Need some info on Nikon 14-24/2.8 glass

You're right about the flare. I have had reasonable luck with learning how/when to shield, but I always end up doing some retouch work on the rest - but it's VASTLY easier to retouch out 14-24 flare than flare (in the same scene) from the 16-35 shot at 16mm - been there and done that.

The quality drop at 24mm is noticeable. I should tell you I've got an interesting set of qualifications in this matter in that I've shot for 35 years on a multitude of formats, including 4x5, was a color darkroom printer for a bit, and I test hardware and software systems for a living. Thus, when I state something, it's for a reason. One of the things I did regarding the 14-24 vs the 24 was to do comparison prints at 13x19 on various papers, usually a glossy metallic and also Epson exhibition fiber, which are my two most used papers. I usually print 16x20", but even at 13x19 you could see the corner/edge difference with the 24/1.4G vs the 14-24 at 24mm, even at F/7.1 and of course it would be another notch more noticeable at 16x20 or 17x22. Now, the big thing, as I've oft explained in posts is that whether you can see the difference depends greatly upon subject matter. For example, if I had shot a classic oregon sea stacks at post-sunset night/water scene, there isn't that much high frequency detail in the scene; the water certainly isn't, the sun and clouds aren't, and even the rocks aren't - it's just a pretty basic edge transfer between the black rock and the sky. Not a scene that needs a lot of megapixels or the best lens to get done quite well. However, a scene with fine flower/grass detail all throughout the foreground back to say a waterfall or mountain, with detail in the "tricky spots" in the corners/edges, yup, you'll see the differences I discuss, in said print size. I've done the test prints and seen the results, or I wouldn't be writing this.

Note also that each photographers goals are different. Because I came from a large format background in college, but was never able to afford (in my youth) medium or large format, I always dreamed of being able to have a 35mm form factor camera that would allow me to have the image quality of something much larger. Only when the D800E came out did this (amazingly) come true - when I'm on my game and I'm using the right lenses at the right apertures and I've figured out the scenes needs in terms of fine detail vs depth of field vs camera/lens diffraction and the field curvature or other characteristics of the lens, I'm - for the first time in those 35 years of shooting - able to get beyond 6x7 medium format quality that approaches that of 4x5 film. So while you might mock my testing habits, I've found that in order to reach the image quality goal I prefer, I needed to do it - I seek to fully understand my gear because I know that if I work on maximizing every single aspect of technical performance that the end result, at least technically, will be there. The goal I wish (and have sometimes achieved) will not happen in detail-rich landscape scenes with the 14-24 at 24mm, but it will with the 24/1.4G in the same scene. Been there, experienced that. But I fully admit I have lofty image quality goals. Many others may not.

Nice shot by the way...

-m