14-24 v. 17-35

[jmandell]

I am looking for a wide angle lens for my d700. I mostly shoot landscapes. I would like the 14-24 but I am worried about not having filters available for it, unlike the 17-35 which has a 77mm filter ring. Which is better optically, mechanically, etc. I currently have 20 2.8, 50 1.4, and an 80-200 2.8. I also have a 18-105 DX that i use on my d90.
What would you all recommend?

 

[ultimadrift]

I have the 17-35mm f2.8 and tested the 14-24mm f2.8, both are negligible in optics and mechanics. However the 17-35 does have aperture ring which works with my film cameras. The 14-24 does go much wider. 14 is exceptional at shooting landscape that the 17 can't match. I personally would get the 17-35 instead of the 14-24, because of the front element being easily scratched. But if landscape is your thing, 14-24 all the way.

 

[Aloicious]

I have the 14-24 and love it. its an exceptional lens. I thought I'd not like the inability to use regular filters on it, but honestly I haven't really missed it, besides, the main thing I'd use would be a polarizer, and they don't work properly on ultrawides anyways. I've never had any scratches on the lens either, as long as you take proper care of the lens it shouldnt be much of an issue.

both are professional lenses that are built exceptionally well. I've read a few reviews of them and from what I hear, the 14-24 is slightly better optically when wide open and at the extreme focal lengths, but I've never tested the 17-35, and I've heard alot of good stuff from those who have it. I really think either one would be an great lens, however since you shoot mostly landscape, and already have a 20mm 2.8, I think you'd gain more from the 14-24's wide end, than you would with the 17-35's long end, but maybe take a look at some of the images you've taken with the 20mm, are you finding that you are wishing you could get them wider, or are you wanting to be able to zoom in further? thats really what it comes down to since both lenses already encompass your 20mm focal length.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I have the 17-35 and use a D700. I thought about the 14-24, but the 17-35 seemed more useful to me since I normally shoot weddings rather than landscapes. For me, the long end was more important.

One thing I have found, and learned, is the 17-35 has a tendency to squeak when focusing. Mine does for the first few seconds of using it. On forums, some have said it's fine, and some have said it's a sign of imminent failure.

In any case, if you do go with the 17-35, leave the lens cap on and half press your shutter release. The lens should focus through it's entire cycle. If it squeaks, you can either pass or use it as a bargaining point. I paid about 1050 for mine because of the squeak.

 

[spacefuzz]

If you shoot landscapes Id bet the 14-24 is what you would love most, if you like the ultra wide look. You can get filters for it but they just take a while to come in. Try the filter connection.

 

[fjrabon]

The difference between 14mm and 17mm on a full frame for landscape is huge. 14mm envelops you, 17mm still feels like you are looking at a painting. If that makes sense.

Also, remember polarizers don't really work right on ultra wides as another person said. The FOV is too wide, and since polarizers work by selectively filtering the light coming in at different angles, you get weird looking skies that are differentially darkened. ND filters would work, obviously, but to me, that's nowhere near a big enough reason to give up 14mm-16mm for landscapes.

 

[tirediron]

Have you considered the 16-35 f4? I went with this one over the 14-24 because (1) I don't shoot UWA often enough to justify the 14-24, and (2) because it has standard filter threads. It does have a bit of distortion at the last mm or so of each end of it's FL range, but for the cost saving, it's something I can live with - YMMV.

 

[DorkSterr]

Get the 14-24... it's not until now that I realize how much I miss it...

 

[Trever1t]

I have the 17-35 and mine squeeks too! Seems to work otherwise flawlessly.

I have heard from those users that have both...that both the 14-24 and the 17-35 compliment eachother rather than replace. 14 is hella wide but 35 does come in handy. I paid $1K used.

 

[Markw]

Well, I've never used the 14-24. But, I own the 17-35. And I use it on my D800, quite alot.

Personally, I REALLY wish I could afford the 14-24. I would replace it in a heartbeat. The 17-35 is a godsend of an ultrawide in a wedding environment. Just wide enough, and can zoom to 35, which is really nice to have. Being able to use a filter is incredibly convenient as well. Some say the polarizer won't work properly. But, with proper framing, it will certainly do the trick. You just can't have 2/3 of the frame sky. Stick to 1/2-1/3 and you should be fine. Greens still pop nicely, reflections are removed nicely, and colors pop VERY well just after a rain, walking around the jungle. If that's your thing. It is mine, so I love it for that. Also, being able to use a 10-stop ND screwed to the front is incredibly convenient as well. Mine doesn't squeak, but it does have a tad bit of a CA problem (only accentuated by the D800's high-res sensor) and is a bit soft at the corners and edges (even at F/13!).

The 14-24 doesn't take filters, but LEE and another company make adapters that will enable it to. Albeit very large and very expensive, but so is the lens they're being used on. From what I've seen and heard, the 14-24 doesn't exhibit the same CA and softness that my 17-35 does. And, like others have said, 14 is a whole different world than 17 on an FX. Someone above said 17 seems more like a painting. I couldn't have said it better myself.

For the most part, I would say the 17-35 will fill most of anyone's needs. But, the 14-24 is still king 95% of the time.

By the way, I paid $800 used for my 17-35. :mrgreen:

Mark