Nikon 14-24 Review
Check Latest Lens Prices
- Nikon 14-24 Lens – My wide-angle lens of choice.
- Approx Cost: Approx $1,800 and up
- See the latest prices from Amazon Nikon 14-24 Lens
- See the latest prices from B&H Photo Nikon 14-24 Lens
- Approx Cost: Approx $1,800 and up
The Nikon 14-24 Lens
And now, onto the shockingly short review:
This is the best wide angle lens I have ever used. Whenever I am standing with a fellow photographer that has a Nikon DSLR, I immediately force them to remove whatever lens they happen to have on and put this one on so they can try it out. They are amazed too.
Here is an anecdotal collection of the things they say:
“There is hardly any distortion!”
“I can’t believe how much I can see through this thing!”
“I wish I had this when I went to [insert name of a place where there is general photography-regret].”
“Wow that is a big ass bubble on there.”
As for that last comment; it is very true! The lens is huge – much bigger than you would ever expect. It has a huge glass bubble on the end to gather all that light, so traditional lens covers don’t work. The one it comes with reminds me a little of a top to a Starbucks coffee, and it’s not so easy to fit into your pocket as you are out and about.
Pretty much every landscape I take now and in the future will use this lens. It’s much better than the Sigma 10-20mm that used to fill my nights and days. Below is a shot I took with this monster of a lens. You can click on it to zoom in (All Sizes) on the Flickr link to see how wonderful it is.
What is that “f/2.8″ about? It’s about speed. When you shoot at 2.8, you get a lot of light in very quickly. To prove how valuable this is, look at one of the shots below. I was hanging out of a helicopter shooting Chicago at sunset. There was not much light, and having a lens that shot at f/2.8 saved the day. Most of my landscape shots, however, are shot at a higher F-stop, like f/8 for example. When everything is at infinity, the F stop does not matter too much. However, as with the Chicago shot, you can see it is sometimes handy to use that “fast” 2.8 speed.
I’ve used this lens on a few different bodies. On the D3X (See my Nikon D3X Review), it is even wider and more amazing. I can usually capture everything I need in a scene… just amazing.
Not a Fish-Eye Lens
This is definitely not a fish-eye lens. I have shot with those, and they have extreme distortion. This does not. Yes, there is stretching on the sides and some distortion, but it is not nearly as intense as a fish-eye lens. Despite the bulbous-looking lens itself, it is definitely not a fish-eye.
Sample Photos of the Nikon 14-24 in the Field
Here a few pics of me using this lens on some shoots…
The Nikon 14-24 out in Japan… You can see the bulbous lens. It looks like a fish-eye but is not.
A good example of how wide-angle the shot can get.
This was shot with a 50mm, showing the back of my Nikon after taking a shot with the 14-24
More Information about my Photos
You might notice that I have a special post-processing technique. If you would like to find out more about that, you are welcome to visit my HDR Tutorial.
If you want to find out more about other equipment, I have some HDR Camera suggestions that also discuss a few other lenses.
Sample Nikon 14-24 Images
Here are some shots that I took with this great lens!
Any questions about the nature of these reviews? Visit my Ethics Statement. It’s all quite simple!
[...] Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 Review – A great wide-angle lens that I use for 80% of my landscapes [...]
OHHhhhh. That hurts, I like my sigma, but suppose there may be better out there.
I had heard this lens is so good that cannon users were working on creative ways to use this lens on their cameras.
Thanks for the reinforcement of this lens and also for the short to-the-point flavor of this review.
Unfortunately, I have a Tokina 12-24 and a Sigma 17-35 and this lens in two short weeks has shown me that it blows them away. They are for sale now.
I am now saving for it cousin the 24-70 f2.8 G lens.
Wow! Its crazy to me to see these pictures you’ve taken all over the world & included are landscapes I drive by every week! I live in Brenham, Tx and have always been fascinated with the little Ghosttown nearby & my eye always goes to the Revival set up on 290 when i’m out that way. Another cool place you might want to check out is Mumford, Tx..not much too it, but there is a really cool old abandoned warehouse/building there that I think you would appreciate.
You really should go to Archer City, Texas…Home of Larry McMurtry..and home to the Mckinney Cattle Co…goes back 100 years, and this is probably the last year. Mr McKinney passed away and the bank is running it, and they cannot run a ranch..So they have it up for sale and they are closing down the cattle. This ranch is one of the few old texas ranches in original condition ie. nothing has been done to alter the landscape in 50 years..This is the last cow-calf operation of its kind in the county. The ranch is 13,500 acres. I have been trying to capture it for years but the scope is daunting. Maby you might find yourway out our way to take a photo or two…Sam Friedman cell 214-906-2026
Thanks Sam – I may try that some day!
A friend is letting me use this exact lens on my D300. I am reading that the D700 (which he also has and offered to let me try) is even better for this lens. I am amazed at the non distortion of this lens.
I can deliberately distort people and critters by getting very close to them.
I wonder if he will forget that he is letting me use this lens?
It is an amazing piece of hardware.
Hey Dude,
Ur HDR photo technique is most interesting. But once one has seen a forest U have seen them all. Unlike the tree forest Ur HDR photos are leaning towards the artificial, clinical, antiseptic and boring. Great for the masses of LCD’s, where image and instant gratification is their only crutch before the “what’s next image”.
No offence ment Dude.
Galactic Cannibal
gourgeous
I am some what of a Newbie in photography and I have been rocking the Sigma 10-20 lens for about 3 months now, I have like the results. But as someone who has used both lenses, what are some of the things that make you favor the 14-24 over the Sigma? Thank you kindly.
[...] Nikon 14-24 Review [...]
[...] Nikon 14-24 Review [...]
Love the photos with this review
Fantastic
Shame I have canon not Nikon
Also always amused when American’s refer to a place as having a long long history then state it is in the order of 100 years – well makes me chuckle [waits for the barrage of rotten tomatoes]
Great review
Ian
First, I would like to thank you for all the help your flickr and blog sites have given me in the past few years… From HDR to LucisARt..
I am thinking about buying the 12-24mm over the sigma 10-20mm now.. but I have one question… some of my photog friends say it is a great lens, well worth the money… however it does have one draw back… the lens very easily scratchs.. and there is no way to attach a uv or clear filter to prevent that for this lens…Have you found that to be true ? and if so.. what care do you give the lens… Thanks again.
I used to love my Sigma 10-20 until I looked at the sharpness I am getting from my new Nikon lenses. There is absolutely no comparison and the Sigma’s edge softness really bothers me now. The Nikon 14-24mm is now second on my shopping list after the 24-70mm.
Wow – nice shots! I am used to the 12-24 on the Dx, but now that I have the D700, I have to get this!… the perspective is incredible.
i Just bought this lens it is super ultra wide angle with 2.8 !! its the Widest wide angle in the world u will get amazing result with FX.. i use it with my D700 i would suggest this lens only for FX sensor
This is not the widest angle lens at all, the Zuiko 7-14mm for Olympus dSLRs has the widest angle in the world.
just got a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.
Unbelievable!
i don’t see any problems with corners, pin cushion, etc.
Ya gotta try it.
Wait a minute – the Zuiko 7-14 has to be factored to about 11.5 on the Olympus does it not. I cannot find my calculator. A mute point because we’re getting into the fisheye range here on full-frame.
Ed, there are two lenses that can claim the crown as the widest rectilinear lens for a fullframe camera. Those are the Sigma 12-24, and if you factor in the Leica M9, the Voigtlander 12mm.
The Zuiko 7-14 is for a crop sensor, and gives a field of view equivalent to 14-28mm.
Now, if you’re using a DX or other APS system (with a crop factor of typically 1.5x), Canon offers a 10-22, Nikon offers a 10-24, and Sigma offers a 10-20; the Zuiko lens has a wider angle of view for its system than any of these do their theirs (and admittedly, the Zuiko costs 2-3x as much as these other ultrawides).
I must admit, I’ve yet to hear anything but raves for this lens. Maybe I’ll be able to afford it one of these days.
i’m set on this lens for shooting real estate and excited by it because my pictures are going to be even hotter.
side benefit being that it’s just plan amazing. I fully love wide shooting and I feel so good while doing it. looks like an investment well worth it.
This is an amazing lens along with my D700….
Hi Trey,
Mind sharing if your usage of the 14-24 ran into any problems that would traditionally needed a filter?
My biggest concern is the inability to use CPL filter to remove the reflection on surfaces. How were you able to get round this?
As for high contrast scenes, I used to use soft ND grad filter, but I understand that this can be remedied by stacking the photos, HDR etc.
Looking forward to your comment. Am planning to buy 14-24 based on your opinions as the 14-24 is your bread and butter lens!
Thanks for the comments !
BK – I do not know. I don’t use any filters at all. I find that when I shoot HDR that the various exposures get me all the light I need (or don’t need!) in post
Thanks Trey for your response.
How about when you shoot the photos with reflection on the surfaces? Like the ones with skyscrapers or lakes. Have you had any problems taking those shots?
You current answer already pushed me 50% to buy the 14-24 instead of the 17-35!
Thanks!
BK
Having serious thoughts myself re selling my 17-35 to help finance the purchase of a 14-24 as it gets rave reviews everywhere. However, it is an interesting point that BK makes re surface reflections as you cannot use a polariser. I also shoot seascapes quite a bit pre and after sunrise/sunset and on many occasions an ND Grad is required to get the shot envisaged. HDR really is not feasible in these situations as the water movement can cause problems when it comes to lining up the shots in Photomatix unless someone knows how to get around this problem.
Would be interested to hear some views on these points as I`m sure BK would also.
Ian
Wonder if you have any comparison shots – ie sigma 10-20 and compare to 14-24mm
I’d love to be able to see them. I’m battling with buying the new lens or getting a new imac one day.
I’ve heard great things about this lens. While I love these shots, the lens quality can not be judged by post-processed pictures. I’d really like to see the RAW pics to see what the lens itself can do.
Re post 29 of 23th Dec. any chance of an answer. I have your book and ready to go. Would be easily persuaded to get a 14-24 after trying out my friends but am yet to be convinced re coastal shots with the 14-24 and no filtration also the lining up of waves in Photomatics. Any advice/help in this regard would indeed be appreciated.
Thanks,
Ian
Thanks all!
Scott – most of my work pre-2009 was shot with the sigma 10-20 mm
Ian – Sorry mate – every day I get hundreds of comments scattered across thousands of mediums! But – lining up waves?? You mean a ghosting problems? I always advise fixing that via masking — I don’t use any filters on any of my lenses — but I think I know what you are talking about
Greetings, Trey!
I felt compelled to write you a little note to thank you for your great work as it has inspired me to try new things in photography.
Recently, a friend of mine suggested that I try my hand at HDR photography after looking at some of my Panoramic work and the first book I saw and picked up at B&N just happened to be yours. I then started looking around for reviews on the Nikon 14-24 as it has come widely recommended as quite possibly THE Definitive Ultra-wideangle lens to use for Nikon’s FX format cameras and whose name should I happen to see but yours AGAIN! So, since I can’t seem to get anywhere along the lines of HDR panoramics without seeing your name, I thought it best to say Hello!
Your work is amazing and your tutorials have me looking forward to working more and more with HDR.
I made a first attempt at an HDR Panoramic, but can see now that I went about it the wrong way – (The City) http://www.facebook.com/pages/Shuteru-Photography-for-many-causes/259221536278?ref=search&sid=1502462276.39737223..1
Looking forward to applying some of your techniques soon.
Also, for the gentleman concerned about not being able to use filters with the Nikon 14-24 – Please don’t let that stop you from getting this amazing piece of glass, a little bit of creativity will solve that problem for you as some people are already creating their own custom filter holders easily and inexpensively. http://www.flickr.com/photos/13847280@N03/2655841619/
Cheers!
-Marco
Great to follow your thoughts. Welcome to the antipodes. Australia is only next door.
Where do you think the 24 f1.4 will fit into your wish list?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_nowak/
Comparing the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 to the Sigma 14 is like comparing a Lamborghini Diablo to a Hyundai Excel! I know… I have the Sigma 14 too, and the images at wide open look like garbage next to the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 set at 14mm at f/2.8! Not even in the same universe!
I just bought one of these pigs and the D3x. (And the Zeiss 100 Makro) Can’t wait to use them.
[...] http://www.stuckincustoms.com [...]
[...] http://www.stuckincustoms.com [...]
Has it been much of an issue not being able to use a conventional polarizer with the 14-24?
No – have not found that to be a problem at all – I don’t ever use any filters on any of my lenses, though… I find they are of minimal impact
The 14-24 lens is truly impressive. I rented one to try it out to see if I liked it. I’ve been using Olympus equipment for a long time and own the Zuiko 7-14 and I wanted to see how the 14-24 worked on my Nikon. The 14-24 is faster, but I believe the Zuiko has less vignetting. Both lenses are quite impressive both in build quality and the quality of the images they take.
I am using a Nikon300s body. My question is does the dx format take away from the qualities you have found using the d3 with this lens/ thanks Tim
[...] Nikon 14-24 Review [...]
Since my original comment about the Sigma 10-20mm, I’ve upgraded and am now shooting a D700 with the Nikon 14-24mm. There really is no comparison, I’m afraid. The Nikon is way more expensive and about twice the weight but you won’t believe the colour clarity and sharpness. It’s a thing of beauty and is now the lens that I have on my camera by default (swapping for the 24-70 or 70-200 as required).
[...] is the famous Chrysler Building in the background. This was shot with the Nikon 14-24 Lens (See my Nikon 14-24 Review). It’s an expensive lens, so if you are looking for something cheaper that also takes great [...]
[...] is the famous Chrysler Building in the background. This was shot with the Nikon 14-24 Lens (See my Nikon 14-24 Review). It’s an expensive lens, so if you are looking for something cheaper that also takes great [...]
[...] is the famous Chrysler Building in the background. This was shot with the Nikon 14-24 Lens (See my Nikon 14-24 Review). It’s an expensive lens, so if you are looking for something cheaper that also takes great [...]
Dear. Sir
I am a photographer from Myanmar. I love landscape photography and want to use filters on my nikon 14-24mm and 70-200mm lens, I want to have PL & ND filters.
could you give me advices what kind of holder and filters size I need to buy and what kind of filters are good for landscape?