AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED vs AF-S 17-35 f/2.8D ED

[PAUL50]

I'm planning a trip to the Badlands and Yellowstone this June and will be taking wide angle landscape shots this trip, which will be a new experience for me. I have an AF-S 17-35 f/2.8D ED lens and realize it's an older model. I've read some reviews which suggest it's soft around the edges and so I'm thinking of selling and replacing with the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED. I'm seeking comments, recommendations, suggestions, anything I can get to assist in making a solid decision with respect to a super wide angle lens. If the group has alternative ideas regarding a killer lens to do the job I'd appreciate hearing about it. Thank you.

 

[fcotterill]

I use 15mm f2.8AIP Zeiss, with 150 NiSi filter system. Obviously it cannot zoom but I also have the 21 f2.8AIP Zeiss. Both are the older Distagon models, which I bought a good Used prices after Zeiss upgraded these excellent optics to their Milvus line.
For carrying-most-places, I use the light 18-35 G, which is a gem IME. Also bought Used

When I last read up on the 17-35 AFD, it gets(got) mixed reviews.

 

[Nimi]

I'm planning a trip to the Badlands and Yellowstone this June and will be taking wide angle landscape shots this trip, which will be a new experience for me. I have an AF-S 17-35 f/2.8D ED lens and realize it's an older model. I've read some reviews which suggest it's soft around the edges and so I'm thinking of selling and replacing with the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED. I'm seeking comments, recommendations, suggestions, anything I can get to assist in making a solid decision with respect to a super wide angle lens. If the group has alternative ideas regarding a killer lens to do the job I'd appreciate hearing about it. Thank you.

I'd get the 14-24. The sharpest lens I've shot before moving over to Z mount. And those 3mm are significant.

 

[StefanSC]

I have an AF-S 17-35 f/2.8D ED lens and realize it's an older model. I've read some reviews which suggest it's soft around the edges and so I'm thinking of selling and replacing with the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED.

Well, do keep in mind that the 14-24 is very susceptible to flare, has field curvature and doesn't take filters. If those are things that matter to you, you might want to skip the 14-24...

Also, if you are not used to using 14mm, it's gonna be a shock in the field and you'll get mostly "meh" photos. Personally I sold my 14mm f2.8 for an 18-35mm G as it was much easier to use.

 

[BillW]

Not on your list, but since you have a Z9, what about the Z mount 14-30 f4 lens? Nice and lightweight. Good optics. The 14-24 in Z mount is even better optically, but more expensive and somewhat heavier. Of course, Z mount lenses won't work on your DSLRs, but the Z9 is a decent landscape camera.

I was in Yellowstone earlier this month and used the 14-30 on my Z7II for wide angle shots. Liked it. Also took a Z9, 500 mm PF, 100-400 mm S and 24-70 f2.8 S lenses and some TCs.

 

[Butlerkid]

The DSLR 14-24 was one of my most used lenses. LOVED it! Super sharp. Never had a problem with lens flare and never missed using an ND or polarizing filter on it. However, it was big and heavy. I just replaced it with the Z 14-24. I doubt I will ever regret getting it. Used DSLR 14-24's are really beaten down right now - price wise. Lots of good deals out there.

 

[Calson]

Another lens to consider is the Nikon AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5G (be sure it is the G version) which is sharper than the Nikon 16-35mm and much sharper than the 17-35mm lens. It also takes 77mm size filters. I have one as well as the 14-24mm f/2.8 as the latter is very large and heavy and I tend to take the 18-35mm instead when traveling. It works on DSLRs and also with my Z9 camera.

The closest thing to it with an S lens is the 14-30mm f/4 which from reviews is not as good optically as the 18-35mm. I will be continuing to use the two F-mount zoom lenses until I get a second Z9 camera and then may get the 14-24m f/2.8 S lens but no hurry to do so for my own needs.

 

[PAUL50]

I use 15mm f2.8AIP Zeiss, with 150 NiSi filter system. Obviously it cannot zoom but I also have the 21 f2.8AIP Zeiss. Both are the older Distagon models, which I bought a good Used prices after Zeiss upgraded these excellent optics to their Milvus line.
For carrying-most-places, I use the light 18-35 G, which is a gem IME. Also bought Used

When I last read up on the 17-35 AFD, it gets(got) mixed reviews.

It was the mixed reviews that got me thinking. I’ve always stuck with Nikon lenses so I’ll look at the 18-35G. I have two DSLRS and a Z9. Original thought about an F mount lens for the DSLRs but now thinking about the 14-24 Z lens. Decisions, decisions!

 

[PAUL50]

I'd get the 14-24. The sharpest lens I've shot before moving over to Z mount. And those 3mm are significant.

I’m thinking now I’ll go to the 14-24 Z lens.

 

[Nimi]

It was the mixed reviews that got me thinking. I’ve always stuck with Nikon lenses so I’ll look at the 18-35G. I have two DSLRS and a Z9. Original thought about an F mount lens for the DSLRs but now thinking about the 14-24 Z lens. Decisions, decisions!

The 14-24 Z is the best wide angle lens I've used. It comes with a hood that allows you to use a circular filter. The F version is very very good as well, the best before the introduction of the Z. I never had flare issues and it is distrotion-free. I got around the filter issue by using a Lee system. In my experience, at this end of the spectrum you want the best glass you can get.

 

[PAUL50]

Not on your list, but since you have a Z9, what about the Z mount 14-30 f4 lens? Nice and lightweight. Good optics. The 14-24 in Z mount is even better optically, but more expensive and somewhat heavier. Of course, Z mount lenses won't work on your DSLRs, but the Z9 is a decent landscape camera.

I was in Yellowstone earlier this month and used the 14-30 on my Z7II for wide angle shots. Liked it. Also took a Z9, 500 mm PF, 100-400 mm S and 24-70 f2.8 S lenses and some TCs.

Must have been a great trip. I’m thinking now of the 14-24 Z lens because eventually I’ll go exclusively mirrorless.

 

[BillW]

Must have been a great trip. I’m thinking now of the 14-24 Z lens because eventually I’ll go exclusively mirrorless.

Yes, Yellowstone is a magical place. I particularly like it in winter.

The 14-24 mm lens in Z mount sounds like a great lens. I bought the 14-30 mm when it came out and the 14-24 was not available yet in Z mount. I think I will stick to the 14-30 for now, as it seems quite good to me (better than my old 16-35 mm in F mount) and is small enough that it is easy to take traveling. But the 14-24 in Z mount certainly sounds better optically, takes filters and is lighter than its F mount counterpart. Attractive for sure.

If you get more Z mount lenses you'll find that the hood on the 14-24 mm lens that takes 112 mm filters will also fit the 14-30, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 Z mount lenses. I found this quite useful in Iceland last fall, as I could bayonet the same hood and filter (ND or polarizer) on three of my lenses.

 

[fcotterill]

Must have been a great trip. I’m thinking now of the 14-24 Z lens because eventually I’ll go exclusively mirrorless.

You didn't include Z options previously but this changes options a lot. I nearly opted for the the 14-24 f2.8S recently, as it is arguably the best yet ultrawide yet made. Besides IQ, fairly light and compact and far easier to fit filters. The big question is this zoom or the far cheaper and even more compact 14-30 f4S: takes 82mm std filters etc.

From reading widely about and feedback from those who have used both these Z zooms, including @Lance B , I had basically decided to save for the faster f2.8S in case of astro needs, besides the positives. Then an almost new Used copy of the 14-30 came on sale earlier this month. Big savings, which ended the debate

I have run off some preliminary tests but only on a Zfc, but very happy with it. So I see this as the perfect upgrade from the 18-35 G. Both are ideal to carry along with wildlife kit on all trips....one never knows when and where opportunities arise.....

 

[PAUL50]

Yes, Yellowstone is a magical place. I particularly like it in winter.

The 14-24 mm lens in Z mount sounds like a great lens. I bought the 14-30 mm when it came out and the 14-24 was not available yet in Z mount. I think I will stick to the 14-30 for now, as it seems quite good to me (better than my old 16-35 mm in F mount) and is small enough that it is easy to take traveling. But the 14-24 in Z mount certainly sounds better optically, takes filters and is lighter than its F mount counterpart. Attractive for sure.

If you get more Z mount lenses you'll find that the hood on the 14-24 mm lens that takes 112 mm filters will also fit the 14-30, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 Z mount lenses. I found this quite useful in Iceland last fall, as I could bayonet the same hood and filter (ND or polarizer) on three of my lenses.

I started out fighting the idea of mirrorless, but became increasingly curious as I was reading the posts on this site, and then decided I needed to buy the Z9. At the same time, I reached deep into the bank account to get the 600mm that I've wanted for years, and went north to shoot snowy owls in NY. I simply could not believe the difference and now I'm hooked. I see a steady conversion to the Z system for me, but I'm reading that the F mount 500PF works extraordinarily well on the Z9. I have the lens, just haven't tried it yet. Very exciting time in photography.

 

[RichF]

I had the 14-28 and it was a great lens. SOld it as I moving to ML system.

 

[BillW]

I started out fighting the idea of mirrorless, but became increasingly curious as I was reading the posts on this site, and then decided I needed to buy the Z9. At the same time, I reached deep into the bank account to get the 600mm that I've wanted for years, and went north to shoot snowy owls in NY. I simply could not believe the difference and now I'm hooked. I see a steady conversion to the Z system for me, but I'm reading that the F mount 500PF works extraordinarily well on the Z9. I have the lens, just haven't tried it yet. Very exciting time in photography.

I think the 500 mm PF works very nicely on the Z9. I used it in Yellowstone, with and without a 1.4x TCIII.

I have also used the 1.7x TCII and 2x TCIII with the 500 mm PF and Z9/Z7II. Those combinations work well too, much better than on a DSLR. I think you do lose some IQ, but if you need the focal length and have decent light, I think it is better than cropping. I also found that the 500 mm PF and a TC focuses faster with the Z9 than with the Z7II. Not that that is surprising of course. But the difference made the 2x TCIII + 500 m PF usable to photograph fishing bald eagles last month along the Mississippi.

 

[JAS]

When I went to the Badlands and Yellowstone I had the 16-35 f/4 for wide shooting. Now that I have the 14-24 f/2.8, I wish I had it back then. It would have benn a big plus on the wide vistas available at both locations. Make sure you have coverage from 24 to 300 and then as long as you can get. You will need 400 or longer for much of the wildlife to get the best shots. When I go again, I will make sure I have coverage to at least 600 or longer (500mm PF with a 1.4 teleconverter to 700mm).

 

[Charles Loy]

14-24 is a 'wow so great' lens! Heavy, but solid as a tank. I have no flare concerns and don't use filters with it.
You are considering the 14-24Z - is a good plan too.
I've been to Yellowstone once, wont go back. Badlands and Custer yearly for 17 years and counting onward. The 14-24 goes along and is used often

 

[JAS]

Another note. If youy are going through South Dakota Badlands, near Mount Rushmore, Custer State PArk is a great place for the drive and the photos. You cn also pick up Devil's Tpwer on the leg from there to Yellowstone. I am sure you already know this but just a reminder.

 

[PAUL50]

Another note. If youy are going through South Dakota Badlands, near Mount Rushmore, Custer State PArk is a great place for the drive and the photos. You cn also pick up Devil's Tpwer on the leg from there to Yellowstone. I am sure you already know this but just a reminder.

Thanks! I’m working up the plan now and had all but Custer State Park included. I‘ll definitely look at that tomorrow! I’m working on the lenses, too!

 

[fulltimewanderer]

I'm planning a trip to the Badlands and Yellowstone this June and will be taking wide angle landscape shots this trip, which will be a new experience for me. I have an AF-S 17-35 f/2.8D ED lens and realize it's an older model. I've read some reviews which suggest it's soft around the edges and so I'm thinking of selling and replacing with the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED. I'm seeking comments, recommendations, suggestions, anything I can get to assist in making a solid decision with respect to a super wide angle lens. If the group has alternative ideas regarding a killer lens to do the job I'd appreciate hearing about it. Thank you.

Paul, I own a 14-24G far from my most lens but, it is a quality lens. Two complaints, with the shape of the front element it can be very easily damaged so please be careful, will not work with conventional filters and filter systems can get expensive. May wish to try shooting with a 24-70 2.8 and stitch a series of shots together. You will enjoy the detail and sharpness of you results.

 

[Calson]

With my 14-24mm f/2.8 F-mount lens I added two very expensive adapter kits so I could use ND filters and these ND filters with their size are also very expensive. The new Z 14-24mm f/2.8 can work with 112mm ND filters but at $600 to buy 3 filters with different filter factors is pricey and I would be concerned about flare if using more than one ND at a time with such a wide view angle lens.

Flare is only a problem if photographing into the sun which is something I very seldom do with wide angle lenses. And flare can add to an image as often as not.

 

[PAUL50]

With my 14-24mm f/2.8 F-mount lens I added two very expensive adapter kits so I could use ND filters and these ND filters with their size are also very expensive. The new Z 14-24mm f/2.8 can work with 112mm ND filters but at $600 to buy 3 filters with different filter factors is pricey and I would be concerned about flare if using more than one ND at a time with such a wide view angle lens.

Flare is only a problem if photographing into the sun which is something I very seldom do with wide angle lenses. And flare can add to an image as often as not.

I’ve decided to get the Z14-24 and the NiSi 112mm circular polarizer. In fact, it’s already on order!

 

[RugglesZ9]

Well, do keep in mind that the 14-24 is very susceptible to flare, has field curvature and doesn't take filters. If those are things that matter to you, you might want to skip the 14-24...

Also, if you are not used to using 14mm, it's gonna be a shock in the field and you'll get mostly "meh" photos. Personally I sold my 14mm f2.8 for an 18-35mm G as it was much easier to use.

Oh, contraire! The original [F-mount] 14-24 was very sharp with minimal distortion. I tend not to shoot into the sun, but have never had an issue with flare. I did buy the Lee Filter Kit for the lens, but never used it. I spent 10 days with it in NYC as my only lens, and had fabulous images; two of my favorite shots from that trip were of the Apple Store on 5th Ave.- basically an extremely large all-glass cube, and it easily straighten the vertical tilt common to all wide angles with 30 seconds in Lightroom, and everything was crystal clear, both night and daylight, and the lines perfectly straight and sharp. 10 days in a dense city with tall buildings would show off any noticeable distortion. Wide vistas? Can't be beat.

The Z version is sharper, with insignificant distortion for its range, and takes a screw-in filter [112mm] and a small gel filter in back - I have the former, but haven't used them yet. I am planning 3 weeks in England in the Spring, and I am about 75% decided on taking the 14-24 as my primary lens, and a 70-200 with TC as backup since I will be doing a great deal of walking. I don't expect an issue with the lens. I figure I can crop the 70-200 to fill the gap since the lenses and z9 produce very detailed images. If I had the 14-30, I might take that instead, but interior shots of churches are much better at 2.8, with a little less distortion.

YMMV.

 

[Nimi]

I’ve decided to get the Z14-24 and the NiSi 112mm circular polarizer. In fact, it’s already on order!

You'll love it. If you find yourself using it a lot, presumably landscape involving sky, consider moving to a Lee filter system or something similar.