nikon prime 14 mm or nikon 14-24 mm

Stop thinking about it. The 14-24/2.8 is much better lens with modern construction and easily out performs the old 14mm prime in everything, especially in sharpness.

And the difference isn't small - there is night and day difference. A few years ago I evaluated both lenses for astrophotography.
 
steve_lyt said:
...i know that the prime will give me a sharper image...
Click to expand...

Based on experience- no it doesn't. It does seem tricky for manufacturers to get wide angles right as there seem to be a fair degree of sample variation but I certainly loved both but the 14-24 is one of my favourite Nikons, up there with the 400 and the 85 f1.4.

The filter system for the 14-24 was eye wateringly expensive though- especially if you already had an existing Lee set up- certainly felt like taking one in the plums but hey ho- you only live once:D. Might have come down a lot in price now.

I'd go 14-24- sharp and flexible. The 14mm is noticeably lighter if that sways it back but I think you would kick yourself. Both can ghost and flare but not as bad as often made out and it's not rocket science as to circumstances under which it can happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Another vote for the 14-24. Owned it and loved the image quality it gave me. I won't consider the 14mm prime not unless weight is an issue because the 14-24mm is not a light lens.
 
think sigma do a 12 to something, worth considering. and i think zoom is *way* more useful with a ultrawide than normal focal lengths
 
14-24mm first, then I would have Samyang prime on the list. It is cheap, but IQ very good - and you don't really need AF at 14mm. Overpriced and only occasionally used prime is not really a great use of money IMHO.
 
Stewart's right. The 14mm 2.8ED is a bloody awful lens!! Soft in the corners, HUGE amounts of CA. It's terrible compared to the 14-24. Yes... I own, and use both. Trust me on this - it's one of the few cases where a prime is NOT as good as the zoom equivalent. The 14-24 f2.8 is a completely superb lens.
 
Never been a fan of the Nikon 14-24mm given its horrible distortion and the need for an expensive filter set up, no doubting it produces superb sharp images and that Photoshop can squeeze away the distortion but i much prefer the wider Sigma 12-24mm with zero distortion or the sharper (in my opinion) 16-35mm although this also has quite high distortion, why cant anyone make the perfect lens!!!!!!

The only 14mm Nikon prime i used wasn't very nice at all, i must have sold it to David as it was just as he describes it.
 
Thanks for that comparison of the Nikkor/Sigma options, Gary. I have the Sigma and have been half considering an upgrade to the Nikkor but since I've been using a pair of Fujis, I haven't used the D700 much so the extra the Nikkor would cost me wouldn't be money well spent IMO! Especially if the Nikkor distorts. I know the perspective exaggeration the Sigma gives is described by some as distortion but it is incredibly well corrected as far as rectilinear distortions go.
 
I have the Nikkor 14-24 f2.8. Some CA on my sample in the corners, but not that I worry about too much. Otherwise a great lens. You do need to be careful with the front element, though but it doesn't seem to be easily scratched. Overall, it seems pretty sturdy so far, but didn't take kindly to being dropped out at speed the bottom of a motorcycle pannier in Chile (needing a trip back to Nikon for a repair).
 
mpe said:
A lens can be 1) Sharp 2) Ultra-wide 3) Rectilinear

The problem is that you can have only two of these three things at the same time.
Click to expand...
Care to elaborate? Is there some underlying physics-based explanation?

I think most people would consider that the Nikon 14-24 ticks all three boxes, unless you're using some of those words in a different way...
 
I used the term rectilinear for free of distortion.

Perhaps I should have used orthoscopic or free of geometric distortion as most people today take rectilinear as opposite to fisheye.
 
How are people getting around the filter issues with the 14-24, or are people shooting with a different lens IF filters are required
 
Gary Coyle said:
The ridiculously expensive Lee filter system
Click to expand...

There is no need to use "ridiculously expensive" and "lee filter system" together. Most things from Lee are already ridiculously expensive!!
For example, why are the WA versions of their holder adaptors twice the price of the non WA versions. Only reason I can see is that "because they can".
 
I think it is possible to live without the filter system. You can just get a 130x170mm filter (Cokin X Pro size) and hold it in front of the lens. Doesn't work with standard smaller filters though (unless you crop or zoom out).

It is not cheap either, not as convenient as filter holder but you can get the picture.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Never been a fan of the Nikon 14-24mm given its horrible distortion.
Click to expand...



Err.... it has very little measurable distortion. It distorts less than the sigma. There's roughly the same amount of barrel distortion at the wide end, but the Nikon has almost no distortion from 18mm outwards. The Sigma flattens out in the middle then goes to pin cushion at the long end.. they kind of baance each other out a little. There's not much to choose between them in reality though. The Sigma is just crap in terms of sharpness, and vignettes horribly. There's no comparison.

Photozone tests.

Sigma

Nikon

DxO
DxO Comparison


Wait for it though.... "They must have had a bad copy" :)
 
IMO the Sigma is far far better at 12mm than the Nikon is at 14mm with regards distortion, there's no argument here with regard to the lenses in any other respect

Shoud add David that you have linked to the MKII version of the Sigma which is horrible, maybe i should have been clearer and said i meant the MKI version

Try these 100 reviews from people who actually own and use the lens, the lack of distortion is a major factor in all these independent reviews http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=184

Bear in mind the ONLY thing ive said the Sigma is better than the Nikon for is how it controls distortion at the wide end, the Nikon cant touch it in that respect
 
I'd like to see Sigma do an Art version of the 12-24 with either constant f4 or f2.8- f4 is probably more realistic and would keep weight and costs down. I think that would be quite interesting especially if they could do it in a way that you could use say a 77mm WA adapter for filters.
 
The original Sigma 12-24 has essentially no geometric distortion at 12mm, it's quite an amazing thing to see through the viewfinder! The second version is clearly worse in this regard, but apparently sharper.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Shoud add David that you have linked to the MKII version of the Sigma which is horrible, maybe i should have been clearer and said i meant the MKI version
Click to expand...

Well.. at least people are now aware that there is a difference between the two, so still worth going into.
 
I have never tried the prime but I do own the 14-24. Amazing lens. Though for some reason I have used less of it nowadays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top