Anyway I have a question, how does the 16-35mm f/4 VR compare to this lens? Im deciding between the two for an FX body...Would appreciate some advice.
@plm123456100 I wouldn't recommend the 14-24mm f/2.8 with the D5000, it is usually used with full-frame bodies (ie: the d700 and up) to get the best results out of this lens. If you are looking for a wide-angle lens for your D5000, try the Nikon 12-24 mm f/4 lens or the f/3.5-4. Alternatively, you could try the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6. Of these 3 lenses, I would go with the Nikon 12-24mm, it is a great lens for a decent price (second hand in particular) and you can't go wrong.
The 14-24mm normally do not have any rainbow effect. In this case, it sounds like you have a water speckle or stain on the lens' front glass element. It could cause rainbow effect when pointing at bright light sources. Please have your lens cleaned.
Hello! My lens is almost brand-new, clean and now I have one more pic. with two rainbows exactly on the opposite side. Maybe I don't know what is a rainbow effect and I make a confusion. Check my pictures:
I was planning to buy this lense to take pictures for events like in nightclubs, for weddings or even diners at restaurants...
Do you think this is a good lense for that?
The thing is that I would like to buy it to use it most of the time for these kind of shots but I would also like to be able to take landscape shots when I have the occasion
This is why I would prefer this one to the 17-35mm
We would recommend you to rent the 14-24mm and 17-35mm out for a week or two to see and decide for yourself. 14-24mm for extra 3mm at the wide end and lower risk of flaring. 17-35mm for extra 11mm at the far end and accepts glass filters. Both lenses are really good performers so it is difficult to decide unless you try them out.
Thanks for your response, just to clarify, the spot i have , loooks like a little burn mark, its kinda like melted.... not even or uniform shape. hard to bethink its menat to be there?? IS this normal? what is it for? are you sure all the 14-24 have that....t i was thinking of return and exchange..... you r info is much appreciated
Honestly, we do not know why it is there. Several other lenses have the same thing for no explainable reason. But since it seem to be working fine (focus, zoom, movements, etc.) then you do not need to worry about it. You can contact Nikon via telephone to ask the question because it is actually a good question.
HI, thnaks for your great review. I just got the nikon 14-24mm. There seem to be a small roundish unusaul mark on th eplastic just outside the glass...does your have that?
though the quality is extremely good, DO NOT BUY THIS LENS IF YOU HAVE A APS-C SENSOR NIKON SLR. you are paying $1800 for the corner sharpness, and wide angle, which you will never see on a d300 or something
We do not have any experience with brand X lens to brand Y adapters so we are unable to help with you but this site sells those adapters, 16-9***net/nikon_g (replace the *** with .).
i did not need that as i have NO canons(maybe in the future for adapting m42 and C/y Carl zeiss(as they ae now dirt cheap n good)) just saw the adapter in the glass shelf when i am buying some filters
"Objects appears to be closer than shown in the viewfinder", which means in the viewfinder the subjects seem to be far away but outside of the viewfinder (with your eyes only), the subjects are actually closer.
Take a look at your car's mirror, it will say the same.
I'm not sure I'd say this lens is exactly ideal for landscape, as it can't take filters. The 17-35mm f2.8 is probably a better bet for landscape photography, though it's unfortunately now been discontinued.
The 14-24mm is still considered a landscaping lens because you can use it at nighttime for beautiful landscape photograph with a lot of stars without any need for filters. Astronomy + landscape = cool, right?
I was interested to see that you didnt reccomend this lens for portraits. I was looking at this lens for taking group shots at weddings. I,m currently using a DX 12-24mm dx lens on my D3 but i'm disappointed with some of the results compared to ones taken with my 70-200mm VR 2.8 which are much sharper.
What lens would you recommend this lens in this situation ?
For formal group shots, it is the best to use 24-70mm ƒ/2.8 or lenses in similar focal lengths Step back for more depth of field.
It is the best to use standard zooms or lenses to prevent distortion that makes people's faces bulged out, unlike the 14-24mm. A lot of event photographers, who use wide angle lenses for group shots, will disagree with this fact but it's true.
How exactly do you achieve the 'star effect'? Is it simply by pointing at a bright light source? Also, how do you define what is a good vs. bad star effect? as the f/stop gets smaller the definition of the light rays increases...I would say that's a good star effect. Just curious :)
The best star effect is when it's almost soft, but harsh because it is not natural looking. Also, due to lens diffraction beyond F/8 on DX (F/16 for FX / Film), some star effect cannot be accomplished at the lower apertures without losing the quality.
A lot of people bought big and expensive lenses just because it looks sexy on their cameras. It's useable on the D300, no problem, except it won't be as wide as expected due to 1.5X focal length multiplier, which makes the 14-24mm a 21-36mm lens.
Yeah it's kinda pointless getting it for anything other that the D3 series, D700 and some of the F series. You can get very similar DX alternatives for the other nikon DSLRs
Is this a fisheye or a ultrawideangle zoom lens?
Inzane13371 3 months ago
@Inzane13371 wide angle zoom lens.
superkiwizorro 3 months ago
Sorry Did not see the Video Bit there it Said about it But Thanks Anyway
PhotographyEquipment 4 months ago
Always love your vids...
Anyway I have a question, how does the 16-35mm f/4 VR compare to this lens? Im deciding between the two for an FX body...Would appreciate some advice.
Thanks
stanboy123 5 months ago
They're completely incomparable. Watch this video for yourself: /watch?v=9afyHsVNvYc
Lilkiwiguy87 5 months ago
This lens is sexy :D
yoloop93 11 months ago
Your videos have the best music!
DylanTheHammer 1 year ago
will this be good with the d5000?
plm123456100 1 year ago
Do not know, it is up to you. Rent it out.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
@plm123456100 I wouldn't recommend the 14-24mm f/2.8 with the D5000, it is usually used with full-frame bodies (ie: the d700 and up) to get the best results out of this lens. If you are looking for a wide-angle lens for your D5000, try the Nikon 12-24 mm f/4 lens or the f/3.5-4. Alternatively, you could try the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6. Of these 3 lenses, I would go with the Nikon 12-24mm, it is a great lens for a decent price (second hand in particular) and you can't go wrong.
Hope this helps!
CCaseyPhotography 11 months ago
@plm123456100
It would be great, but you wouldn't get the full potential of this lens, since your's is a DX camera.
video also stats its usless for DX camera's over f/8.0
I would spend my money on an FX camera instead. eg D700.
egn93 6 months ago
hello! "No rainbow effect could be seen at any apertures" I have a picture with 2 (two) rainbows!!!
But the lens is great!
Nikon D700, Nikkor 14-24 f/2,8, Nikkor 50mm f/1,4
lungulet 1 year ago
The 14-24mm normally do not have any rainbow effect. In this case, it sounds like you have a water speckle or stain on the lens' front glass element. It could cause rainbow effect when pointing at bright light sources. Please have your lens cleaned.
No need to tell the others what you have.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
@Lilkiwiguy87
Hello! My lens is almost brand-new, clean and now I have one more pic. with two rainbows exactly on the opposite side. Maybe I don't know what is a rainbow effect and I make a confusion. Check my pictures:
lungulet 1 year ago
ya, it's seems that I can not post links
lungulet 1 year ago
Upload the picture on imageshack.us , copy the direct link, then email us the link via YouTube.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
@Lilkiwiguy87 nice comment.
behbeh144 5 months ago
Huh?
Lilkiwiguy87 5 months ago
I was planning to buy this lense to take pictures for events like in nightclubs, for weddings or even diners at restaurants...
Do you think this is a good lense for that?
The thing is that I would like to buy it to use it most of the time for these kind of shots but I would also like to be able to take landscape shots when I have the occasion
This is why I would prefer this one to the 17-35mm
what is your suggestion?
bogoss700 1 year ago
We would recommend you to rent the 14-24mm and 17-35mm out for a week or two to see and decide for yourself. 14-24mm for extra 3mm at the wide end and lower risk of flaring. 17-35mm for extra 11mm at the far end and accepts glass filters. Both lenses are really good performers so it is difficult to decide unless you try them out.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
Thanks for your response, just to clarify, the spot i have , loooks like a little burn mark, its kinda like melted.... not even or uniform shape. hard to bethink its menat to be there?? IS this normal? what is it for? are you sure all the 14-24 have that....t i was thinking of return and exchange..... you r info is much appreciated
Thanks again for you great video
EthanJivana 1 year ago
Honestly, we do not know why it is there. Several other lenses have the same thing for no explainable reason. But since it seem to be working fine (focus, zoom, movements, etc.) then you do not need to worry about it. You can contact Nikon via telephone to ask the question because it is actually a good question.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
the only con for this lens is that it does not accept filters. a let down for filter users.
1986Chaitanya 1 year ago
Uh, yeah, the video already said so at 4:35.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
HI, thnaks for your great review. I just got the nikon 14-24mm. There seem to be a small roundish unusaul mark on th eplastic just outside the glass...does your have that?
EthanJivana 1 year ago
Yes. All 14-24mm's have that.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
though the quality is extremely good, DO NOT BUY THIS LENS IF YOU HAVE A APS-C SENSOR NIKON SLR. you are paying $1800 for the corner sharpness, and wide angle, which you will never see on a d300 or something
HelloNewYorkCity 1 year ago
Lose the wideness on a DX body? Yes, of course.
Corner sharpness? No one cares about it and viewers don't look at photographs in the corners instead of the whole picture.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
are this lens good on my d300s? are the result same wide as FX body? thanks..
TheiGhoest 1 year ago
You only need to post the comment once, not 9 times.
Rent the lens out for a week or two to see how you like it on your D300s.
No, it won't be as wide as on a FX body due to 1.5X crop factor on your D300s.
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
Anyone know of a really good adaptor ring for my Canon 5D Mark II that I can use with this lens and maintains most of the functions of my camera?
Thanks,
The Meltdownman
meltdownman1 1 year ago
We do not have any experience with brand X lens to brand Y adapters so we are unable to help with you but this site sells those adapters, 16-9***net/nikon_g (replace the *** with .).
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
@meltdownman1 from what i seen before in a shop there is a nikon F to canon EOS with some chip... dunnoe if it is good?
PhotoRelax 1 year ago
If you saw it in the store, why didn't you give it a try?
Lilkiwiguy87 1 year ago
i did not need that as i have NO canons(maybe in the future for adapting m42 and C/y Carl zeiss(as they ae now dirt cheap n good)) just saw the adapter in the glass shelf when i am buying some filters
PhotoRelax 1 year ago
how on earth is this lens replacement for 17-35? it's totally different. if any i think 16-35 could replace it, but not this one.
gilegraam 1 year ago
I'm sure that in the video you meant to say; "subject would appear to be further than..." not "...closer than..."
= )
A1StudioPhotography 2 years ago
"Objects appears to be closer than shown in the viewfinder", which means in the viewfinder the subjects seem to be far away but outside of the viewfinder (with your eyes only), the subjects are actually closer.
Take a look at your car's mirror, it will say the same.
Lilkiwiguy87 2 years ago
There's a little dent/hole on the edge of the element that holds the front glass element. Do you happen to know what it's for?
w0ble 2 years ago
To be honest, we have absolutely NO idea what it is for but it is common in a lot of lenses nowadays.
Lilkiwiguy87 2 years ago
I'm not sure I'd say this lens is exactly ideal for landscape, as it can't take filters. The 17-35mm f2.8 is probably a better bet for landscape photography, though it's unfortunately now been discontinued.
SLRist 2 years ago
The 14-24mm is still considered a landscaping lens because you can use it at nighttime for beautiful landscape photograph with a lot of stars without any need for filters. Astronomy + landscape = cool, right?
Lilkiwiguy87 2 years ago
I was interested to see that you didnt reccomend this lens for portraits. I was looking at this lens for taking group shots at weddings. I,m currently using a DX 12-24mm dx lens on my D3 but i'm disappointed with some of the results compared to ones taken with my 70-200mm VR 2.8 which are much sharper.
What lens would you recommend this lens in this situation ?
badger0681 2 years ago
For formal group shots, it is the best to use 24-70mm ƒ/2.8 or lenses in similar focal lengths Step back for more depth of field.
It is the best to use standard zooms or lenses to prevent distortion that makes people's faces bulged out, unlike the 14-24mm. A lot of event photographers, who use wide angle lenses for group shots, will disagree with this fact but it's true.
Lilkiwiguy87 2 years ago
How exactly do you achieve the 'star effect'? Is it simply by pointing at a bright light source? Also, how do you define what is a good vs. bad star effect? as the f/stop gets smaller the definition of the light rays increases...I would say that's a good star effect. Just curious :)
bridgeoverwater627 2 years ago
That's correct, simply done.
The best star effect is when it's almost soft, but harsh because it is not natural looking. Also, due to lens diffraction beyond F/8 on DX (F/16 for FX / Film), some star effect cannot be accomplished at the lower apertures without losing the quality.
Lilkiwiguy87 2 years ago
seems like it may not be a good lens for a d300. but i see all these other reviews saying that it is good for a d300. i'm confused.
squirerad 2 years ago
A lot of people bought big and expensive lenses just because it looks sexy on their cameras. It's useable on the D300, no problem, except it won't be as wide as expected due to 1.5X focal length multiplier, which makes the 14-24mm a 21-36mm lens.
Lilkiwiguy87 2 years ago
Yeah it's kinda pointless getting it for anything other that the D3 series, D700 and some of the F series. You can get very similar DX alternatives for the other nikon DSLRs
DemonicGenocide 2 years ago
I got the 14-24 when I got my D300
It's an amazing lens and works flawlessly with the D300.
Bonus is if you get an FX Nikon then you don't have to start selling/buying new lenses. you already have what you need.
c11umw 2 years ago