a Zeiss ZF 35.
Also I don't like filters on my superwide lenses.
However I do have a couple of B&W Keaseman Polas that I use on the 24 and 35.

 

[Marc Wilson]

For a lot of shooters the ability to use solid nd for slower shutter speeds and polariser filters for reducing reflections is very important...I use them a lot in my interiors / exteriors work and so for these reasons the filter ready 17-35 may be a better option...but didn't someone work out a way to use square filters on the 14-24 with a modified lens hood or similar?

 

[ddk]

I guess I'm in the minority here but I can't stand my 17-35 in every way you can when it comes to a lens. This my 3rd and I already sent this one twice to Nikon and they tell me that its within their specs. I find the AF iffy most of the time, the contrast too high, sharpness? what sharpness? generally too soft until f8 where its just acceptable for some things, worse of all I really hate its rendering, making it the most over priced Nikkor in my books. Definitely not in 14-24's league for me.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I am sort of on the fence with it. Mine focuses fine and I love the focal length range, but it just isn't very sharp edge to edge, and I am not too keen on the overall look of the lens (as david mentioned -- the colors and contrast...it just seems....wrong). While it is better with distortion than the 24-70 in the 24-35 range, it is not nearly as sharp in the corners, and it never gets close. I find I am mostly using my 35mm f/2 AFD (which is really not THAT much better....shooting Leica and Zeiss really spoils you). If I can get my 19mm elmarit shaved so I can use it on the D3, then I think I may sell the 17-35, as useful as it is.

 

[ddk]

shooting Leica and Zeiss really spoils you). If I can get my 19mm elmarit shaved so I can use it on the D3, then I think I may sell the 17-35, as useful as it is.

Take a look at the 18mm ZF, its quite a wonderful lens.

Having used German glass I fully agree with you but in my case I never warmed up to this lens, even prior to using any Zeiss glass.

 

[Rethmeier]

I'm experimenting with a 6 inch Tiffen Ultra Pol in front off my Nikkor 14-24.
It looks like I can use it at 14mm and get full frame Pola correction.
The only draw back is that I have to hold the filter.
So tripod use only with my set-up,which is no problem.