i hate making these, but 14-24 or 17-55?

I'm not sure if it matters, but the 14-24 is a really heavy lens for its size, the thing is dense. I think it weighs 2.1 lbs if I remember correctly. Which, I mean, doesn't sound like a lot, but pair that with a camera, it's not something you'd want to just carry around all day, and with the unprotected front glass element, it's hard to feel too comfortable letting it hang around your neck when your wrists get tired.
 
I'm not sure if it matters, but the 14-24 is a really heavy lens for its size, the thing is dense. I think it weighs 2.1 lbs if I remember correctly. Which, I mean, doesn't sound like a lot, but pair that with a camera, it's not something you'd want to just carry around all day, and with the unprotected front glass element, it's hard to feel too comfortable letting it hang around your neck when your wrists get tired.

lens cover works pretty good to protect in almost any case. since it slips on and off, it's relatively irrelevant.

not that i would try to, but i imagine it's tough to scratch (i had a 28-100 with a broken mounting ring that i didn't want to fix for many reasons, first whack on the front element with a hammer did sh:t all to it - not a scratch. the second whack broke it hahah, excellent ashtray).

yeah, 2.1 lbs, give'r'take. plus su/sb800, grip. popeye arms?


this thread actually went a lot better than i expected. thanks to everyone for all the info.
 
lens cover works pretty good to protect in almost any case. since it slips on and off, it's relatively irrelevant.

not that i would try to, but i imagine it's tough to scratch (i had a 28-100 with a broken mounting ring that i didn't want to fix for many reasons, first whack on the front element with a hammer did sh:t all to it - not a scratch. the second whack broke it hahah, excellent ashtray).

yeah, 2.1 lbs, give'r'take. plus su/sb800, grip. popeye arms?


this thread actually went a lot better than i expected. thanks to everyone for all the info.

Yeah, the only problem with the lens cover is, since it slips over the lens as a whole, and not just in front of the glass, if there is anything on the end of the lens hood (which is pretty good, but when the lens is at its physically longest @ 14mm the glass is very close to the length of the lens hood) when you put the lens cover on, you could very easily scratch the end of the hood, which might not matter to some people, but I hate scratching. Luckily, any scratch that I've seen on my lens hood after taking the cover off has been something I could wipe off, but someday it'll probably start to see some unfixable damage.
 
If you can swing it I would say get the 14-24mm and also a 24-70mm.

It's not like you are going to want the 14-24 on your camera all the time anyway so unless you bop it while you are holding it- no worries.
 
that's a lot to swing. i find 24-70 to be a weird range on dx. it'd be almost perfect for me on fx, but i'm not there yet. i doubt i would use it over my primes in the same range.
 
that's a lot to swing. i find 24-70 to be a weird range on dx. it'd be almost perfect for me on fx, but i'm not there yet. i doubt i would use it over my primes in the same range.
Than I guess that means 17-55.
 
not really. both the 14-24 and 24-70 would be nearly 4 grand after tax. bit much.
the 14-24 by itself would be about 1500, give or take.
 
price became an issue, so i went 17-55. hope it works out - should be here in a week or so.
 
any more pics with the 14-24mm? landscape, indoors, etc.?
 
the op's 17-55 isn't even here yet.

but he got a fuji S5 today :D
 
that's a lot to swing. i find 24-70 to be a weird range on dx. it'd be almost perfect for me on fx, but i'm not there yet. i doubt i would use it over my primes in the same range.

I think if you factor in the 70-200 2.8 the 24-70 is a perfect range. Nikon now has a great lineup covering the full range from 14-200 in 3 2.8 lenses. So yes, by itself 24-70 is an odd focal-length but adding the other 2 it is perfectly reasonable. If you have no plans to buy a 24-70 I would stick with a 17-55.
 
I think if you factor in the 70-200 2.8 the 24-70 is a perfect range. Nikon now has a great lineup covering the full range from 14-200 in 3 2.8 lenses. So yes, by itself 24-70 is an odd focal-length but adding the other 2 it is perfectly reasonable. If you have no plans to buy a 24-70 I would stick with a 17-55.

Its a perfect range for FX. I cant see myself using 24-70 on DX... I will have to swap lenses every 30 seconds :wink:
 

Most reactions

Back
Top