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

[Rudy Pohl]

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

 

[TDong]

it is hard to use because it is too wide, heavy and can't use filter. most people like 20mm better. Landscape doesn't need f2.8.

i have 14 24 and hardly use it however other people may use it more. all depend i guess. not everyone is the same

 

[yray]

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.....

My guess is that this is exactly the reason, -- they find that they hardly ever use it. I think it is a significant challenge to be able to take compelling shots with UWA lenses. For those who know how to use them effectively and have corresponding opportunities, 14-24 could be spectacular I'm sure. For the rest, it probably doesn't feel like money well spent.

Rudy

 

[Wanchese]

I agree with both prior posts. Additionally, the lens performance in the corners on a D800 was surprisingly poor. Granted, I was shooting wide open, but would have expected muuuch better results.

The last time I had my 12-24 out of the bag was to place it on the Samy's Camera counter investigating it's trade in value towards a used 200 f2. I kept it though. The trade in value was too low and I already have 200mm covered at 2.8. And you never know when 14mm is going to be just the ticket.

 

[axcentphoto]

Yes, the 14-24 f2.8 is 'kantakerous', bulky, heavy and expensive...but I'm not selling mine! Brent

 

[dave gaines]

I have been considering buying a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 for landscape photography. ...

... Is this lens too difficult to use? Is there too much flare? Are people that put off by no use of filters?

.....

Rudy

Hi Rudy,

I have the 14-24 and consider it my best UWA rectilinear lens. It's definitely sharper than the 17-35 or 16-35 mm UWA lenses. It's sharper than the primes from 14 mm to 24 mm. The 14 mm end has unique applications that the 16 mm fisheye can't cover. It has great applications if you know how to use it (or any UWA lens).

Like all of the above UWA lenses, it must be held level and flat to avoid distortion and unatural curvature. It will focus within a foot of the sensor from 18 to 24 mm, allowing close focus WA shots. All of the UWA zooms focus closely but the 14-24 achieves this at very wide angles. It's not a people/portrait lens. People are distorted by UWA lenses, but they can be an interesting addition to any image when placed at the center or at a distance.

I've shot with the Olympus equivalent, the 7-14 mm f/4 for several years before switching to Nikon. I always found unique opportunities with this focal length for architecture and landscapes.

And you can use filters on the 14-24. It's just expensive and cumbersome. For using filters I prefer the 17-35 mm f/2.8.

Spec's from the Nikon website

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_zoom14-24mmf_28g/index.htm

 

[Rudy Pohl]

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful responses.

I have been doing solely wildlife photography for the last 2 years but a few months ago I bought a Nikon 12-24mm F4 and began doing landscapes. Here is some of my stuff so far: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rudypohl/sets/72157644844338092/

Being careful with my technique, and being a self-confessed pixel-peeping fanatic, and hoping to make large format prints of some of my keepers, I am wondering whether going whole hog on a 14-24mm F2.8 is the route I should go for edge-to-edge sharpness. Or whether should simply do my best with the 12-24/F4.

Thanks again,

Rudy

 

[Bing Chow]

Yes, the 14-24 f2.8 is 'kantakerous', bulky, heavy and expensive...but I'm not selling mine! Brent

She is a diva, but I ain't selling her either.

 

[crosstype]

Because I have found better alternatives:

- Zeiss Distagon T* 15mm f2.8, with lens hood modified by Zeiss, to accommodate the Lee push-on filter holder without additional vignetting;

- Rodenstock 23mm f5.6 HR Alpagon with the Phase One IQ260 digital back. Even with a center filter, it is possible to accommodate the Lee push-on filter holder without additional vignetting.

 

[hewhosculpts]

I have been considering buying a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 for landscape photography. ...

... Is this lens too difficult to use? Is there too much flare? Are people that put off by no use of filters?

.....

Rudy

Hi Rudy,

I have the 14-24 and consider it my best UWA rectilinear lens. It's definitely sharper than the 17-35 or 16-35 mm UWA lenses. It's sharper than the primes from 14 mm to 24 mm. The 14 mm end has unique applications that the 16 mm fisheye can't cover. It has great applications if you know how to use it (or any UWA lens).

Like all of the above UWA lenses, it must be held level and flat to avoid distortion and unatural curvature. It will focus within a foot of the sensor from 18 to 24 mm, allowing close focus WA shots. All of the UWA zooms focus closely but the 14-24 achieves this at very wide angles. It's not a people/portrait lens. People are distorted by UWA lenses, but they can be an interesting addition to any image when placed at the center or at a distance.

I've shot with the Olympus equivalent, the 7-14 mm f/4 for several years before switching to Nikon. I always found unique opportunities with this focal length for architecture and landscapes.

And you can use filters on the 14-24. It's just expensive and cumbersome. For using filters I prefer the 17-35 mm f/2.8.

Spec's from the Nikon website

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_zoom14-24mmf_28g/index.htm

 

[Windancer]

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?

Rudy

It's just my thoughts, even though it is an incredible lens, numerous people have mentioned it is big and heavy, has a bulbous front end on it, doesn't take filter that well.

In my case I bought the Nikon 17-35/2.8 instead of the 14-24/2.8. My thinking rightly or wrongly was in my little area of Canada the 17-35 was $300 cheaper than the 14-24, although in my case price had no bearing, but to others it may. The 3 mm difference at the short end was not important to me but as I said before but to others it may, I did like the "extra" 11 mm at the long end making it overlap somewhat with my Nikkor 24-70/2.8 better. I tend to use a Circular Polarizer and ND filters for my landscapes so the 17-35's easy ability to take filters did come into play with me although with such a WA lens you have to be very careful with it's use.

There are a few times I wish I had the 14-24 instead, but overall the 17-35 was the correct choice for me.........YMMV........ ;-)

Terry

--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer
Remember, it's not the CPU that's in your camera that makes great images, it's the one located about 4" behind the viewfinder that does. ;-)
Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise. ;-)

 

[Rudy Pohl]

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?

Rudy

It's just my thoughts, even though it is an incredible lens, numerous people have mentioned it is big and heavy, has a bulbous front end on it, doesn't take filter that well.

In my case I bought the Nikon 17-35/2.8 instead of the 14-24/2.8. My thinking rightly or wrongly was in my little area of Canada the 17-35 was $300 cheaper than the 14-24, although in my case price had no bearing, but to others it may. The 3 mm difference at the short end was not important to me but as I said before but to others it may, I did like the "extra" 11 mm at the long end making it overlap somewhat with my Nikkor 24-70/2.8 better. I tend to use a Circular Polarizer and ND filters for my landscapes so the 17-35's easy ability to take filters did come into play with me although with such a WA lens you have to be very careful with it's use.

There are a few times I wish I had the 14-24 instead, but overall the 17-35 was the correct choice for me.........YMMV........ ;-)

Terry

 

[Windancer]

Thanks so much for your advice Terry, I really appreciate it. By the way, I just took a very quick romp through your pbase galleries and your images are wonderful!!!

Thanks Rudy, good luck in whatever you choose.

Terry

 

[Skytalker]

I have them both 12-24 and 14-24.

The quality of the 14-24 is well known to be excellent and it does hold its own against prime lenses in this focal length. There are filters for this lens, but are expensive. While I do not use it very much I will never sell it. It is part of the tools of trade. Added to the 24-70 and 70-200 will give the comfort to be able to properly address all the situations you need.

 

[StillLearning]

I have been considering buying a Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 for landscape photography. ...

... Is this lens too difficult to use? Is there too much flare? Are people that put off by no use of filters?

.....

Rudy

Hi Rudy,

I have the 14-24 and consider it my best UWA rectilinear lens. It's definitely sharper than the 17-35 or 16-35 mm UWA lenses. It's sharper than the primes from 14 mm to 24 mm. The 14 mm end has unique applications that the 16 mm fisheye can't cover. It has great applications if you know how to use it (or any UWA lens).

Like all of the above UWA lenses, it must be held level and flat to avoid distortion and unatural curvature. It will focus within a foot of the sensor from 18 to 24 mm, allowing close focus WA shots. All of the UWA zooms focus closely but the 14-24 achieves this at very wide angles. It's not a people/portrait lens. People are distorted by UWA lenses, but they can be an interesting addition to any image when placed at the center or at a distance.

I've shot with the Olympus equivalent, the 7-14 mm f/4 for several years before switching to Nikon. I always found unique opportunities with this focal length for architecture and landscapes.

And you can use filters on the 14-24. It's just expensive and cumbersome. For using filters I prefer the 17-35 mm f/2.8.

Spec's from the Nikon website

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_zoom14-24mmf_28g/index.htm

--
Dave

Dave, I see you own both the 17-35 and the 14-24... You said the 14-24 is sharper but I was poking around the test data on both lenses and it seemed that the 17-35 was sharper than the 14-24 at many focal lengths when at its sweet spot (about F5.6.) I not often shoot my 17-35 below F5.6 so wouldn't that make it effectively the sharper of the two in practice?

In the world of UWA 3mm can be quite a bit on the short end. As for sharpness if you're referring to photozone test at 21mm the difference is veru close plus these tests were from test targets 40 to 50 times the focal length. I learned from anotherMike who tests lenses for a living and a lens can be strong at 10 feet and weaker at infinity. I suspect the 14-24 is strong in the inifinity stage. Not that the 17-35 isn't also but it may be a enough. It's not enough for me because I have the 17-35 F2.8. The 14-24 isn't enough of draw especially with the flare I've seen in examples. Right now I shoot more outdoors near and into the sun so I don't need 14-24. Maybe when I start shooting night skies or interiors or close quarters more then I may get one.

 

[xtm]

I've heard people call this the "least used favorite lens"

 

[Bing Chow]

Landscape doesn't need f2.8.

Not during the day. It has its uses at night.

 

[yray]

If you want to try a UWA lens that doesn't break the bank, consider Rokinon/Samyang 14/2.8 prime. It is manual focus, but how much you really need AF for a UWA is questionable. The lens gets absolutely stellar reviews for sharpness. It does have a complicated distortion pattern but for landscape/nature it is probably not that big of a deal if any. Apparently fairly flare-resistant as well, which is a big deal for lenses with huge bulbous front elements, and I've heard that 14-24 doesn't fare exceptionally well in this department. The best thing, it costs a very small fraction of what you'll pay for 14-24, and it will give an idea of how much you really need UWA. I'm considering this lens myself because knowing how little use I'll probably get out of a UWA the expense seems commensurate.

 

[mikew]

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.

 

[dave gaines]

... I have been doing solely wildlife photography for the last 2 years but a few months ago I bought a Nikon 12-24mm F4 and began doing landscapes. Here is some of my stuff so far: https://www.flickr.com/photos/rudypohl/sets/72157644844338092/

Hi Rudy, Those are fine landscapes you're shooting. You've made good use of the 12-24 mm DX lens. What APS camera are you shooting with?

With DX lenses there are two other options you could consider. The Nikon 10-24 mm or Sigma 10-20 mm lenses. I don't know much about either one since I only researched FX lenses for my D800e. But a 10-24 mm lens would be wider than the 14-24 mm f/2.8 and sells for less than half the price. I think people here saw you were asking about an FX lens and assumed you were shooting FF and so you got a lot of responses about the 17-35 mm f/2.8 lens and FX primes.