List Info

Thread: re: filter options for 14-24 f2.8 G lens? workarounds?
re: filter options for 14-24 f2.8 G lens? workarounds?
country flaguser name
United States		 2008-03-22 11:28:11 

  


  

    








    

            
>>>>>>>>;>> 
I want to be able to use this lens on my F2 film bodies as well as my D3
digital body. ; On the F2's, the lens will be fully stopped down to f22, so
my workaround would be to use a tripod.  For landscape shots, that's OK.


And probably use Tri-X, so sunlight shots would have a shutter speed of
around 1/200 second.
 
For filters, I'm not sure what to do.  I have read that there is no front
filter ring
<&lt;<<<<<;<<&lt;



Phil,

I've recently moved from a D200 to a D300 to a D3. The film bodies in my closet include an exquisite F2AS and an FM3a. I have the 14-24  Nikkor and the 17-35 Nikkor. Previously, I owned the 14 mm Nikkor.



With the new D3, I'm in the process of selling the D300 and 14-24 ; (and other lenses acquired to accommodate the reduced size digital sensor). I'm keeping the 17-35.

The 14-24 has no filter threads. You cannot attach gels to the rear, as you could with the 14 mm Nikkor. It will not accept Cokin filter or other front lens attachments.This lens does not accept filters at all (at least, not in any conventional way that I'm aware of).



For your cameras and needs, I'd recommend the 17-35 Nikkor instead. Shooting it and the 14-24 side-by-side, to my eye they are optically equal, both outstanding lenses. However, the 17-35 is smaller and lighter (very noticeable difference), less expensive, has 77 mm filter threads and has an aperture ring so it will work equally well on your F2 and your D3 (for several years prior to digital, I used it almost exclusively on my F2). The 14-24 does have a bit wider angle of view, but using it next to the 17-35 I didn't find the difference meaningful. 



And while the 14-24 uses Nikon's new "Nano Crystal Coating,&quot; I question if that coating isn't more marketing hype than a real difference (though the 14 mm Nikkor ghosted badly while the new zoom is markedly better. Maybe the new coating makes a difference there. Ghosting has never been an issue for me with the 17-35. In fact, I used to maintain that the 17-35 was Nikon's widest lens that could be used in the sun).


Having used both, the difference in size and weight and the aperture ring make the 17-35 preferable to the 14-24 for me.

Larry Kopitnik




    
  

    
    __._,_.___
    
     
    
    
	  
.

	
 		   

	
	__,_._,___
	
	

  

  
  
   
     
    

  

    RE:  re: filter options for 14-24 f2.8 G
lens? workarounds?
  


  

     country flaguser name
United States		
     2008-03-23 00:27:40
  


  

    

  


  

    








    

            




Phil,

I've recently moved from a D200 to a D300 
to a D3. The film bodies in my closet include an exquisite F2AS and an FM3a. I 
have the 14-24 Nikkor and the 17-35 Nikkor. Previously, I owned the 14 mm 
Nikkor. 



 


Ah.  My two F2s are an F2A and and 
F2S.&nbsp; Neither is anything close to "exquisite" but I have a motor drive for 
each, and they are still great cameras.&nbsp;

With the new 
D3, I'm in the process of selling the D300 and 14-24 ; (and other lenses 
acquired to accommodate the reduced size digital sensor). I'm keeping the 
17-35.

The 14-24 has no filter threads. You cannot attach gels to the 
rear, as you could with the 14 mm Nikkor. It will not accept Cokin filter or 
other front lens attachments.This lens does not accept filters at all (at least, 
not in any conventional way that I'm aware of). 



 


Ah, again.&nbsp; The key question was if you could 
mount a Cokin type filer on this lens.&nbsp;

For your 
cameras and needs, I'd recommend the 17-35 Nikkor instead. Shooting it and the 
14-24 side-by-side, to my eye they are optically equal, both outstanding lenses. 
However, the 17-35 is smaller and lighter (very noticeable difference), less 
expensive, has 77 mm filter threads and has an aperture ring so it will work 
equally well on your F2 and your D3 (for several years prior to digital, I used 
it almost exclusively on my F2). The 14-24 does have a bit wider angle of view, 
but using it next to the 17-35 I didn't find the difference 
meaningful.  



 


Great information.  Great.&nbsp; I think I would 
prefer the wider view of the 14-24, but what you have written makes a lot 
of sense. I'm interested in being able to use a filter for black-and-white 
scenics with the F2s.  I plan on shooting B&W again with the F2s as 
soon as I get a film scanner.&nbsp; I still have the bulk loader and changing 
bag I used years ago when all I could afford was bulk-loaded PX and TX, home 
processed of course.&nbsp;

And while the 14-24 uses Nikon's 
new "Nano Crystal Coating," I question if that coating isn't more marketing hype 
than a real difference (though the 14 mm Nikkor ghosted badly while the new zoom 
is markedly better. Maybe the new coating makes a difference there. Ghosting has 
never been an issue for me with the 17-35. In fact, I used to maintain that the 
17-35 was Nikon's widest lens that could be used in the sun). 



 


I'm concerned about ghosting when I'm shooting low-light 
situations and there are light sources in 
the ;frame.&nbsp;

Having used both, the difference in 
size and weight and the aperture ring make the 17-35 preferable to the 14-24 for 
me. 



 


Size, weight, and the filter ring are the issues for 
me.


 


Phil Burton&nbsp;

Larry 
Kopitnik
 


    
  

    
    __._,_.___
    
     
    
    
	  
.

	
 		   

	
	__,_._,___
	
	

  

  
  
   
     
    






 [1-2]











   
 





about | contact  Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )