Nikon 14-24mm on a crop D7000 for now

jedipie

Suspended / Banned
Messages
203
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all

I'm looking at getting a 14-24mm Nikon to complement my Nikon 24-70mm and Nikon 70-200mm VRII

One day I will go full frame (D800?) but at the moment I've got a D7000 and D5000 both cropped DX sensors

Is the 14-24mm a complete waste on a cropped sensor? Lets assume money is not a problem

If anyone got a link to some images wide open on a cropped I would love to see

Thanks!
 
It'll be superb as long you don't need crazy wide. 14mm is still 21mm equivalent so plenty wide enough for most things.
 
I know that it will optically be fab like my other f2.8 lenses so I've not got doubts there

In my mind it seems a waste to buy a DX wide angle in case I make the jump to FX although that might not be for a while

But on the other hand do I really need this lens? Yes it will complement and complete the Holy Trinity set of lenses. Would money be better spent on a D800 instead?

I'm confused - what would you do?!?
 
redddraggon said:
Personally I'd get the 16-35 over the 14-24, mainly due to filter use.

But there is a lot of focal length overlap with my 24-70mm there tho. Hmmm

Only filters I used are UV, not ND etc
 
But there is a lot of focal length overlap with my 24-70mm there tho.

Nout wrong with a bit of overlap.

Would the lens be more more attractive if it was only 16-24 and you had little overlap? No it wouldn't, the ability to go to 35mm is a bonus.
 
It seems that Tokina 11-16 hold their value reasonably well so why not get one of them and sell it when you want to go full frame?
 
I tried a 14-24 on my D2x and loved it; the IQ was certainly up there in the best money can buy. Shame my body's ISO ceiling couldn't really do it justice in the low light of the NEC.

As an editorial photographer, this would be my first choice of wide-angle, no question and that would be on crop too. On FX I can only assume that it's excellent, as all the reports state. The 16-35 is the low(er) cost alternative but there are the obvious differences in foal length, zoom coverage and maximum aperture to consider. It's the lens I've earmarked at work to fit into a set budget.

Is the zoom function a big draw for you? What about getting something like a 14mm prime? Nikon does an f/2.8 14mm that is supposed to be very good and although it too lacks the ability to use filters like the 14-24, it's not as big or heavy. I use the Sigma variation and that focal length works great on DX - plus you get crazy close-up potential of just a few inches :)
 
I use a 14-24 on a D7000 for video a lot, doesn't go weird at the edges like it does on my D3.

Lovely lens!
 
Just a thought but it may also be worth considering the Zeiss 15/2.8.
 
Zanzan said:
It seems that Tokina 11-16 hold their value reasonably well so why not get one of them and sell it when you want to go full frame?

Taken your advice abs purchased one of these off these forums. Should be with me tomorrow fingers crossed!

Thanks for your help guys
 
Taken your advice abs purchased one of these off these forums. Should be with me tomorrow fingers crossed!

Thanks for your help guys

Very good decision IMO..:thumbs:
 
Yes I think you made the right choice. I use the 14-24 on my D200 and D3 and of course it is great on both, but the 11-16 on a DX body would be more use considering your other lenses and easy to move on when you do go FX. Well done I say :thumbs:
Don't forget a few primes on your lens quest! You can afford one or two now ;)
 
Thanks for the reassurance guys!

My bulging camera bag consists of

35mm Nikon 1.8
24-70mm Nikon 2.8
70-200mm Nikon vr11 2.8
18-200mm Nikon vr11

I'm not a big big fan of primes as I prefer the flexibility of the quality zooms.

Next acquisition may be a teleconverter for the 70-200mm though I've for my 11-16 to keep me happy for now! :)
 
Good buy, and even better kit list ;)

I'll probably upgrade my wide angle when I pay off my f2.8's - chuffed to bits with them this morning :)
 
Back
Top