3 Nikon "wide zoom" autofocus f/2.8 lenses

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

06/17/2009 04:09:06 PM · #1

D300 user here; I'm looking at:

AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF
AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

These three lenses seem to be roughly in the same class and price range (give or take $75.) I'm strongly considering the 24-70mm, based on its reputation. It has the long zoom, of course, offering flexibility. Is that what makes it so popular? Aside from that, is it significantly better in quality (sharpness, focus speed, build, whatever) than the others above? What else should I consider?

Assuming use with other than a full-frame sensor, do you 24-70 users find it wide enough for most of your needs? What about for group photos? Any advice would be appreciated, unless it's just to point me to the forum thread search box. :-)

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/17/2009 04:19:05 PM · #2

Well, I'm no longer a Nikon user, but arguing from comparables in Canon, for the DX cropped sensor body, the 24mm would not be anywhere near wide enough for me. It's the equivalent of a 36mm lens on a FF boidy with Nikon's 1.5 crop factor figured in, and traditionally "true" WA starts at 28mm on full frame. I'd lean STRONGLY towards the 12-24mm lens if I were you, and on my 20D I opted for the 10-22mm over the 17-40mm, for example.

R.

Leo

Apple iPhone Xr

06/17/2009 04:29:17 PM · #3

Hi,
Just my 2cents. I recently got a Tamron 28-75mm, and for my not so serious street photog efforts, the range is fine for me. However, sometime I wished it was wider. Even with the 18-200zm that I like to use, 18mm just barely cuts it. So I would say go wide (wider). My 2cents is just opinion about the range. I hear the three lenses you're looking at are superior lenses from the various reviews. But it all depends on your purpose/style.... good luck.

Maybe another option is the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 ($1200)?

Message edited by author 2009-06-17 16:35:53.

06/17/2009 04:36:40 PM · #4

Thanks, Robert and LY, for your input.
I see the 24-70 mentioned so frequently, and it's so frequently out of stock, that it's hard to turn my back on it. However, yes, I'm worried about the not-wide-enough aspect...
... or I could just buy the D700 as well and be done with it. After all, it's only money. :-D

jbsmithana

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

06/17/2009 04:38:23 PM · #5

I have the Nikon DX 12-24 F4 and find it excellent on a cropped sensor body. It is my go to lens for landscape photography when I want to capture the grandeur of the mountains or desert. It is sharp and the colors are rich.

My guess is that if you plan to use and keep the D300 then 24mm will not be wide enough. The 17-35 may be a good compromise but I can not comment on its quality or sharpness.

Good luck in your search.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

06/17/2009 04:42:22 PM · #6

Hmmm, thanks JB. I should have mentioned that one of my goals is to use it next month to shoot some hopefully wonderful candids at an indoor gathering. The last party I took my 85mm f/1.4 and of course that was way too long (though good for dim lighting).

PS: As for keeping the D300, I think I'd better plan on that for now.

Message edited by author 2009-06-17 17:15:46.

darnok

Nikon D850

06/17/2009 04:42:53 PM · #7

I see you have an 18-200. Looking through your photos to see which focal lengths you use often should tell you if 24mm is wide enough.

I like shooting landscapes so personally 24mm wouldn't be nearly wide enough for me on a cropped sensor camera. I find that 18mm is often not wide enough and would like a Sigma 10-20mm or if I strike it rich a 17-35mm + D700.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f/4 ED VR

06/17/2009 05:02:06 PM · #8

Thanks, Konrad. I've already tried that test (setting my 18-200 at 24), and you are right about the width, though I'm not so much thinking about landscapes as I am interior group shots.

I suppose what I need to know is if those "other" lenses (for example, the ones I mentioned in the OP besides the 24-70) are of comparable quality/reputation? And to make sure I'm not overlooking other options, of course.

Also, the "G" designation on the 17-35mm lens means there is no aperture ring, correct? Has anyone found that to be a problem?

Hehe, this is why I get bogged down looking at online reviews. So many variables that are not second nature to me.

jaysonmc

Nikon D200

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

06/17/2009 05:03:52 PM · #9

Amazing Zoom Super Sharp. I love renting this lens. No Filter though -> AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

If you use an old Film Camera such as an F3 without a doubt the only one that will work -> AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF

Well rounded focal. Big. -> AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

darnok

Nikon D850

06/17/2009 05:09:54 PM · #10

Originally posted by citymars:

I haven't never used any of the lenses mentioned, but have only heard praise about them. The 14-24mm is apparently better than the Nikon prime lenses in the same range, but lacks any filter thread so it will be a problem if you want to use filters.

The 17-35mm is the only lens with an aperture ring (the other are G-series and do not have one any more), which will be a consideration if you plan on using the lens on an older film camera.

06/17/2009 05:12:00 PM · #11

> Amazing Zoom Super Sharp. I love renting this lens. No Filter though -> AF-S
> Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

No filter? I always use a filter to help protect my lenses (this necessity is another debate entirely, however).

> If you use an old Film Camera such as an F3 without a doubt the only one that
> will work -> AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF

No old film camera -- though the G vs. non-G is starting to sink in.

> Well rounded focal. Big. -> AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

Mini-reviews much appreciated!

Message edited by author 2009-06-17 17:13:54.

Nikolai1024

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0D

06/17/2009 05:30:39 PM · #12

Here is what I think....

AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
Get for full frame and use for crazy wide angle shots and landscapes. Waste on d300

AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF
Great lens. Midrange zoom on d300. Should be very good for landscapes on full frame.

AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
Best for full frame again. Too much $ for cropped sensor camera use. that is unless you HAVE to have 2.8. try 24-85 f2.8-4

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

06/17/2009 05:38:15 PM · #13

Thanks, Nikolai.
Damn, it seems they are all a bit of a waste on D300!

To sort it out...

It seems like all these wide zoom lenses are of high quality (including the 17-55 mentioned by lky623). So the choice boils down to (1) how/where I plan to use it, and 2) whether I intend on going full frame someday -- two questions only I can answer.

The 17-55 f/2.8 might fit the bill, but it's another DX lens (like my 18-200), and therefore not a good buy if I plan to go full frame.

Which reminds me why I'm not just relying on the 18-200: I want a possibly sharper lens that I can use in low light.

Thanks again everyone for your feedback, it's very valuable to me. I'll have to mull this over. Further comments appreciated if they occur to you!

Message edited by author 2009-06-17 17:43:36.

MAK

Leica CL

06/17/2009 06:47:57 PM · #14

I have owned the 17-35 f2.8 lens and I can assure you it is a fantastic lens, wide on the crop sensor too and as a non DX it will work very well when you upgrade to a FF

geoffb

06/17/2009 07:44:59 PM · #15

Originally posted by citymars:

Correct. No filter. The front element is rounded.

jjstager2

06/17/2009 08:21:17 PM · #16

I recently rented the 14-24. I have the 24-70 which is incredible. But I knew I was going to be in large crowds in small spaces. The 14-24 was wonderful and a Godsend.

Message edited by author 2009-06-17 20:23:16.

smichener

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/17/2009 08:25:15 PM · #17

I just got my D300 and am strongly considering the 17-55mm myself. I guess the way I'd look at it is if you go FF in the future you could always sell it and get most of your money back and then go to the 24-70. It seems like the 17-55 is hard to beat for sharpness. My only reservation on buying it is whether my skills justify the expense.

Maverick

Nikon D200

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

06/17/2009 09:07:25 PM · #18

The 17-55 f/2.8 is my most used lens - very sharp wide open, great contrast and good bokeh. Only downside as mentioned is it is a DX lens. If you plan to stick with a DX body this is a superb lens.

smichener

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/17/2009 09:17:43 PM · #19

Ben- does having the 17-55 result in you using your Sigma 10-20 less?

BJokerud

Nikon D3s

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

06/17/2009 09:23:56 PM · #20

Originally posted by jjstager2:

I recently rented the 14-24. I have the 24-70 which is incredible. But I knew I was going to be in large crowds in small spaces. The 14-24 was wonderful and a Godsend.

There you go! You could always rent one of them. Costs a little bit money, but nearly as much as the lens.

VitaminB

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

06/17/2009 09:44:35 PM · #21

I have the 14-24 2.8G.

But, its tough to compare this to the 24-70, because one is for wide angles, and the other for mid range type shots. It would depend on what you shoot more often. I am hoping to pick up the 24-70 eventually, to replace my 18-70 f3.5-5.6. I will also eventually go full frame, which is why im spending the extra cash on the higher end lenses.

Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di for Nikon

06/17/2009 10:17:01 PM · #22

Big thanks to all the Nikon users (past and current) who have shared their experience in this thread, and thanks to the anonymous SC member who fixed the thread title.

I suppose someday I will go full frame (maybe all of us will as technology changes), the question is when? In the next year or two, or many years from now? Despite knowing used DX lenses can be sold at some future date, I might rather get lenses I can hang onto.

I will keep in mind the rental option, too.

Maverick

Nikon D200

06/19/2009 07:35:34 PM · #23

Originally posted by smichener:

Ben- does having the 17-55 result in you using your Sigma 10-20 less?

In general yes, unless I need to go wider than 17 mm. I usually use the Sigma at 10mm. From 17-20mm the 17-55 is sharper with better contrast (and has a maximum aperture 2 stops faster).

rjkstesch