DSLRUsers.com

Firstly I wanted to apologise boys and girls for being AWOL for a long time, I'm leaving for a 4 week trip to the US, hopefully to see some Snow for Xmas. I'm keen to take some photos while I'm over there, and possible supplement my lens range I'm currently thinking of adding to my FX range of lenswa, and think I'll replace my 10-20 with either the 17-35 2.8 or the 14-24 2.8, I'm open to other suggests that would fit the bill but I think these are the two likely candidates. Everyone speaks very highly of the 14-24 but the limiting factor of no filters is a mild concern, not that I'm a big filter users, but it does limit my options for long exposures, seascapes or anything if I was to get a little creative.

So happy to hear any suggestions from anyone, and if I don't make it back on before hand Merry Xmas, Happy Holidays and a great new year to all the forum goers and I hope I'll be back more involved in 2010!

Have a good trip Craig.

Great to hear from you Craig. I hope you have a great trip.

As for the wides in question, I think you have covered the two that most people would suggest. I would have to have a good play with both lenses before deciding, but keep in mind that 17mm is very wide on FX so if filters are the go for you, then the 17-35 may be the lens for you.

Thanks Cam, the 17-35 is also slightly cheaper, while the IQ may be slightly better on the 14-24... depending on reviews. I've tried looking at third party lenses too, but I can't see anything that seems to keep up with the Nikon options.

Hi craig
I think the 14-24 would be best even though you will no filter options. I think the only filter you will miss out on is a cp
But blue skies can be darkened in photoshop easily.
That said have a wonderful trip I may bump into you I'm back in New York january 15th

you will miss out on is a cp
But blue skies can be darkened in photoshop easily

correct me if I am wrong here but a CP is the only filter that cannot be replicated in photochop, blue skies, yes, but the overall effect of the filter in reducing reflections simply cannot be replicated, take for example using a CP on a waterfall scene with trees etc. The reflections off the water and off the tree leaves are removed and hence give the scene a more natural saturated look. I think if you are definitely looking to do seascapes etc and needing a filter, this may point you towards the 17-35, which as cam mentioned is quite wide on FX

While I don't use filters now, I am interested in possibling using ND filters to slow down humans and traffic etc.

Thank you everyone for the feedback its all food for thought!

Craig,

I went through the same process when I got my D700, trying to decide which wide angle lens to get. In terms of wide angle lens, the 14-24 is the best, no questions asked. Geez, even Canon shooters buy the lens and use an adapter to be able to use it on their cameras.

However, the 17-35 used to be the best WA that Nikon made. And as you said, it does take filters. I use ND grads all the time when doing sea scapes and I like to use an ND filter with waterfall shots.

Bjørn Rørslett rates the 14-24 a 5 on an FX body and the 17-35 a 4.5-5, so both are great lenses.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html

I really wanted the 14-24 but in the end, I picked the 17-35 and love it on my D700. I need to use filters for the type of photography I do so in the end the choice was clear.

Some of the DX lenses also work on the D700. For example the Tokina 12-24 will stop vignetting from about 17-18mm, just tell the D700 not to go in crop mode. Not sure what you currently have in your camera bag.

Have a great holiday and watch out for that black ice on sidewalks

André

....... have a good trip Craig

....... if you buy the 17-35 and do not like it, let me know, as I know where it will be very happy camper......

Thanks for the feedback André. While I hear the resolving power is better on the 14-24, but I keep coming back to the fact that I can't use filters if I got that route. And while I don't know, I do want to get into it, or atleast have it as an option.

I'll keep my eye out for black ice, but I'm sure it will find me before find it.

I believe Cokin do make a filter holder for the 14-24. The Cokin X-Pro series.

http://www.adorama.com/CKXP164KNK.html? ... CKXP164KNK

Scoobydoo, thanks for the link. While it's nice to know filters are an option with the 14-24mm at $625 bucks it doesn't seem to be a very cost effective solution, but I guess if you've already bought the 14-24 then you had to have some serious cash in the first place. Thanks!