236 of 251 people found the following review helpful
the new standard,
This review is from: Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras (Camera)
Nikon's new 14-24 lens is just phenomenal. The clarity is that of a prime lens. In fact, this super-wide angle zoom lens effectively replaces the equivalent prime lenses within most of its focal length (except perhaps the 24mm range); it's like owning a bag full of prime lenses that have been combined to make one superlative zoom lens.
Yes, it's that good. If you check around the web, you will see the pros falling over themselves for this lens after they test it. It's built like a tank and is precise as a Swiss watch.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 12, 2008 1:31:45 AM PST
Here is an extensive review of the lens by experts.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2008 4:12:42 PM PST
D L says:
Nice review link, looks like a really amazing lens...
Posted on Oct 28, 2009 6:14:02 PM PDT
Prime doesn't mean good quality... I have a 50mm 1.4 G and it's not as good actually.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 26, 2010 1:34:10 AM PST
The 50/1.4G is a different beast altogether! It's a normal lens and maxes at 1.4! And it's the best 50/1.4 I've used on anything with a mirrorbox. The 14-24mm is indeed quite good--but a comparison to any 50mm lens is pointless.
However, if compare you must...according to photozone.de the 50/1.4 is as sharp or sharper into the corners at 2.8 as the 14-24 (it's actually sharper in the corners wide open than the 14-24 at 24mm). The 50/1.4 is actually sharper in the corners at 2.8 than the new 24-70 at all focal lengths.
So in response, no, prime does not necessarily equate to "good". But the 50/1.4G is definitely not the lens to pick on for image quality. If your image quality is mediocre with any of the three lenses I just mentioned, it's the quality of your images that is lacking, and not a limitation of the gear.
In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2011 2:03:16 PM PDT
any suggestions in choosing between the 14-24 and the 16-35 w/ VR2?
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 6, 2012 1:40:38 PM PST
Those extra 2mm of width on the wide end of the 14-24mm as compared to the 16-35mm make a world of difference in architectural and landscape photography.
In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2012 8:34:23 AM PDT
Anil Bakshi says:
Hello Drank, a 50 mm on full frame gives approx 40* view horizontally. 14 degree lens gives 104* and 16 mm gives 97* However the wide angle impact/ "distortion" is more dramatic on 14 mm. Also F2.8 of 14-24 permits double the light of 16-35 F4. The cost diff is $ 300 and is worth it for me, Mumbai India.
Posted on Jan 3, 2013 2:09:34 PM PST
John S says:
If it is so good, then why do we see so many, many refurbished ones (of this lens) on the market??
Posted on Feb 8, 2013 11:44:16 PM PST
D. N. says:
I am deciding between this lens and the Zeiss 21mm. I was just wondering why you got this lens instead of the Zeiss.