Anyone use or own the Nikon 14-24mm FX or 24-70mm FX lenses?

[Trenton Romulox]

I'm looking into buying both of these lenses this year for my D300 as I plan to go to an FX sensor with my next body, and lenses are an investment, so I figured it'd be best to future-proof a bit and steer clear of DX lenses. I've heard good things, even great things, about both the 14-24 FX and 24-70 FX, but I wanted to know if anyone here has personally used either of them. I'm trying to decide which to buy first as I don't have a dire need for wide-angle over normal or normal over wide-angle. Thanks in advance.

-Jeremy (Trenton Romulox)

 

[Trenton Romulox]

Oh, and I've reached 900 posts. Great.

 

[kundalini]

horse---cart ??

 

[Trenton Romulox]

Not following you?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

go for a DX wide angle like a sigma 10-20 if you need a 15mm equiv. or the nikkor 12-24 if you have money to burn and don't really need to be that wide.

Both have filter threads for obvious reasons, the 14-24 does not.

In all seriousness, IMO, nobody shooting DX should even be using the 14-24, the 12-24 and 10-20 is FAR more useful.

The 14-24 is big, fragile, cannot use simple, common screw on filters, and it's more expensive than the DX options.

 

[N'Kolor]

I am in the same boat as you. I bought the 24-70mm today and I should have it on Wednesday! I have a D300 but there is always the possibility of getting a FX, so I will stick with the FX lenses. The 14-24 is only 2mm narrower than the 12-24 DX, but it is hella more expensive. I have considered getting the 12-24 just because of the HUGE price difference and Nikon lenses hold their value well so you can probably expect to get a good return on your investment should you go with a FX and need a different lens.

For me the 17-55 DX was not long enough. I tried the 17-55 out at the store and I just found that the 24-70 was a more useful range to ME (may not be to you).

 

[Sw1tchFX]

IMO using the 14-24 on DX is stupid.

The 12-24 goes significantly wider, can use normal filters, costs about 1/2 as much, and can actually FIT IN THE BAG. Have any of you even seen one of these things in person or just pictures on the internet? IT'S HUGE!

 

[N'Kolor]

Sw1tch...you are absolutely correct. I actually fixed my post above as I was getting numbers mixed up in my post.

The 12-24 is a better lens and will most likely be the one I choose.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

Yeah, but how good is the 12-24 DX on an FX camera? It seems like it'd be smart to buy a lens with future bodies in mind and not just my current body. Would it make sense to buy the 24-70 and hold off on a wide-angle for a while then?

 

[Sideburns]

Yeah, but how good is the 12-24 DX on an FX camera? It seems like it'd be smart to buy a lens with future bodies in mind and not just my current body. Would it make sense to buy the 24-70 and hold off on a wide-angle for a while then?

I'd say still get the DX lens anyway. Are you gonna throw away your D300 when you upgrade?
Are you REALLY gonna upgrade?

Also...Nikon lenses sell for what you bought them pretty much...so it doesn't make THAT big of a difference...especially if the FX lens is inferior.

Worry about what you can use now, I say.

I think the wide angle would be a better investment at first...lots more cool shots to be had with wide angle around a city.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Yeah, but how good is the 12-24 DX on an FX camera? It seems like it'd be smart to buy a lens with future bodies in mind and not just my current body. Would it make sense to buy the 24-70 and hold off on a wide-angle for a while then?

The 12-24 isn't designed for 35mm, it doesn't work that great on it at anything less than about 18mm on 35mm.

future proof what? you're buying Nikon gear like it's going out of style! You bought 2 DX cameras, so use DX lenses on them! if you want to take advantage of full frame lenses, shoot 35mm or a D3. It's that simple.

 

[jstuedle]

I own well over 60 lenses, many old AI MF glass. But I changed over to DSLR and DX sensors in 1999. I have never purchased a DX lens. I own no DX, or G glass and I am thankful I don't. We now have a D3 and a D300. That said, I understand TR's position and wouldn't buy a DX lens either.

The 24-70 would be my first purchase. For a short time I had a Tammron 18-35 and it did a good job (but slow) until I found a good 14mm f/2.8 at a good price. I don't see the need for a short zoom with the 14mm. Even before the 14 and Tammron zoom, a 20mm 2.8 did the job. Sometimes I think we "need" 10 or 12mm wides out of a want to have it all. After you have "it all", you find the need is not really there. If for every 1000 images you take, you use 10mm range 1-10 times on average, you could well have done without. I think these ultra wide zooms are seldom used, much less than most the glass in a shooters bag.