Advice on D700 Wide Zoom Lenses

delizo23 · Oct 8, 2009

out of the 17-35 and the 14-24, which one would you guys pick? (assuming no price limit, although theyre almost the same price). it would be used for shooting lowlight professional weddings and also a walking around lens for everyday shooting. how's does the distortion, sharpness, and versitility compare to one another?

also, could you use the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 on a d700? is that lens full frame? what are your suggestions on using that as opposed to the 17-35 or 14-24? i know the price difference is drastic, so i assume it doesnt perform as well. can you get away with shooting professional low light wedding pictures with this lens? is the distortion as bad as the sigma 10-20mm?

any other good wide angle zoom lenses i can use that you prefer more than these 3?

thanks in advance for your advice. :hug::

SpeedTrap · Oct 8, 2009

The 14-24 wins agains all of them for Image Quality, it is the sharpest lens ever made in this range. It has very little distortion even at wide angles. It is a great lens for weddings but you may find it a bit short for a walk around lens.

For a walk around I think you would want the 24-70 F2.8.

delizo23 · Oct 8, 2009

cool cool. so 17-35 isnt sharp? or isnt as sharp? i was leaning more towards the 14-24 too

twozero · Oct 8, 2009

i have a sigma 17-35 and find it overly wide for most things. I much prefer my 24-70 for a walkaround. with the full frame, 24mm is usually wide enough.

as for the weddings, the local photog that I shoot with/for, the wide angle is the last on the list of lenses used. we use it for supplement and background shots for the albums. its not flattering for people. it does come in handy for some things but its only used a lot if we have 3 or more shooters at a wedding.... just a little food for thought

Derrel · Oct 8, 2009

While the 14-24 is optically the best wide zoom made by any manufacturer--better than even some $1,800 Zeiss primes, it is a very huge lens,and it is also a range that I find not appropriate for people photography uses--it's simply too wide at the wide end, and not long enough on the long end for much social photography. The 17-35 was the previous generation's best wide lens, and still is a fine performer on a 12MP sensor, and it's probably the better lens to choose if you want to photograph social events, weddings,etc.

People do not look good when photographed with ultra-wide angle focal lengths, and the edges of the frame suffer a lot from distortion. Frankly, I would choose neither of those lenses for wedding use, nor for walkaround use: I would choose the 24-70 instead.

delizo23 · Oct 8, 2009

hmmmmmm. oh man, u guys got me thinking now. i was set on one of the two. and now im thinking about the 24-70. im getting a new d700 and i just dont know what my first lens will be. and you know what, come to think of it, i would get better results with the 24-70.

Antithesis · Oct 9, 2009

Yeah, wide-angles require a lot of thought for shooting people directly. But, for the big-flowy-dress shot in front of the church, or the first dance or some detail shots, an ultra-wide can definitely get some oohs and aahs, IMO. It also depends on your style. If you shoot "PJ" style, an ultra-wide might not be the best. But if you shoot very stylized images (i.e. non-traditional, tilted, funky angles, etc.), an ultra-wide can be a great tool. I used to shoot on a 20mm for probably 50-60% of my shots during a wedding, but I fall into the latter category, and I'd usually be working with someone that was shooting a 50mm+.

chip · Oct 9, 2009

I vote for the 14-24mm - it is the best wide angle zoom in the world. This is a no brainer.

kundalini · Oct 10, 2009

Optically, the 14-24mm is supposed to be part of the Holy Trinity for Nikkor lenses. The one drawback for me is the bulbous front element. This does not allow for any screw-on filters (CPL). While that may not be an issue if you have the Cokin type rectangular filter holder, it is something to consider along with the massive size of the lens.

I have the 12-24mm DX lens and quite happy with it for my D300 and it actually does a pretty decent job performance on the D700, allbeit with some limitations.

Going wide (for me atm) with the D700 is a 20mm prime. Sweet lens.

BUT, given the choice, I often use the 24-70mm lens for those shots that don't severly distort facial features. For a zoom, it is my go-to lens.

delizo23 · Oct 12, 2009

yea, i have my heart set on the 24-70 now, but ugh, B&H has it OUT OF STOCK. does anyone know anywhere else i can buy one. ritzcamera is also out of stock. adorama is kinda expensive (shipping). i want/need it asap!!! my new D700 is coming tomorrow and all i got is a 50mm 1.8. i need my drugs!

dhilberg · Oct 12, 2009

Looks like it's out of stock pretty much everywhere. I just checked Amazon, J&R, B&H, Adorama, Ritz, and Calumet. Calumet wants you to call for availability.

Don't forget to check your local camera shop. They may have some.

twozero · Oct 12, 2009

if/when you find it, you will be glad you went with the 24-70. especially for your first. you would find the 14-24 very limiting, very fast.

blash · Oct 13, 2009

If everyone's out of stock, everywhere, you'll do well to wait a tick. Sudden absence of stock across the board generally means that Nikon isn't shipping any more units to retailers because they're coming out with a new version of the lens soon. Wouldn't be surprised if this D3s that's supposed to launch in a few weeks would launch alongside an updated 24-70 especially considering the fact that the 70-200 was updated earlier in the year.

As for your glass choice, not too many professionals actually use the 24-70. Instead, they stick with the 70-200 (for telephoto work), the 14-24 (for super-wide and ultra-wide work) and buy a 50mm f/1.4 prime. Even if you add-in a 35mm f/2 prime for the upper-end of the wide spectrum (on full-frame), a 50mm f/1.4 prime and a 35mm f/2 prime are a) cheaper than that 24-70 and b) faster glass of higher quality.

Remember - you only really need one focal length for wide-angle i.e. landscape shots. The point of the 14-24 is for ultra-wide shots which are not about "getting it all in", and not about landscapes at all; ultra-wide shooting is a different beast entirely and actually needs to be shot close to the subject for full effect. In many ways, ultra-wide shooting is a special-purpose lens much like a fisheye, the difference being that ultra-wide doesn't get as old as fast nor is it quite as limited in its uses.

Because ideally, for pure wide-angle work you would theoretically only need about 20 or 24 through 35 on a full-frame body. 24-70 encompasses a lot more range than you need and thus your needs can be better served by more specialized (i.e. prime) glass. You could be better served by the 17-35 f/2.8, but there are better options as stated. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186250-GREY/Nikon_1960_AF_S_Zoom_Nikkor_17_35mm.html

Derrel · Oct 13, 2009

Out of stock for a small company like Nikon can also mean that they are busy making other lens models at this time...Nikon builds lenses on production lines which are set up and produce xxxxx amount of lenses per run. Lenses are built according to demand forecasts, and after the needed number of units are built, the line is taken down and another line is set up. As I recall, right now Nikon is running three lens assembly lines concurrently.

There are rumors of several new Nikkor lenses to be announced sometime between OCtober 14 and November of 2009. Nikon has announced the new 70200 R-II lens officially, and official patents have been released for an 85mm f/3.5 DX macro with VR, and what looks like a new 80-400 VR lens; also, the 85mm f/1.4 AF-S is widely reputed to be on the verge of announcement any day now. My guess is the 70-200 VR-II is currently taking up one of the three lens assembly lines right now.

Tomorrow, Oct. 14,2009 is supposedly the day Nikon announced the new D3s iteration of the original 12.2 MP Nikon D3 full-frame model.