Shared publicly  - 
I'm posting tomorrow's stuff early, as I have some other things I need to do tomorrow morning. So: my review of the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G lens is now posted at
A review of the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G lens by Thom Hogan
Jared Roberts's profile photoSean Molin's profile photoRobert Williams (soonerpa)'s profile photosharaf f's profile photo
It's very very very nice, but I don't use my 17-35 that much on my D3s... I do however, really look forward to someday having a 24-70! I miss using the 17-35 on my D200 though... it was a great combination. =D
I certainly appreciate the data; the more reviews from multiple points of view the better. I'm probably never going to buy one, even, but should I ever find myself in a position where renting is an option, at least I'm not going in completely blind.
+Andy Kainz Good point. The 17-35mm was an interesting lens for the DX shooter, basically giving them 26-50mm f/2.8. The newer 16-35mm is also interesting, as it gives you ~24-50 on DX, which for many is a very useful range.
I haven't read your review yet, so maybe you've already answered this, but how does the 16-35 compare, optically, with the 14-24? I currently use the 17-35 and probably won't replace it any time soon but if I were to, I would hesitate between these two lenses, as I do consider the 24 to 35mm to be useful. However, one of my uses for the 17-35 is at f2.8 and the 16-35 won't help for that, which might be good enough a reason not to consider it. Well, I've got plenty of time to think about it.
+Thom Hogan indeed... but my only DX body right now is a Nex-5 which I could use with the 17-35, but I would lose some advantages/crutches... like Autofocus. Such is life...
+Thom Hogan I love that motorcycle shot! It should be promoted to the front page and discussed about!
+Thomas Paris Wait for the 16-35mm review for that. Short answer, the 16-35mm is better than the 17-35mm (except for the f/2.8 bit).
+Gary Gray Does it seem like I care about being first at anything? ;~)
+Davide Del Vento It was on the front page in 2009 ;~)
I have had this for nearly two years and have used it off and on. I don't miss the lack of ability to use a filter. I ahve used it to shoot weddings and especially the reception, lots of fun shooting down into the dance floor. But I always carry the cap in my hand or pants pocket and it goes back on immediately after the shot. It does have a bulbus front element.
I've now read your review and I'm intrigued by what you say about the Tokina 11-16. Should I understand that it (more or less) matches on DX the angle of view one gets with the Nikkor on FX or that it matches it optically? I believe it's the former but I'm not sure I read that right.
Excited to see a review on the 16-35mm F4 along with a comparison - being able to slap a polarizer on it seems to be a big advantage, as does the lighter weight and extra range for being on a budget. I'm currently trying to decide on which to go with for FX.
Great lens with stellar performance.
Did you tried it with the custom SW150 Lee filter holder? I have been notified that a batches of the almost rare items have been delivered to BH and seriously thinking to get one with few square filters.
+Thomas Paris The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, based on images of the 14-24 I've compared to my own Tokina shots, is not as good, optically, as the 14-24. It is, however, very good in its own right, and is unique among (most? All?) small-sensor wide angle lenses with its wide aperture. In terms of AoV, it is not quite as wide on DX as the 14-24 on FX. It is, however, less than one-third the cost and much lighter... it is these qualities that make it a better "fit" for DX, and the only DX-specific alternative (among significant lens makers, anyway) with the 2.8 aperture.
Hope that the 16-35 review is next. I do use GNDs very often which makes the 14-24 difficult to justify cost-wise. In addition to the $2k for the lens you need to drop $1k on filters that cannot be shared with anything else. I am currently shooting DX (10-24 WA) and am contemplating FX with the D800, and the WA choices are a real dilemma. All of them are so big and heavy.
I wish there were more options for ultra-wide primes, especially for DX dedication. Versatility is good, but I tend to use my widest setting far more often than not, and higher quality in same or smaller sized package would be great. Like Samyang's 8mm fisheye; heck, I wouldn't even mind manual focus, especially for an ultra wide. Samyang 8mm rectilinear DX, please?
Just love the motorcycle shot. Love. It. I remember it vaguely from 2009. +Thom Hogan - Just how close to that bike were you? I can smell the 2 stroke exhaust.
Second that, +Christopher Lillja! Stunning motorcycle shot, and opened my eyes to the possibility of using ultra-wides like I never have!
Now I have to wait for your tokina 11-16 review. :)
+Thomas Paris I've played with both the 14-24 (which I sold) and the 16-35. The 16-35 is a very decent performer but nowhere near the 14-24 (specially in the corners). However, it has many advantages too (you can put filters, the longer range, the VR). But I am sure +Thom Hogan will have more to say about it.
Thanks, that confirms my intuition.
+Mirek Petricek - Interesting, didn't know about this lens! Just read the review on it. Do you know if there's a decent lightroom lens profile available for it to get rid of the moustache distortion?
This is absolutely one of my favorite all time lenses. Other than the size and weight that you talk about, it is just fantastic.
+Christopher Lillja The camera was positioned on a groundpod literally at the apex of the corner. I have images where the rider's foot is cut off because it is above the camera position. This image actually was one of the ones where the rider was further away ;~). I was a full step back from the camera firing it via Pocket Wizard, but I was still being hit by flying mud, too.
+Mirek Petricek Could be sample variation, but I haven't found the Samyang 14mm to be near the 14-24mm in quality. It's slightly better than the Nikkor 14mm f/2.8, which is desperate need of redesign.
This review came in the right time, I am $400 and 3 weeks away from buying this lens. I hesitated because I thought i would scratch it but I spoke to a photographer who was using this lens and he told me not to worry, just put the cap on when you;re not shooting. I would buy this lens to complete my 2.8 line of fx lenses. It's now on to the 1.4 range after buying this. The buying never stops.
The only bit I don't agree with is the low "value" rating - I think it's worth every penny, after all, it's one of only 2 lenses that makes me want to go and find something to shoot with it because I love the optics so much.
On top of my wishlist, for sure, although I'm still having thoughts about the 17-35, since I tend to abuse my equipment in the worst possible way - I don't clean often.
I have the 17-35 and what a sharp lens it is, it's so wide that I find myself getting really close to my subjects. Its hard to take a bad photo with this lens.
Very interesting - glad to have some new reviews :) I've found myself drawn to prime lens shooting - will you be reviewing/comparing this to the 14mm f/2.8? I would be interested in any comment you have on this lens..
"But do carry cleaning equipment around with you." — What do you recommend for cleaning? Any special considerations for this lens?
+Max Nam-Storm nailed my thoughts about value. It's like having legendary primes at 14, 16, 18, and 21mm all in one. But yes, this lens is wonderful, and I bring one with me on every shoot, and have for the past 2 1/2 years. I absolutely agree with your "don't baby it" sentiment. I'm not careless with it, but I do what I've got to do... everything from crazy hard rock concerts, to telling a snowboarder to come as close to me as humanly possible without hitting me. I find the more risk you take with the 14-24, the more reward you receive.
Add a comment...