Which one of these pics are from the infamous Nikon 14-24 f/2.8?

[shivaswrath]

So, I went and did a comparo of the following:
Nikon 12-24 f/4
Nikon 14-24 f/2.8
and threw in my Nikon 18-55 f/3/5-5/6 VR in for a mixer

all of these were on my D40x, around the same setting (some might have been auto iso/auto white balance, i forgot, i was there for awhile), and obviously the same location - I tried to keep it as consistent as possible, enjoy and discuss!

So guess which were which! lol!

 

[shivaswrath]

My impressions:
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8: the only reason I considered this lens is that I feel like my hobby is slowly becoming an obsession and my D40x is HIGHLY limiting (not only in lens selection, but just switching settings, scrolling through menus, etc.); since the D3 is an option in the future (1 year tops), I wanted to try out "this tank"

It's not that heavy really. I lift weights often, am pretty athletic, and have a stable hand, so I wasn't too overwhelmed. But after 15 minutes of test shots, my left hand was feeling it for sure.

Would I be holding this lens up for 15 minutes at a time, probably not, especially since it's a specialized lens for wide shots (landscapes, interiors, maybe some indoor action shots up in someone's face, photojournalist style).

The build is amazing. It looks retarded on my D40x though, but it's not AS large as some have described. AF is disgustingly quiet and perfect. I was VERY afraid of scratching the lens, the cover is a joke (just a plastic piece you slide on, seriously nikon, for $1700?)

I think it provided AMPLE opportunity for nice, fast indoor shots at a reasonable price (it's about $1500 now on Amazon) - if they let me take it outside, I'm sure it would've shone even more.

Nikon 12-24 f/4: I really fell in love with this lens. It shot just as wide as the 14-24mm due to my non-full frame sensor, but that's not the point here, we all know that would be the case.

It's about half as light as the 14-24mm, the build quality is excellent, and the AF is super quiet. But f/4?? It shouldn't matter outside, obviously, but indoors, you guys/gals can tell me if you can see a difference above.

It's tough to justify at $900 when only $600 can net me a f/2.8. Crap.

Nikon 18-55 VR: lol. This isn't wide! I've been shooting with this lens for awhile, thought I'd throw an example up. Def love the VR, it is noticeable when shooting indoors without a flash. But it won't ever trump f/2.8 or less. Crap.

Conclusions:
So I'm torn. Not like I truly have the money to throw around, but thought I'd indulge and maybe finance the lens purchase (ahem wedding $$$ I hope)- getting married in May and wanted to have a nice wide lens when I'm in Paris for our honeymoon, taking shots of the Eiffel tower at night, strolls in Versailles in the evening, beach strolls in St. Tropez. . .can't wait!!

That's also another reason I'd get the lens now, since after I'm hitched, I know the pocket book is effectively handed over to the misses (she's better with money than I am!)

Thanks guys/gals!

Suneil