Nikkor 12-24 f2.8 Vs. Nikkor 17-35 F2.8

Trever1t · Jun 30, 2011

Which one is better? I understand no filters for the 14-24 f2.8 and the 17-35 uses the same 77mm filter as my 24-70/70-200. Seems to me that the 14-24 would 'fit' right in with the other 2 lenses but I hear very good things about the 17-35.

From those that have used one or the other...or both, please edumacate me!

EDIT: EGADS, I meant 14-24 f2.8!!! [bangs head on desk]

Trever1t · Jun 30, 2011

NoOne?

I found a 17-35 locally for just over 1K.

Trever1t · Jun 30, 2011

Aww come on, help me decide! I can grab the 17-35 for $1K today or the 14-24 for under $1500.

kundalini · Jun 30, 2011

The 14-24mm is priced as it is for a reason. :biggrin:

I also have the 12-24mm f/4. Both are good, but I can't say enough about the 14-24mm.

The 17-35mm is a DX lens. I've never had the opportunity to use.

Go with your budget and intended future use.

Patrice · Jun 30, 2011

According to many folks, the 14-24 nikkor is optically the best of the best when it comes to wide zooms. The 17-35 is last generation but has a solid world class reputation. It built it's reputation on solidity and performance. 14-24 is hind of a specialist lens while the 17-35 is more a generalist. What is more important to you: 14mm end or the 35mm end of the range. I'd likely go for the 17-35 for the build, the performance and the utility, especially with the 77mm filter thread.

Tough decision!

BJF · Jun 30, 2011

We have low opportunities of using super-wide angle lens like the 12-14. So the 17-35 may be more reasonable choice.

Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 + market price

Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 + market price

Trever1t · Jun 30, 2011

It is. I don't care too much about the 35mm end because I'll probably have the 24-70 on the body most of the time but once on I might find that larger range usable...The deal is very enticing at $1K with all packaging but that 14mm is calling me....arrggh!

Trever1t · Jun 30, 2011

Got it. Looks good, sounds good, works good. I gotta quit buying lenses man :er:

Trever1t · Jun 30, 2011

kundalini said:
The 14-24mm is priced as it is for a reason. I also have the 12-24mm f/4. Both are good, but I can't say enough about the 14-24mm.

The 17-35mm is a DX lens. I've never had the opportunity to use.

Go with your budget and intended future use.

nooooo, the 17-35 is not a DX lens. AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED from Nikon

The 17-55 f2.8 is, I bet that's what you were thinking of. AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED from Nikon

shaunly · Jul 1, 2011

I had a chance to shoot with the 14-24mm a couple time and let me tell you this, that lens is in a class of it's own. Incredibly sharp and amazing distortion control. Contrast is very pleasing as well. I honestly don't see how they could possibly make it better. Regardless of zoom/prime, this is hands down the very best ultra wide on the market right now. Even Canon user buys adapter to shoot with this lens. It's just that good.

As for the 17-35mm, it's an old generation lens. Still a great performer but not up to par with the current pro grade lens. If you want to use filters, great optical performance and a good price, I recommend checking out the 16-35/4. Hope this help.

Shaun

Trever1t · Jul 1, 2011

Yeah, the option to use a CPL or ND filter was the deciding factor and I purchased the 17-35. It's got a wide enough FOV for my purposes and I got it for less that 1K