AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
After $400.00 Instant Savings
Fast aperture, high-performance, ultra-wide-angle zoom optimized for Full Frame/FX-Formatand APS-C size/DX-Format sensors featuring Nikon’s exclusive ED Glass and Nano Crystal Coat.
More Ways To Buy
Ratings & Reviews
Average Customer Rating
Write a Review×
AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
Based on 131 Reviews
Own this product already?Write a Review
Shoulda been a 5 but for a solvable design flaw: I like to keep a UV filter on my lens for 2 reasons - UV flare the second of two problems on lenses for (why have you killed the 850 successor , damnit!) DSLRS.The primary reason is keeping the thing clean. I’m very careful when it comes to the front element - don’t mind putting a little extra effort into cleaning a filter - a big one may be expensive but it’s a lot cheaper than a big piece of arguably the world’s best glass. I also like a detatchable lens hood - use it most of the time, might get lost, but even from Nikon, they’re a lot cheaper than replacing a hood that’s part of the lens.Now I have no gripes with optical performance, But there’s no reason a screw-on ring, guestimate 150 mm to 200 mm (where the fixed lens hood is now, couldn’t have been added to allow a short extension tube threaded for a big filter inside, and a bayonet-attached lens hood outside. -ok, it wouldn’t be as pretty, but it would sure beat scratching a lens or replacing a hood, at an est. $500/3rd pty-$1,000 Nikon repair.I’m still mad at the company for eliminating electronic spares to replace things like the focus board on my discontinued 18-70 mm f2.8 w/macro autofocus- great as a manual lens, but I didn’t need to upgrade to the no-macro 2.8 20-70 VR - great for my aging hands and cracked vertebrae. Lenses should be built to last as long as F-series bodies were, probably 100K still in use by wealthy film phreaks - 250K in great shape, brought out only for IR shots. Wadahell, my D200dx is still a useful backup bod. Mirrorless cameras are wonderful, but the new fantastic beasts are heavier (should be lighter, by design) and the bigger lenses weigh so much that they’re, for all intensive purposes, studio cameras, with weight the reason that folks who could afford Broncas, even Hassablads would never try’em for a field assignment. Ditto the deleted F-1 number DSLRS.Hint to the Big N - how about a mirrorless with all the quality of a Z-9, built with a composite body? Big Buckytube composites as stable as al/ti alloys sure cost, but shedding a kilo from lens/camera combo would keep me in the field another 2 decades.NOTE: there are 3rd party filter options- stick the lens in a 1 kilogram can and slap a really big filter on the end - leaving an ex-wide/wide zoom weighing in like an S-series super-tele zoom, equally tripod-bound.Scrapping video features would also save a bit of weight for them of us who’ll never use it!Scrapping F-series DSLRs for heavier, larger effectively studio camera designs is plain dumb. C’mon, how ‘bout a Z-FX, no mirror/quality of a D-850?
I’ve owned this lens for about a year now, and have held off on submitting a review until I had enough opportunities to use this lens. Wow! What a Beast! I need to offer a disclaimer in that I’ve always been drawn toward wide angle landscapes, and this lens does NOT disappoint. With my D850 (use a battery grip as well to balance this chunk of glass properly) it offers really nice performance, great corner to corner sharpness and vignetting (Really - Do NOT worry about this too much, especially for landscapes. A little focus on your main subject is never a bad thing). I’ve recently added an after-market CPL filter big enough to straddle that huge front lens element, and it is still pretty manageable.
Apart from the handling characteristics, along comes the images themselves. I really couldn’t be happier. Great sharpness, as discussed. Great saturation and contrast. And, by using the extreme wide angle covered to your advantage, you can produce some truly wonderful images. A unique lens offers a unique viewpoint.
I’m so happy that I have the Holy Trinity with this lens, the 24-70E f2.8, and now the newer 70-200E f2.8. All are outstanding performers and allow me to concentrate fully on composition, imagery, and the sheer joy of using precise, high quality equipment to realize my vision. Thanks, again, Nikon. Well done!
If you are a wide and ultra-wide angle lens freak like me, this is absolutely the lens to have. It pretty much obsoletes other lenses in this range of focal lengths.
Wow! Optically, this lens is BY FAR the best performing wide to ultra-wide I have ever used. Off axis (e.g. corner) resolution and contrast is superb at all focal lengths. There is hardly any vignetting, Makes all of my trusty old wide and ultra-wide primes (14 f/2.8 AF, and MF 15 f/3.5, 18 f/3.5, 20 f/2.8, 20 f/3.5, 24 f/2.8, and 24 f/2.0) look sad (off axis) by comparison. Ghosting is a non-issue--a big improvement over older lenses for sure. F/2.8 max. aperture is great indoors/at night. BTW, I use this lens on a pair of D800´s and a D600. Those cameras do a pretty good job of showing you just what any lens if capable of doing, and this lens is superb.
Downsides: Bulk. Not the most convenient or unobtrusive lens to carry all day. Filters are problematic, as for most any ultra-wide. I use 6 inch square Lee SW150 filters in a SW150 holder, which is huge, for ND filters. I retain my old MF lenses for polarizer applications.
I would much prefer an aperture ring instead of the ´´G´´ design. 50 years of using aperture rings on most all my other Nikkor lenses is a difficult habit to break.
Bottom line: After using this lens for most of a year, I find it hard to suggest anything else in this range of focal lengths. If I did not already have a bunch of legacy lenses in this range of focal lengths, I would probably not own anything besides this 14-24. Bravo Nikon!!!
I purchased this lens about 11 months ago as a requirement for a class I was taking in Florida. We really never used it in the class but I did get some great shots on my own especially in the wetlands. As I am preparing to do a large family portrait in a small area, I was struggling as to what lens to use. 85mm, 70-200mm, just not getting what I wanted, so I brainstormed and pulled out the 12-24mm 2.8. I was blown away at the results. Now I can´t wait for the portrait session. Hope to have some great portrait shots real soon!
I recently purchased this lens and the new 200-500 mm f5.6 telephoto zoom. They are my first new Nikkor lens purchases since the major across the board price increase about 10 years ago. The 14-24 is a very fine rectilinear extreme wide angle lens. Because it is a rectilinear lens, straight lines are preserved as straight lines, and the wide angle distortion (which is unavoidable) appears as angular distortion...things that were originally parallel will likely not be rendered as parallel in the final image. A fisheye wide-angle lens, in contrast, generally preserves angular accuracy but bends straight lines to accommodate the distortion.
This is a special purpose lens. Think carefully what you will use it for...celestial photography, some landscapes, pulling a close object forward and isolating it from its background. And plan on working to learn how to use it most effectively. It is not a snapshot lens, and some time and effort will be required to learn how to get the best effect and value from it. While you are learning, be sure to develop good handling habits. The front element, while protected by the built-in hood, does protrude, and some level of care is required to avoid damage.
I offer one caution for users of this lens (and other extreme wide-angle lenses, for that matter). Because the lens significantly reduces the size of the image, it also can significantly reduce the size of whatever you are asking it to autofocus on. I have found that in some cases, especially when trying to focus on an object that is situated at an angle to the camera, that it is necessary to focus manually, or at least to do a final manual focus tweak, especially when shooting at wide apertures. This is really not a flaw with the lens or autofocus system. It is simply a consequence of approaching (or maybe exceeding) the capabilities of the overall system.
I am excited to own this lens and complete my core collection of 14-200mm f2.8 professional zooms.
Most online review mentions the bulbous front and this is a non-issue since you can just cover with lens cap after each use. The weight is also a non-issue since the 70-200mmVR II feels heavier. The size is smaller than the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 with hood. The best part about this lens is it is very sharp from center to corner at every focal length and at every aperture! It is also rectilinear so that´s a plus.
Ever since purchasing a Nikon Df in chrome about a year ago (and then purchasing another one in black a few months later), I´ve had my eyes on the Nikkor 14-24. I finally took the plunge this summer and bought this member of Nikon´s ´´holy trinity.´´
All of the reviews and positive pre-purchase information I gathered about this lens is true: it´s an extremely well-built and precise lens that focuses quickly and produces tack sharp images. Most important, the 14-24 is fun to use and an exceptional tool that provides photographers with entirely new perspectives and capabilities. For someone who is relatively new to ultra-wide lenses, I am amazed at how the 14-24 is expanding my education and appreciation of photography as art, while giving me the ability to create interesting photos that tell a story.
The only negative about the 14-24 is its exposed, bulbous front lens element that can´t support a protective filter. But this concern can be resolved with after-market adapters that will allow installation of 145mm protective and correction filters.
All round great walking around lens, shooting D800 i decided to treat myself to a new lens. I do enjoy using this lens but when i shoot raw it seems lacking depth of field. also literally 1 moth after i purchased it for $2500 it now sells for $1999, im rather disappointed and thus 4 stars. Attached is an unedited photo taken in Hawaii while in a deep sea fishing trip. Shot with D800, 14-24 lens, iso 400, raw with -2.
I was full of high expectations for this lens, having read many excellent reviews.
The depth of focus (depth of field) is huge, and almost everything appears in focus. However, even with RAW and a low ISO on a D800, the detailed definition is missing. By that I mean it pixilates quite quickly as I zoom into the image on my computer. So what you shoot is what you can expect to get, little more.
For my purposes, I get more useable results with the AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR, which is a more modern lens. Whilst losing some extreme wide angle capability, the definition is better for my purposes. The 16-35 also accepts filters, has VR, and is significantly lighter.
My professional work involves taking photographs of buildings, and ever in the pursuit of the perfect lens (for my purposes) my next acquisition is the PC-E NIKKOR 24mm f/3.5D ED.
- Page 1 of 15