Reading mode: Light Dark

14-24 on a D40?

Go to last post
M

MrJibbo

Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
I currently use a 10-20 on a D40. While pleased with the results ( http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=10-20&w=21524785%40N00&ss=2&s=int ), increasingly I'm hitting the limitations of lens (and body). Having saved up I can now afford a 14-24. I plan to upgrade bodies too, but am loathe to invest in a D300 or other DX body as I won't get the best out of the 14-24, and it would be a pretty short-termist move. However, GBP2,000 is an awful lot of money to spend on a body, albeit an FX one (ie the D700).

So I'm - slightly bizarrely - considering getting the 14-24 now and using it on the D40 while I wait for FX affordability (ie until the D700 falls to around GBP1,500 around this November, which if past history of any other body indicates it surely will).

Enough background. My specific question then is has anyone used the 14-24 on a D40? Did it feel very unbalanced or unwieldy?

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/markgibson/
 
Tought one...

I dont think u will get the most of the 14-24 on a D40.... i look at some of ur pics (which are very nice) and noticed that lots of them are at the widest end... so in a DX body the 14-24 is not THAT wide.

What are the limitations of ur current wide lens?...

--
Gonzalo
 
Took a look at your pictures with the 10-20 and had to comment. They're fantastic - great work! Hope you don't mind - added you as a contact on flickr so I can see what you do next :)

As for the 14-24... I haven't used it, but looking around it seems like it's only 20% heavier than the Sigma 50-150 that you have (or at least shoot with) and I would imagine it's a touch shorter? So I'd think the balance is about the same.

Like others, I'm wondering what limitations you're running into. Is it mostly that you want a faster aperture wide open for your night and interior shooting? If so, a lot of people seem to be saying nice things about the new Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which would keep you almost as wide as your Sigma on DX....

-t
--
http://flickr.com/photos/tfenne/
 
On a DX sensor I would have thought a 14~24 would be even more limiting than a 10~20 if your aim is to go wide.
What are the limitations you are coming up against?
 
Thanks for the replies (and compliments).

In case it wasn't 100% clear, the 14-24 on a D40 would be an interim measure only. Provided it's not unbalanced/unuseable (which it seems it wouldn't be) the plan is to reap the benefits within the not-as-wide-as-it-could-be range, as well as get used to the lens's handling, until the D700 undergoes its price drop later in the year. (Basically I've got the cash together for my dream lens, it's hard to then say, okay I'll wait another few months until I get an FX body!)

Re: the questions about the 10-20. It's been the most fun I've had with a camera and the first lens I bought. It remains stunning value for money in my opinion. However, I'm increasingly shooting low light cathedral interiors, cloisters and the like. Shooting the 10-20 wide open at ƒ4, ISO1600 and handheld speeds as low as 1/10s doesn't add up to great sharpness (decent, but not great). I've had a commercial enquiry about using images on calendars, and non-commercial enquiries from friends and family who would like large prints, so the need for better sharpness and IQ (as well as more than the 6MP of the D40) is growing all the time.

Thanks again for the help.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/markgibson/
 
...your photography deserves it.

The 14-24 is the best wide zoom by Nikon (or probably by everobody else), everything else is a compromise. It's also your only choice if you stick to FF for the future.

Yes, it is not as wide on DX, but seeing your pictures, you will have no problems working around it and you still have stellar quality. And you still have your 10-20 if you must go wider on the D-40.

Very nice pictures! Congratulations!
 
MrJibbo said:
However, I'm increasingly shooting low light
cathedral interiors, cloisters and the like.
Click to expand...
A tripod.

You will always get the best of any lens when stopped down. And that goes for all lenses.

For general stuff, if u dont have to get rid of ur 10-20 then go-head.. maybe u can rent a 14-24 and see how u feel... its not a cheap lens... u must be 100% sure thats what u need

--
Gonzalo
 
Did you ever tried stitching images together? You get extreme quality and the field you choose.

I never did it, but saw some very stunning images printer on 2 x 3 m
 
speaking only about physical and balance, I have 14-24 on d70. I felt that my ring finger and pinky bear most of the weight, because the lens pulls down forward. I felt the strain on my fingers after using it continuously in 15-20 minutes.

Then, I bought, a camdapter hand strap to replace the neck strap. It helps to distribute the weight to the back of my palm. Then I bought the Hahnell battery grip to add more weight in the camera, to balance the weight of the lens. It works better now, not the best, but workable, until I'll buy the FX.

--
AM
 
The first thing I woud like to comment is WOW WOW, what great photos in your web site, congratulations.

Now, to your question. There is some optical improvements, but not a huge leap like you might think with the photos that have been shown in this site. Like if we see your photos, they are awesome, I even want to buy that lens back again !!!

The D40 is a special camera, the IQ is extraordinary, better than higher models. In my mind the D40 and the D3 go hand in hand, they are both exceptional cameras.

seeing your photography and your interest in wide angles at low light, I would say, save your money and do not buy the nikkor. Wait and buy the D700, it has the low light/ high ISO capability of the D3 and it will not be a huge jump for you size wise.

By doing this, you can then get used to full frame and then focus on wide angle choices. Remember that you can use the d700 in DX mode with your Sigma meanwhile.

Then you can study the nikkor, another wide angles like the 20mm and 24mm nikkor, the 12-24mm sigma, etc.

Now, going back to your original question, the 14-24mm feels good and looks great on the D40, at least to me.

--



http://www.hondurasart.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2180
 
gonzalikus said:
gonzalikus said:
However, I'm increasingly shooting low light
cathedral interiors, cloisters and the like.
Click to expand...
A tripod.
You will always get the best of any lens when stopped down. And that
goes for all lenses.
Click to expand...
This lens is special, the resolution at F2.8 is kind of amazing. The only reason to stop this guy down is to increase dof


gonzalikus said:
For general stuff, if u dont have to get rid of ur 10-20 then
go-head.. maybe u can rent a 14-24 and see how u feel... its not a
cheap lens... u must be 100% sure thats what u need

--
Gonzalo
Click to expand...
--
Best
Shaun
http://shaun.zenfolio.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top