Nikon 14mm vs. Nikon 14-24 zoom?

[Zack Birlew]

Hey guys, I was looking at putting together a Nikon set based on the new zooms (14-24 and 24-70) that have come out but I got a notice from B&H photo about the 14mm prime coming back in stock and it got me thinking. For RED, I know that prime lenses would better serve the overall image quality and ease of use, but I can't shake the good value in the zooms, especially since both solutions can get 14mm wide shots.

Has anybody tested both lenses or knows of a review out there already? Can someone post comparison photos? Opinions?

 

[Evin Grant]

The 14mm Nikon prime never impressed me, neither did the Canon. The 14-24 is supposedly spectacular, and being almost ten years newer technology and design my money's on the new zoom.
Not to mention the new zoom is AFS so it will work with the Birger FF system.

 

[Bill Goehring]

Unfortunately, the achilles heel of the 14-24 Nikkor, as far as shooting with RED is concerned, is that the front element is convex to the extent that there is no front filter mount, nor is there a rear filtration option, so no ND filtration on-lens.

A matte box may be helpful, but is it a viable solution for the wide end?

Another potential candidate is the Nikkor 12-24 DX, which covers the entire 4k area of the mysterium, even though it is not a full-35mm-frame still lens, and it has the standard 77 mm front filter mount for your on-camera ND filtering pleasure.

 

[Evin Grant]

The 14-24 should work with a 4x5 WA mattebox since the FOV is that of a s35/DX sensor.

 

[Joe Vinson]

For what it's worth, I've never used super wide angles in bright outdoors -- only cramped, dimly lit interiors. So a lack of ND filters wouldn't be a deal-breaker.

 

[Zack Birlew]

Really? I didn't know the 12-24 DX would work! Mwhahaha! The wideness!!!:devil:

*cough* Ahem, er... cool info.

 

[Bill Goehring]

Yep, both for coverage of the sensor and AF-S designation for focus automation with the Birger Mount.

 

[Elizabeth Lowrey]

The 14-24 should work with a 4x5 WA mattebox since the FOV is that of a s35/DX sensor.

Can anyone comment further on any possible issues in using the Nikon 14-24/f2.8 on the RED with a mattebox?

I've never even handled a mattebox before, have never physically attached one, etc., having come from the video world where NDs are built in. I'm just wondering if that fixed lens hood/protector on the 14-24 would in any way physically interfere with a mattebox mounted on rails. How close to the front of a lens does the closest filter in the mattebox usually reside? Will that fixed hood have to actually go inside the back opening of a mattebox a certain distance?

Also, for Evin or anyone else, is there a chart somewhere that relates sensor/film size to the mattebox size necessary to avoid vignetting (or whatever the proper term is for when the sides of the mattebox become visible at extreme wide angles) when paired with a particular lens? In other words, how do you know what size mattebox and filters to get for the RED? Is it pretty much the consensus that RED users should be using 4x5 filters?

 

[jaadgy akanni]

Hey guys, I was looking at putting together a Nikon set based on the new zooms (14-24 and 24-70) that have come out but I got a notice from B&H photo about the 14mm prime coming back in stock and it got me thinking. For RED, I know that prime lenses would better serve the overall image quality and ease of use, but I can't shake the good value in the zooms, especially since both solutions can get 14mm wide shots.

Has anybody tested both lenses or knows of a review out there already? Can someone post comparison photos? Opinions?

Jack, these here are pretty insightful reviews of the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm lenses:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm

 

[Elizabeth Lowrey]

Any takers on my questions above?

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Not to mention the new zoom is AFS so it will work with the Birger FF system.

Even on Birger Canon EF mount on RED can work as a full manual lens (with Nikon to EOS adapter of course).

That's I am interesting in.

 

[Elizabeth Lowrey]

:calm: Bumping again, in search of any input on post #8 in the thread.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=148943&postcount=8

 

[Sia Kosari]

How do you select your aperture if this is a G lens?

How do you select your aperture if this is a G lens?

1. How do you select your aperture if this is a G lens?

2. RedRock Micro has a matte box that you can mount on 19mm rails that uses 4x5.6 filters.

3. I have been stuffing a piece of paper in the aperture lever on the back of my G lenses to open the aperture at its widest.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Jack, these here are pretty insightful reviews of the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm lenses:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/14-24mm.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm

I say this just as an observation, not having formed much of an opinion on Ken one way or the other :

I think it's odd that around here I frequently see Ken's site linked as a reliable source but on any still photography forum you go to you'll find a prevailing opinion that he's a raving lunatic who hasn't even touched half the stuff he "reviews."

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

as far I I know

as far I I know

:calm: Bumping again, in search of any input on post #8 in the thread.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=148943&postcount=8

I checked the 14-24 for vignetting with filters:
It will work with Red sensor (current one) when you use 4x5 filters(ARRI LMB5 clip on?)
6x6 filters will provide full frame(24x36mm) coverage (LMB3?)
The filters were right up against the front of the lens- I haven't checked for stacking more than one.
The front of the lens is 96mm diameter so you'll need:
1. 96mm adapter plate for the mattebox (?)
2. or a bellows that steps down to 96mm for swing away
3. step down split ring to 96mm for a clip on
Jacek Zakowicz, OptiTek.org:thumbsup:

 

[Shawn R]

I found the Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8 PRO DX for Nikon to be a superb lens. I was thinking of the Nikon 14-24 as well, but chose to go with the Tokina.

 

[Matthew Duclos]

Hmm... 11-16mm..
Tell me more...

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

Really?

Really?

I found the Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8 PRO DX for Nikon to be a superb lens. I was thinking of the Nikon 14-24 as well, but chose to go with the Tokina.

You've probably not seen the two compared in projection-the Nikon is well worth the $1000 or so price difference. And that's not even taking into account the full frame coverage of the Nikon....
Of course if your budget desn't allow it that's a different story....
Jacek Zakowicz, Optitek.org.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Hmm... 11-16mm..
Tell me more...

Your bad....:thumbsup: but as long as we are making subtle plugs - it would work great on an underwater camera.

Seriously, for those that may not know Matthew has a nice PL conversion of the 11-16mm

 

[Shawn R]

Your bad....:thumbsup: but as long as we are making subtle plugs - it would work great on an underwater camera.

Seriously, for those that may not know Matthew has a nice PL conversion of the 11-16mm

Yeah I know it, hah, hah, hah. Mathew you changed your Avatar. Who's the young dude?

The one reason I suggested the Tokina, (that I use on a Nikon mount) is that Mathew had made a PL version. If your going to spend the time on a lens conversion you have to believe that it is worth while.

It does cover the full frame.

The construction is not as solid as the Nikon glass though.

I have the
Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8 PRO DX for Nikon
Nikon AF-S 17-55mm DX Zoom-Nikkor F/2.8G IF-ED
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm VR Zoom-Nikkor F/2.8G IF-ED

with the latter 70-200mm being the best build quality. The build quality of the 14-24mm would be the same.

At the end of the day if you have the money to spend get the 14-24mm if you don't the Tokina definitely satisfies.