Flaming/whining about the 14-24 on DX

Status
Not open for further replies.

markryder

Active Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2007
Messages
305
Location
oslo, norway
That's true, but I'm not certain why you'd use the 14-24 on DX. (apologies to markryder. :p)

It's kind of friggin' obvious isn't it? :rolleyes: If you need/want anything in that zoom range, its nikon's sharpest lens. Could you explain why on earth you wouldn't want to use it on a DX ??
 
because it's no longer SUPAR wide and thus the point is defeated
 
^ My thoughts exactly. For DX, you're probably best served by the Sigma 10-20 (equivalent 15-30) which, from what I've seen, is a very good performer.
 
The new Nikkor 11-18 seems usable as well.
 
^ Eh? I don't think such a lens exists. Did you mean the 10-24?

He may have meant the Tokina 11-16/2.8.

As far as the 14-24 goes, it's an abjectly wonderful lens, but on DX you wind up with a midrange zoom that costs a huge amount of money and yet doesn't let you use filters. Lenses like the Tokina make more sense to me and cost a lot less. Your mileage, as usual, may vary. If it suits your needs, then all the more power to you.
 
I meant the 10-24, I'm just a little sick.
 
As far as the 14-24 goes, it's an abjectly wonderful lens, but on DX you wind up with a midrange zoom that costs a huge amount of money and yet doesn't let you use filters. Lenses like the Tokina make more sense to me and cost a lot less. Your mileage, as usual, may vary. If it suits your needs, then all the more power to you.

It won't let you use anymore filters connected to a FX body either so I can't really see the point in what you're saying there. But you're getting to my point in all of this: if the zoomrange suits your needs, there's NOTHING better you can buy.

So the 14-24 on a DX body isn't pointless. And saying it is isn't a very well thought out statement.
 
It won't let you use anymore filters connected to a FX body either so I can't really see the point in what you're saying there.

The point is there's far cheaper lenses in that zoom range on DX that are even wider and accept filters. The Tokina 11-18 is even a constant f/2.8 and is wider still. The new Sigma 10-20/3.5 is wider and still accepts filters. The reason the 14-24 is expensive is that it's a 14mm that covers FX, but if you're not using it on FX it seems like money that could be better spent elsewhere, seeing as it costs 2-4 times as much as the purpose-designed DX ones.

So, did I say that using the 14-24 on DX is "pointless?" No, so don't put words in my mouth. What I did say is that it doesn't make sense to me to pay that kind of money to use it on DX, especially if you use filters regularly - which I do.
 
^ Exactly. If you want to go wide on DX, it makes more sense to buy a Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24 than it does to buy a 14-24, which will give you "almost really wide" to a focal length that's almost never used on DX.
 
The point is there's far cheaper lenses in that zoom range on DX that are even wider and accept filters. The Tokina 11-18 is even a constant f/2.8 and is wider still. The new Sigma 10-20/3.5 is wider and still accepts filters. The reason the 14-24 is expensive is that it's a 14mm that covers FX, but if you're not using it on FX it seems like money that could be better spent elsewhere, seeing as it costs 2-4 times as much as the purpose-designed DX ones.

So, did I say that using the 14-24 on DX is "pointless?" No, so don't put words in my mouth. What I did say is that it doesn't make sense to me to pay that kind of money to use it on DX, especially if you use filters regularly - which I do.

No, you said "...I'm not certain why you'd use the 14-24 on DX". That's the statement I reacted to. You never mentioned filters. If you need filters to achieve your goal, sure - the 14-24 is a horrible choice, I agree.

But arguing price is pointless, as price affects everyone differently. A high price will turn some away from it, because they have to settle with less. While others will go for the best they can get. I'm pretty sure no one would want to suggest that any of the lenses mentioned as alternatives for the 14-24 delivers the same image quality, because they don't. The 11-16 suffers from horrible ca's, and the 10-20 is compared in reviews to canon's 10-22 which is a let down when it comes to image quality.

So, to sum it up: it's shit for filters, but I assume you now know why you'd use it on a DX? :)
 
^ Exactly. If you want to go wide on DX, it makes more sense to buy a Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24 than it does to buy a 14-24, which will give you "almost really wide" to a focal length that's almost never used on DX.

If you don't need anything wider than 14mm, then the 14-24 is a superior choice to all those lenses. If you can afford it, there's no reason to get an inferior lens.
 
Except to get another lens you'd like. :)

Let's say I'm after a new lens these days. I could get the 7-14, which is near as make no difference a 14-24, just a stop slower, it's a gem. But it does cost a lot of money. For the money I pay for it, I could get myself an 9-18 (not as wide, not weather sealed, slower, not AS sharp) that's very sharp, well corrected, accepts filters, is one third the size, costs one third and get something like a Siggy 30/1.4 or a ZD 50/2.0 in between.

But, if the 14-24 is the lens for you, DX or FX alike, then you should get it, if you can afford it, and it doesn't make more sense to get a couple of other lenses.

Quality is a double edged sword. Sure, you get what you pay for. But will you have more fun with one lens of incredible quality, or with two different lenses with quite decent quality? That's up to you. :)
 
No, you said "...I'm not certain why you'd use the 14-24 on DX". That's the statement I reacted to. You never mentioned filters. If you need filters to achieve your goal, sure - the 14-24 is a horrible choice, I agree.

If you'll remember waaaaay back, the discussion was about an FX user choosing it based on DX reviews, before you got all butthurt. Why the hell would he use it on DX when he has a D3? I made a light joke about you using it on DX, and you went off on a tangent. Get a grip.


But arguing price is pointless, as price affects everyone differently. A high price will turn some away from it, because they have to settle with less. While others will go for the best they can get. I'm pretty sure no one would want to suggest that any of the lenses mentioned as alternatives for the 14-24 delivers the same image quality, because they don't. The 11-16 suffers from horrible ca's, and the 10-20 is compared in reviews to canon's 10-22 which is a let down when it comes to image quality.

So, to sum it up: it's shit for filters, but I assume you now know why you'd use it on a DX? :)

And all of that was already taken into account in my first response, which I'm quite sure you read:

As far as the 14-24 goes, it's an abjectly wonderful lens, but on DX you wind up with a midrange zoom that costs a huge amount of money and yet doesn't let you use filters. Lenses like the Tokina make more sense to me and cost a lot less. Your mileage, as usual, may vary. If it suits your needs, then all the more power to you.

See? I already explained the 14-24 doesn't make sense to me on DX, but if it works for you then so be it. Stop being such a drama queen.
 
Stop being such a drama queen.

That's just plain funny coming from you. But for the sake of keeping this thread about what its supposed to be, I'll leave you be. Your statement that you can't understand why anyone would use the best lens nikon can offer on a DX body really says everything there is to say about your intelligence as far as camera equipment goes :lol:

You could have left my name compleatly out of it, and it still would have been the moronic mess it is, and I still would have commented on it. So get over yourself.
 
Quality is a double edged sword. Sure, you get what you pay for. But will you have more fun with one lens of incredible quality, or with two different lenses with quite decent quality? That's up to you. :)

Sure, I totally agree with what you're saying. I'll even add that you'll probably have even more fun with cheaper equipment than if you go out and get yourself something expencive. Why? I'd never throw the d300 with the 14-24 in a bag and go somewhere and just snap shots at random, crawling on the ground or climbing stuff to experiment. The equipment is just too expencive to risk damaging it. But a used 400D/450D with a 35 f2 or 10-20/10-22? Hell yeah. I'd even take it out in the rain.

But that's all down to economy, and has nothing to do with the equipment itself, and everything to do with our own financial status. Some one else might concider the D300 and 14-24 combo as a cheap run around camera because the rest of their stuff is all hasseblad ;)

But we're getting way off track :) I was just making the point that anyone who can't understand why someone would get the best lens possible for a DX body isn't "all there" to put it nicely.
 
So get over yourself.

no u

*runs away very fast*


edit: *carefully sneaks back in*

by the way, other than not being super wide, the 14-24 is still a waste of money for a crop body. Past the resolution of the camera's sensor it doesn't matter how sharp a lens is because you gain nothing except an increasingly large hole in your wallet which could've gone to other things - even if you've won the lottery and don't care about how much things cost, the money still could've gone to something more useful. The Tamron 70-200 can out resolve sensors easily, so by your logic it must be the second best lens you could possibly get, bollocks to you if the range isn't useful you should still get it because it's the second best lens you can possibly get.

All I'm saying is your precious is massive overkill. Overly overkilling massive killing overkill.
 
Last edited:
That's just plain funny coming from you. But for the sake of keeping this thread about what its supposed to be, I'll leave you be. Your statement that you can't understand why anyone would use the best lens nikon can offer on a DX body really says everything there is to say about your intelligence as far as camera equipment goes :lol:

OH NOES THEY DISSIN' MAH LENSES

But, since you seem to enjoy being the butthurt victim here, I'll point out again that I never once said I didn't know why anyone would use it on DX, since you evidently have the reading comprehension of a preschooler. I said it didn't make sense for Alok to be using it on DX (and hence looking at DX reviews), and (later, once you brought it up) how it doesn't float my personal boat on DX. Your name was included as a joke, but since you're calling me out I'll play ball. Let's look at some brilliant markryder advice! This came from when he'd owned a telephoto IS lens for a whole two hours!

Concider the pictures you've already taken without IS: are they all perfectly sharp, or do you often come home with slightly blurry pictures? That's all you really need to think about. If you suffer from blurry pictures, get IS. If all your pictures are sharp - why bother with IS?

Oh, yeah, if your photos ain't sharp, you totally need IS! I have trouble expressing how monumentally stupid this advice was. Before throwing out lame comments at me, maybe you should grab half a brain first.

You could have left my name compleatly out of it, and it still would have been the moronic mess it is, and I still would have commented on it. So get over yourself.

:lol: Yeah, we all believe that one. Then again, with the pitiably low level of competence and reading comprehension you've displayed here, maybe you would have. Either way, you're still being a butthurt, whiny drama queen. You can cry all you want, but nobody was hating on you or your precious 14-24 to begin with. That was all in your head, it's just a shame you seem to enjoy being a victim so much.
 
C'mon folks, you know I am not strange to get into someone's face with a fist and a bat, but let's keep it civil, it's just gear..

:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top