17-35 or 14-24 on FX camera?

Started Feb 8, 2008 | Discussions thread
Steinar Kibsgaard New Member • Posts: 18
Re: No filters is a deal breaker for me.

Tom_Bruno wrote:

Unlike some people here who say they have every piece of gear Nikon
ever released, my needs and resources dictate that I cannot buy two
very similar wide angle zoom lenses. Both of these lenses are
apparently excellent, but I can't imagine spending $1,500 for a lens
that won't even take a filter.

Wide angle lenses are great for landscapes, bridges and other outdoor
subjects, for which I almost always use some sort of filter. In
daylight I'm almost never without a polarizer, and for sky/earth
shots ND filters are needed to prevent headaches and nightmares in

A buddy of mine has the 17-35, and the shots he gets with it are
stunning. Crisp, sharp, explosively detailed. It is a great lens
capable of great shots. And it takes filters.

The 14-24 also appears to be very crisp, but you must ask yourself
how much the extra 3 mm is worth to you. Is it worth 1. A rather
severe limitation in imaging, since you are unable to use filters.
2. A more limited zoom range, and thus less versatility. 3. An
extra half pound of weight. The 14-24 weighs 2.2 pounds; the D3
weighs 2.4 pounds. 4. No way to protect the front element agains
the inevitable bits of salt, grit or trauma.

For those who can afford everything, or who will generate extra
income from this gear, it's understandable. For me, I think the
choice will be the 17-35, another great and classic Nikon lens.
Tom B

-- hide signature --

I agree if you do get a good copy - I envy those who got it.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow