Why do so many people sell their Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 lenses after just a few tries?

mikew said:

I have rented the 14-24 for travel before, and found the lens wonderful to use. Except for the weight. You just can't get past the weight when traveling. I have never purchased the 14-24 due to the weight. Carrying it around walking through hot cities while traveling, it's just not fun.

The 18-35, however, is light enough to keep in your bag all the time. It got heavy use in Europe and I couldn't be happier with the choice.

But the 14-24 is a spectacular lens.

Click to expand...

I agree that the 14-24 on a full frame body is a fairly large and heavy setup. Therefore, I carry a D7100 with Sigma 8-16. The range of focal lengths is equivalent to the FF 14-24 but it is a lot smaller and lighter setup and just simply more convenient.

Are there people out there who mainly use this lens for people and events versus landscape?

PeterPaul said:

RudyPohl said:

I have been considering buying a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 for landscape photography. Here in Canada we have a popular free version of eBay called Kijiji.com There are always a number of these lenses for sale on this online market where the owner says they used it only once or a few times.

Why do you think that is? Is this lens too difficult to use? Is there too much flare? Are people that put off by no use of filters?

This is such an expensive lens I would assume that people would be slow to buy it new or used and would have done a lot of research before jumping in. Yet, so many buy it and then turn around and sell it without hardly ever using it. Just wondering.....

Rudy

Click to expand...

The reason has been answered by a few posters here but to sum it up the 14-24 is a very specialized lens especially at the wide end and takes skill to use it. The majority that buy it are not skilled but collectors of trophy lenses and soon after buying realize they have no idea how to use it. All the catch phrases like "Holy Trinity" have been coined too often by amateurs as they worship their gear rather that using it. The good news for many is that these lenses are sold at a great discount second hand. The weight thing is a silly notion as how can one not understand the specs along with the filter issue. Does one fork out $2000.00 for a lens , then say" Oh s_ _ _t, this thing is heavy and darn it cannot take filters". That logic is juvenile but so often stated. The pixel peeping crtics are as usual, immersed in single minded useless specs as this lens is the benchmark lens of it's kind and you do not buy this lens for "perfect corners" however there are none better. It's the very common practice of amateurs buying gear they haven't a clue how to use so there should be no mystery at all.

Click to expand...

Yup, it's forum hype as much as anything - folks who, no offence, spend too much time here

Also though, there is this view that for landscape you "need" wide angle - the wider the better apparently. But you need an amazing vista to do that and you really have to know what you're doing. Even then I'd personally find it made everything too small. It's not unlike newbies who always need "extra reach" and can only countenance affording a superzoom. They still can't answer WHY they need "extra wide" or "plenty of reach".

Knowing what lenses really do it for you is based on experience - and circumstance. Takes time to know so experimentation is natural. I bought the holy trinity cause that's what I needed at the time. The 24-70 now, due to a change in my outlook and the fact that I've reduced my photography back to hobby - so that's going. It's a useful lens but it doesn't speak to me. I bought the new Sigma 50mm yesterday and will sell the 24-70 to cover the cost.

My 14-24 is used rarely but I love it for the simple reason that it provides creative opportunities time & time again. I love the close focus and semi fisheye properties if you really abuse its characteristics. When I DO get around to shooting landscapes with it (I still prefer slightly longer focal lengths for landscape images) I do get blown away every time with its ability.

Very useful for group shots. Also very useful for museums and other interior shots. Yes, it's more than just a landscape lens.

To the OP: 1. There are no statistics on what percentage of 14-24 2.8 buyers sell their lenses.

2. Unsatisfied customers and customers agonizing over whether or not to sell are undoubtedly overrepresented in the posters, like with any other product.

3. The main reason is weight, particularly with aged owners.

PSCL1 said:

3. The main reason is weight, particularly with aged owners.

Click to expand...

I guess I'm now an 'aged owner', having turned 60 last year. But the weight doesn't bother me at. The size does.

Some years ago I decided to give up carrying a shoulder bag (hurt my shoulders) in favor of a waist bag. With DX, I was well covered for range, as I put the 10.5dx, 12-24dx, 24-70f2.8 and 80-400AF-D in it with a gripped D300.

With FX, I had to swap out the 12-24 for something else, or simply rely on the 24-70 to be wide enough. I added the 14-24 and shelved the 12-24.

But the 14-24 doesn't fit in the waist bag unless I take out another (more-used) lens.

As I added more gear, I eventually had more gear than would fit in my backpack too. Suddenly the 14-24 became the odd man out there some of the time.

The problem (for me) is that I'm not much of a wide angle shooter. A wider-than-24mm lens is a specialty lens for me. It's not going to be used if it's not with me, but taking it with me means pulling another more-used lens out of a bag to make room.

After some time in this situation I decided to get the 16-35vr, mostly because I was going on a nice 3-week trip to Europe where I thought it would be bad not to have something wide with me. Since a wide lens is used sparingly in my shooting, I don't really care too much about IQ differences between the two zooms - both are good enough. I did miss the 14-16mm width at times though.

I'm interested in how people that regularly use the 14-24 carry it, particularly while traveling, and particularly in terms of what other lenses people carry with it.

PHXAZCRAIG said:

I guess I'm now an 'aged owner', having turned 60 last year.

Click to expand...

Craig

You're not aged, just seasoned....... ;-)

Terry

People don't know how to use this lens that's why.

They bought it because its part of the "trinity" or some other reason. Paper-weight collectors who use lenses to hold down papers on their desk, but found this one costs too much. You might also consider that they were in Real Estate before the boom, but during and after the boom, even to this day, a lot of them got put on the used market (and people just flat out lie and say they recently bought it or only used it a couple time).

One other consideration -- in 2008, this lens cost $1500 U.S. (that's how much I bought mine for) -- today, its sold regularly for $2,000 U.S. (or just around there). So what you will find is that many people bought it for a lower price and are selling it for the same price or even higher.

In other words, for a lens they hardly use -- they are getting their money back.

This is a specialty lens and you need to know how to use it. Furthermore, the 16-35/4 VR impressed a lot of people. There also suddenly exists a lot of cheaper competitors -- not just the 16-28 Tokina, but such as the Nikon 18-35/variable.

28mm and 35mm are a lot more useful for (close to) "normal" photography, and as most users aren't specializing in super-wide angle shots, it means more users shoot closer to wide-normal than ultra-wide. Therefore, it makes sense for them to switch lenses.

But if you need an ultra-wide, the 14-24/2.8 is a hell of a good lens!

And it resolves perfectly fine on a D800 if you understand what the D800 does to lenses; its just that camera has too many damn megapixels for any of the last few decades worth of lenses, except highly sophisticated primes. Almost no zoom holds up well on the D800 under scrutiny. So don't worry about what the D800 does when pixel peeping 36 million mps at 100% on a monitored. Resized at 16mp (from the 36mp!) or 12mp, and printed out, the 14-24 is lovely.

That being said, an 18-35/variable (2nd version) is good enough for most people -- even when traveling and trying to fit in TALL buildings, most people don't go passed 18mm. And the 35mm is VERY helpful when doing portraits of people or getting closer to a normal view. The 16-35mm VR is wider than most people will ever go already but a little more sophisticated. The 14-24mm is for ultra-wide angle junkies!

Oh yeah, and the 14-24 is a really weird shape with a gigantic all-seeing eye that frightens anyone in front of it (to make a portrait even at 24mm you need to be SUPER close) and your subjects cant tell the difference between an ultra-wide and an ultra-zoom, so they think youre focusing up their nostrals! Very intimidating, even if you're not that close. I think people also pick up on the slightly "security camera" look to it and it just makes a slightly more uneasy environment when a subject has never seen an ultra-wide lens before.

The alternative lenses have a more "ordinary" look to them that puts people at ease.

--
Sincerely,


GlobalGuy

My biggest requirement is sharpness. I'm not a crazy pixel peeper, but i don't want to buy overlapping lenses twice, to satisfy the needs for d800 or future camera's. My newest lens 70-200mm F4 for instance, doesn't dissapoint. That kind of sharpness is more then good enough for me.

Pictures from d800+16-35mm on flicker so far dissapoint me, they lack a certain kind of definition. 14-24mm doesn't dissapoint. Anyone disagrees with this assesment? Cause getting a wide angle is the next step for me.

MattiD80 said:

Pictures from d800+16-35mm on flicker so far dissapoint me, they lack a certain kind of definition. 14-24mm doesn't dissapoint. Anyone disagrees with this assesment? Cause getting a wide angle is the next step for me.

Click to expand...

It's very risky to make your assessment of a lens's performance based on images in Flickr. For a start you rarely have access to the full-size original to truly get an idea of the resolution the lens is capable of. Second, you also usually won't know if the shot was done on a tripod, how good the user's shot discipline is, etc. Third, you don't know what processing the Flickr user has applied to their image. They may have extensively sharpened the image, or played with Lightroom's clarity slider.

When reviewing sample images I would strongly suggest sticking to the professional review sites that specialize in making directly comparable images.

> the owner says they used it only once or a few times

If they say "with thousands and thousands of pictures taken", it would be more difficult to sell the lens. It's just marketing

MattiD80 said:

Pictures from d800+16-35mm on flicker so far dissapoint me, they lack a certain kind of definition. 14-24mm doesn't dissapoint. Anyone disagrees with this assesment? Cause getting a wide angle is the next step for me.

Click to expand...

As owner of D800E , 14-24, 16-34 F4 VR, and bunch of Zeiss prime and Canon TSE17 and some other pretty high quality WA lenses, so I am no new to high quality WA lenses, I like the 14-24 a lot more than the 16-35, but sharpness is never the reason, it's the wider field of view and the corner/edge performance of the 14-24 make it a better lens for me, no mater how much I stop it down, the 16-35 never gave me the same edge performance of the 14-24 and Zeiss, and even my $350 Samyang 14mm perform much better in this area. With that being said, I probably still wouldn't consider the 16-35 F4 "disappointing", it's just not technically as great as the 14-24, but it's still a pretty nice lens, i just used that recently because my friend borrowed my 14-24 that day.

Well, i only look at full size flicker images 36mp (7360*4912, wich is the resolution i always look for). Then i Look for landscape/architectural shots. I try to discard the ones, that might be affected, by sun haze, etc. Problem mainly is, D800+ 16-35mm pictures are quite rare, and most seem (like you suggest), bieng handholded (i guess VR lives up to it's name for most ppl, so they back away from tripod). I however saw some tripod mounted pics here a while ago, and while the center sharpness was 'just ok', the corner performance was very bad. To bad for me. Having been spoiled with Sigma 35mm art, 85mm F1.8g, 24-120mm F4, 70-200mm f4 (last one has very surprising level of sharpness for a zoom, wich is what i'm after). The only one who might be a tad behind my sharpness expectations is the 24-120mm. But even that lens is amazing, when used correctly. It has a bit more chromatic abberations, distortions etc as the rest, but all in all when considered, it's still damn sharp. A minimal downsize (like to 24 MP), masks almost all the lens lacks for resolving the D800. But so far the 16-35mm seems even worse then the other two. And the (professional) full ress 14-24mm pictures just speak for themselfs: this lens has very good sharpness.

I'm also considering the 18-35mm, but i'm afraid it might not be wide enough for my needs. I kinda hope, Nikon updates 16-35mm soon, as i feel it could use an update in design. I also don't own a 24mm prime yet, because they are f1.4 and quite expensive, i hope the Sigma 24mm art rumors are true for october this year. Once i can play with that, i can evaluate if i need a lot wider or not.

Dan_168 said:

Dan_168 said:

sharpness is never the reason, it's the wider field of view and the corner/edge performance of the 14-24 make it a better lens for me, no mater how much I stop it down, the 16-35 never gave me the same edge performance of the 14-24

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And I think that's what most people mean by the "sharpness" of the 14-24/2.8 -- really they mean the middle-to-edge performance at ultra-wide angles. For whatever reason, most other manufacturers just aren't able to do this with their smudgy edges and corners (often incredibly smudgy). The 14-24/2.8 is only about as sharp as the 24-70 and 70-200, all of which are, afterall, still zooms.

Most modern lensing primes will outperform zooms in their sweet spot. But even many primes have serious edge and corner problems. The 14-24 goes wide (and has a range of widths) and does better than most, even after how many, the-better-part-of 10, years on the market? Definitely a favorite lens if one dares wield the Eye of Sauron and doesn't feel bad because it doesn't even get one to 28mm for even a 28's "faux-normal" look.

Nothing is normal about this lens.

A lot of the images taken with this lens look like someone stepped back, observing the whole world. No. You are right there, in the middle of that world. You can't even imagine how "far away" your subject looks, despite how close you are to it, until one steps behind this lens at 14mm. Its a craft to get one's self positioned correctly to not make it look unnatural.

P.S. Those pictures are great! Thanks for sharing.

--
Sincerely,
GlobalGuy

The lens is out 7 years (since late 2007). The trinity was released together with d3 camera. BHvideo/amazon.com reviews, of the lens, date back to then (read all of those reviews). They only appear from 2007 and on.

MattiD80 said:

I kinda hope, Nikon updates 16-35mm soon, as i feel it could use an update in design.

Click to expand...

This is not going to happen. The 16-35/4 VR literally just came out, and its excellent. Get it. If someone has experience happily taking images at 17mm or 16mm then they need this lens. They will not be disappointed. Without being super picky about every little thing, its absolutely fantastic.

That being said, almost anything beyond 18mm has the distinct possibility to look "weird" under most circumstances, except in properly trained photographic hands. Those beautiful shots at 14mm and 16mm look beautiful because the photographer is an artist -- not someone who just happens to have a 14-24mm. So if the 16-35mm is excellent, the 18-35mm is great. And the 14-24mm is a challenge. Having 35mm and 28mm focal lengths are INCREDIBLY helpful when you start going crazy from having to think about how to "artistically" manage the 14-24mm (everyone loves having 24mm in their zooms -- but when its the most tele you have, it can be frustrating). You can breathe and relax when you shoot at 28mm and 35mm. But you have to really think hard about how to use 14-24mm properly (key word).

I think the 16-35mm is a great choice and still wider than the 18-35 that most people will buy for budget and casual wide angle.

--
Sincerely,
GlobalGuy

Well the VR is only 2 stops from what i heard (cause it's one of the first lenses they made with VR). Secondly, corners are not so good. With other pictures, i could crop, to mask it. But wide angle only is used when you need wide angle. Cropping is against the nature of the picture then. So weak corners are not a blessing to me. And de 35mm is it's worst focal length. According to AnotherMike, a higly reputable person, who tests lenses on every detail, the 35mm spot, of both wide angles, is incredible weak, surpassed by every 24-X lens, that exists.

What i would want:

Slightly better corner performance (i know perfect ones are not possible). I personally don't need 24-35mm. Sacrafice it for better 16mm performance (distoration and such).

70-200 alike, updated VR.

My 16-35 seems just as sharp as my 14-24.

MattiD80 said:

Well the VR is only 2 stops from what i heard (cause it's one of the first lenses they made with VR).

Click to expand...

The VR is already more than what is practical to take advantage of. Let me explain: the one axis of movement which VR does not compensate for (rotation around the axis of the lens) already becomes a severe problem at 2 stops slower than the 1/16 a 16mm lens would dictate (1/4 sec). A number of my shots are usually affected by this problem when I really push the slow shutter speeds with my 16-35. Hence, there is no point increasing the level of VR compensation because the rotation problem will just get worse at even slower speeds.

MattiD80 said:

Secondly, corners are not so good.

Click to expand...

The corners are just as good as any lens in this range, 16-35, 17-35 and 18-35 - they are all very similar in performance. I have personally evaluated this in back to back tests. Given that the 17-35 is already more than a decade old, this tells us that this performance is the limit of what is technologically possible with a UWA lens of this type of design.

MattiD80 said:

With other pictures, i could crop, to mask it. But wide angle only is used when you need wide angle. Cropping is against the nature of the picture then. So weak corners are not a blessing to me. And de 35mm is it's worst focal length. According to AnotherMike, a higly reputable person, who tests lenses on every detail, the 35mm spot, of both wide angles, is incredible weak, surpassed by every 24-X lens, that exists.

Click to expand...

It is only weak relative to what is possible on other lenses of that focal length nowadays. It is still very usable, especially in situations that don't require full frame sharp results (i.e. anything except landscape and architecture. Again, given that all the current offerings have this performance, it means this is the limits of the optical design.

MattiD80 said:

What i would want:

Slightly better corner performance (i know perfect ones are not possible). I personally don't need 24-35mm. Sacrafice it for better 16mm performance (distoration and such).

Click to expand...

Then buy a 14-24. As GlobalGuyUSA said earlier, the 16-35 is a superb lens. Mine is on my camera at least 70% of the time.

MattiD80 said:

70-200 alike, updated VR.

Click to expand...

I wasn't saying there isn't room for improvement -- but what I was saying is that "it ain't going to happen." Nikon is not going to update the 16-35mm for at least 5 more years.

And the complaints are really niggling some small issues. The fact that a super wide angle has VR at all is pretty much amazing (what do you expect, 6 stops at 16mm? I don't think you really are going to see any difference between 2 stops and 4 stops). The 200mm D and 300mm/4 didn't have VR and it never stopped them from being used fantastically, despite the tele end needing VR way more than the wide end.

And stopped down, the 16-35 is extremely good; better than most zoom lenses that exist today.

So I wouldn't pass it up if one were to have only 1 lens in this range.

However, my personal feelings are that I'm going to complement my 14-24mm with the 18-35mm II (lighter, smaller for travel, and again, those convenient lengths of 28mm and 35mm are included so I can leave the 35mm prime home, which lets me just toss in a 50/1.8D + 70-300VR or something more specialized like and 85/1.4 or whatever).

I'm sure each person will find their own answer.