Help with buying decision.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:19:42 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

This is true although it costs and weighs as much as a bag of lenses.

;-)

. . . continued . . .

and wouldn't be even if I someday got a FF DSLR) because I'm not
obcessed with landscape photography, I'd keep my DX DSLR which
already pretty much covers the same focal length range, and who
wants to worry about a lens with a gigantic bulbous nose exposed to
the elements and which can't even be protected with a lens filter?

ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:19:42 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

This is true although it costs and weighs as much as a bag of lenses.

;-)

. . . continued . . .

and wouldn't be even if I someday got a FF DSLR) because I'm not
obcessed with landscape photography, I'd keep my DX DSLR which
already pretty much covers the same focal length range, and who
wants to worry about a lens with a gigantic bulbous nose exposed to
the elements and which can't even be protected with a lens filter?


I would get it if budget weren't an issue but I probably would leave it
at home for most situations because of the size.

Prime lenses replaced by the 14-24:
14mm f/2.8 (fairly big, over-priced & not that great) Sigma's is better
18mm f/2.8 -same issues
20mm f/2.8 pretty good lens and really small, really light
24mm f/2.8 not bad, not great, rather small
(the whole set above could be sold to pay for a 14-24 with much better
image quality)

I have the 20mm AF which I love & a 24mm Ai junker that I don't really
use. I also have 10.5 & 16mm fisheyes & a Sigma 12-24 full frame which
I use all the time.

Here's the 14-24 next to the 14mm AF:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima...vs-14-24mm.jpg
(about the same size as the Sigma 12-24)


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:06:24 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

Prime lenses replaced by the 14-24:
14mm f/2.8 (fairly big, over-priced & not that great) Sigma's is better
18mm f/2.8 -same issues
20mm f/2.8 pretty good lens and really small, really light
24mm f/2.8 not bad, not great, rather small
(the whole set above could be sold to pay for a 14-24 with much better
image quality)

I have the 20mm AF which I love & a 24mm Ai junker that I don't really
use. I also have 10.5 & 16mm fisheyes & a Sigma 12-24 full frame which
I use all the time.

Here's the 14-24 next to the 14mm AF:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima...vs-14-24mm.jpg
(about the same size as the Sigma 12-24)

My preference is for Nikon's just discontinued 17-35mm f/2.8 over
the 14-24. It's only moderately large - smaller and lighter than
the 14-24mm beast. It produces high quality images (although not
quite as good as the 14-24mm) and is supposedly much better able to
resist flare despite not being an N lens. I'm not surprised that
you refer to the 24mm AI as an "Ai junker that I don't really
use" based on what this guy says about it (his reply title is "Worst
lens I have" and while he doesn't identify it as an AI lens, he has
a lot of old Nikkors) and he also agrees with your opinion of the
20mm f/2.8 :

I have a 24 f/2.8 Nikkor and have never been satisfied with the image
quality on film. It's especially funky in the corners but does not seem
particularly good even in the center.

I have never used it on my D300 because it's not all that wide on a
crop sensor and I've been happy with my 16-85.

All I really do with it is reverse it on a bellows for high-
magnification macros, but I haven't tried this on digital.

I don't know what I'd pick for a wide prime. Either a 35 f/2 or a 20 f/2.8, I guess.


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=30188026

ASAAR wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

Prime lenses replaced by the 14-24:
14mm f/2.8 (fairly big, over-priced & not that great) Sigma's is better
18mm f/2.8 -same issues
20mm f/2.8 pretty good lens and really small, really light
24mm f/2.8 not bad, not great, rather small
(the whole set above could be sold to pay for a 14-24 with much better
image quality)

I have the 20mm AF which I love & a 24mm Ai junker that I don't really
use. I also have 10.5 & 16mm fisheyes & a Sigma 12-24 full frame which
I use all the time.

Here's the 14-24 next to the 14mm AF:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima...vs-14-24mm.jpg
(about the same size as the Sigma 12-24)

My preference is for Nikon's just discontinued 17-35mm f/2.8 over
the 14-24. It's only moderately large - smaller and lighter than
the 14-24mm beast. It produces high quality images (although not
quite as good as the 14-24mm) and is supposedly much better able to
resist flare

Hmm, I had not heard that.


despite not being an N lens.

What is an N lens?


I'm not surprised that
you refer to the 24mm AI as an "Ai junker

Just that mine is a very beat up old copy probably from a news agency. I
bid low on ebay and that's the reason I won :-) I haven't really
assessed it much.


that I don't really
use" based on what this guy says about it (his reply title is "Worst
lens I have" and while he doesn't identify it as an AI lens, he has
a lot of old Nikkors)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=30188026

This guy thinks it's pretty good on film:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_wide.html
I have a 28mm f/2 Ai that I grab instead. Or the 20mm. Or if I have the
12-24 mounted, I sometimes use 24mm, though rarely. What I would like is
a fixed length /really sharp/ wide angle like perhaps the Sigma 14mm f/2.8.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:55:55 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

My preference is for Nikon's just discontinued 17-35mm f/2.8 over
the 14-24. It's only moderately large - smaller and lighter than
the 14-24mm beast. It produces high quality images (although not
quite as good as the 14-24mm) and is supposedly much better able to
resist flare

Hmm, I had not heard that.

That the 17-35mm has been discontinued? I read that in several
DPR forum messages, and then saw this about a week later :

The 17-35mm has been discontinued, but it is possible that
Nikon thinks that the 14-24 plus 24-70 fill that gap. They
would be wrong if they think that.

http://bythom.com/

In his Rational Lens Choices article Thom lists the best lenses at
different focal lengths. Here's the condensed version, focusing on
how the 17-35mm compares :

17mm : Best is the 14-24 with the 17-35 next if filters are needed.
18mm : The 17-35 is tied with several others at the top for DX. For
use with FX sensors, the 14-24mm is the top choice.
20mm : 20mm f/2.8 & 14-24, followed by the 17-35
24mm : 12-24 & 24-24 tied. The 24mm f/2.8 isn't bad for film but
it's not as good for digital use. The 17-35 "does a very
respectable job at this focal length (and is almost free of
distortion at 24mm).
28mm : The 17-35 is a respectable performer, but not quite at the
same level as the 28-70mm f/2.8D or the 24-70mm f/2.8G AF-S.
35mm : The 24-70, 28-70 and 35-70 closely followed by the 17-35.

My preference would be the 17-35mm, followed later by the 24-70mm.
Although the 14-24 is better, it's large enough that I'd probably
try to avoid using it. And when I didn't, I'd feel guilty if I
didn't bring along a good tripod as well, increasing the load.


despite not being an N lens.

What is an N lens?

Identified by a large "N" on the lens barrel, its

Exclusive Nano Crystal Coat further reduces ghosting and flare for even greater image clarity.


http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Ni...2F2.8G-ED.html

My guess is that the 17-35mm has less trouble resisting flare
because it isn't penalized by the 14-24's large, bulbous nose.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:41:02 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

Then there is the stuff I lust after, and will get some day so I can
realize the full potential of my D300.

Soft&tenderduck assistants don't come cheap!

ASAAR wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:

Spare us the bull****.

Sure thing, and it's easy enough. Heed the invisible note at the
bottom of all of my replies. It only requires that you don't
pollute the newsgroup with your replies.

Take your own advice.

--
Ray Fischer

ASAAR wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

My preference is for Nikon's just discontinued 17-35mm f/2.8 over
the 14-24. It's only moderately large - smaller and lighter than
the 14-24mm beast. It produces high quality images (although not
quite as good as the 14-24mm) and is supposedly much better able to
resist flare
Hmm, I had not heard that.

That the 17-35mm has been discontinued?

That it was better able to resist flare than the 14-24.


What is an N lens?

Identified by a large "N" on the lens barrel
Nano Crystal

Ah, I never noticed the 'N'.


My guess is that the 17-35mm has less trouble resisting flare
because it isn't penalized by the 14-24's large, bulbous nose.

I can believe that!

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On 21 Dec 2008 07:20:31 GMT, Ray Fischer, whiner that he is,
sophomorically wrote:

Ray Fischer wrote:

Spare us the bull****.

Sure thing, and it's easy enough. Heed the invisible note at the
bottom of all of my replies. It only requires that you don't
pollute the newsgroup with your replies.

Take your own advice.

No need to, since I have a thick enough skin that I don't need to
ask you to "Spare us the bull****". But if *you* do, thousands will
cheer and there will be dancing in the streets!