| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
|
  | sent on 23 Settembre 2014 Pros: Overall performance, specially at close focus. FOV, speed and size & weight (when compared to the much better Nikkor 14-24). Cons: Price very high. Difficult to get in good condition for less than 1000€. It has also quite weird distortion and is not perfectly sharp wide open in the corners (none is, except for the Nikkor 14-24 wich is a monster). Another Cons is the difficulty to use filters. I have a self-made cokin adapter and I use the x_pro grads & Polarizer, but I have a little vigneting in the very far corners. Not a big problem: I just re-frame a little bit, going to more panoramma and that's all. Opinion: This lens is much better than what one can derive for most of the reviews, specially if you take into account your alternatives. I use this lens on a D700, and I also have the SIGMA 12-24 4.5-5.6 DG HSM. I have compared these lenses quite deeply, and the Nikkor is a much much better performer, specially at close focus distance. At close focus, the 12-24 is not even a true 12mm. In fact, the FOV of the 14mm Nikkor is the same than the SIGMA at 12mm. Overall, a good performer extremelly well built. The Nikkor 14-24 seems better, but is a monster ! I have not tried the SAMYANGs (manual focus) nor the TAMRON or the fixed focal lengh SIGMA. |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
 | sent on 19 Maggio 2025 Pros: Solidity, quality, colors Cons: It's not easy to manage..... Opinion: Searched a lot and finally found at a low price, on FX format gives a lot of satisfaction. The autofocus is almost useless for the width of the focal length, it must be managed like a horse without a saddle.... Just move the frame a few millimeters and completely change the photographic scene. According to many, the 14-24 Nikkor is better... but it weighs three times as much and costs just as much.... Sharp even at full aperture panel a bit but it is still manageable. Instead of the cap there is a leather lens (?) that gets ruined just by looking at it... replaced with a soft rubber stopper that does its job very well. To date I have not seen blue ghosting which is instead ubiquitous on the AIS f/3.5 model....for the flare I would like to see that there is no in a 14mm lens..... I tried a rubber lens hood, which folds and stores comfortably, and in extreme conditions and here is solved the flare.... it gives a feeling of solidity (it weighs 670gr and that's not little) and is part of those last series of lenses where plastic was still little ... Even today in the second-hand market it is not exactly cheap but for those who take landscape or architectural photos it is a must-have..... |
 | sent on 07 Novembre 2020 Pros: The solidity and constructive quality of professional Nikkor objectives Cons: you have to pay close attention to the side spot light because it creates annoying reflections, but with this angle of field and this maximum aperture is normal Opinion: I've been buying this lens, which I've been using for about a month, to complete the kit at the low focal points, and I think that's a very good goal. The price of a good used is definitely interesting. The choice was quite considered, because it replaces the 10-24 DX after I decided to abandon the APS-C format in favor of FX. I preferred to orient myself on a fixed focal point, for the segg reasons: the 14-24f2.8 (which I tried) is too heavy/ingombrnter/expensive for my needs; since the 1970s I have had 20f4, which I am enthusiastic about and which is in a pocket; I have as a handyman the AF-S 24-120f4. Also, when needed, I don't mind moving with 2 machine bodies, so you don't have to tinker with optical changes all the time. So, ultimately, after the first tests on a short trip, I feel like I made the right choice. I tried optics in different conditions, outdoors and indoors, even at night or inside churches with poor light present. At the moment I do not find any weaknesses, considering the focal length and maximum aperture. Of course, the 20f4 is lighter and more compact and "easier", it also churns out surgical images. But in technology everything has an explanation, and in my opinion 14f2.8 does its job very well. |
 | sent on 24 Maggio 2020 Pros: Size, construction, leather cap well made and protective (for me it is better than a cap, I have another super-grandangular with protruding lens and metal cap, very cumbersome to handle and lift alone easily...), sufficient sharpness, reduced distortion, vignette absolutely acceptable for the focal. I like colors that are not "squealed. Cons: A little more sharpness at TA and in the corners would not hurt; "ghosts" in particular light conditions. The price to be used is high. Opinion: I also use it on a D800, and I haven't encountered any of the problems mentioned by others on digital. I was undecided between this and the 15mm f/3.5 AI: I would have wanted them both, but having to choose I preferred the extra opening diaphragm and the possibility of use in AF. The colors are the ones that I like, balanced and not "squealed", with contrasts not artificially "shot", in short "old school" Nikkor, valid until - for example - at 80-200/2.8 both AFD and AFS. I have not yet been able to please what the new optics do, perhaps superior from a technical point of view, but sometimes "exaggerated" in flaunting extreme contrasts, loaded colors and great sharpness: I peace more the "substance" not squealed of goals like this. Of course, if the "kindness" in proposing colors and contrasts was accompanied by an extra hair of sharpness, I would not mind. But I'm so happy! Very suitable for the things I usually photograph, landscapes, interiors, streets and alleys where such a wide angle is convenient. The price, to be used, is unfortunately always high for a lens in order and with warranty. |
 | sent on 11 Ottobre 2018 Pros: Good construction Cons: Sharpness at the edges, "pagoda" distortion not solvable in pp, vignetting. Leather cap that will ruin you in the Bag. Opinion: It's the only Nikkor I've ever sold! (i own about Fifty) Every time I used it I was angry! Used on d3x and then on d800, it was better than the image obtained from the old d300 with Sigma 10/20! Felicmnte came to 600 euros stating, for honesty, that it is crap! Distortions not completely correctable, chromatic aberration, deformation in the center very sensitive even with minimal movements of fire. |
 | sent on 18 Settembre 2016 Pros: excellent mechanical realization and by the weight proportional to the structure and number of the lenses. Cons: ghosting; those blue spots with photo corners are unwatchable and make it impossible to use the optics of digital sensor Opinion: sin with my D 700 the response was immediately negative; returned after two days dall'acquisto.Sono curious to know the experience of others to see if it is a lens compatibility problem with the CMOS sensor and if therefore this problem does not occur with ccd. Anyhow, I had read that certain optical born for the film were, from that point of view, totally inadequate for digital. |
 | sent on 16 Novembre 2015 Pros: materials, assembly, lightness (as light as 14 mm ...) Cons: super ghost, not very high AT species Opinion: Mechanically the 14th is really well done, nothing to argue, and the materials are top notch. Pretty light, slightly bulky, optically superior to the old 15mm that went to replace. It remains the big problem of the ghost, which, though to a lesser extent, compared to the 15, still persists in an unacceptable manner. Sharpness is decent, but it does not make any jumps, but the lens definitely goes diaphragmatic. The disgrace of 14 was certainly the output of 14-24, ubi maior minor cessat, any comparison between the two is really unlikely. An excellent second-hand specimen is now between 700 and 800 euros and that's worth it, but that's what we say is that an excellent 16-35 is home to that figure that goes infinitely better and also has the VR. Voting 7, and only for the profusion of noble materials ... NOTICE: The writer is not an influencer or a guru, nor does one who downloads other images from the network to impute themselves to improbable comparisons. I'm just about quarrelsomeFor a ninete passionate about photography and photographic material, and my opinion is not a gospel, but only the result of empirical experience. The objects I write really buy them, I play a few months and if I do not like them, but always and in any case of material at the moment in my possession. I do not make the copy paste of reviews taken here and there on the net, if I'm talking about an item it's just and because I had in the house the time it took (at least months) to try to figure it out. I often go against current, but this does not take my sleep, as far as possible I try to help young aspiring photographers who give a weight to their savings. But, I repeat, I do not bring the verb ... |
 | sent on 07 Dicembre 2014 Pros: sharpness in the center, even at full aperture Cons: ghosting Opinion: Nikon has made a choice. And it was this, the choice: in the case of 14 mm, does not answer the countermove of Canon. In the sense that: there was a second version for this angle, as it did for his Canon. Result? The Canon 14mm f2.8 is particularly attractive, the same focal length and aperture Nikon, less. This happened because in the meantime Nikon preferred churning 14 24 2.8. That is a lens very successful, as in sharpness. But beware: the minimum focal distorts too. Which means: the minimum focal, after adjustment, no longer a 14mm, and is no longer so clear. The 14mm f, 28 fixed - the lens here reviewed - distorts less than quoted zoom, but not less than the competitor Canon. And also suffers from ghosting against the light that was not enough, I think, highlighted. For this reason I sold it, the Nikon 14mm f2.8. From Nikonist which are now, between this and the Nikon 14 24, I would choose ... the Zeiss 15mm F3.5. |
 | sent on 26 Agosto 2012 Pros: Wide angle field of FF that allows pictures to high-impact ... even on APS-C makes the dignity becoming a good 21mm. Focusing even at a distance of 15cm from the subject. Cons: Heavy. There is the lens cover of plastic, but a pocket of skin. A max aperture is blurry, heavy vignetting and price very high. Opinion: I could try this lens for about two months, and I must say that I found particularly well. It 'wonderful to use on FF, but also on APS-C makes dignity. A maximum aperture is blurry at the edges and also at the center, closing at F6 then you lose this defect. You should be particularly careful of the spherical lens, and it is very uncomfortable to use the lens cover since it is a simple leather pouch, so you should always use two hands to insert it. Would not recommend for the price, with a bit more you buy a 14-24 which is much better in everything. |
 | sent on 05 Novembre 2011 Pros: Lightweight, wide viewing angle of FF, low flare, very light. Cons: Unclear at maximum aperture, a stop loss, vignetting Opinion: I replaced my old 18mm AFD, wonderful to use on FF, provides photos of high-impact, particularly on objects in the foreground, very sharp from f6 up to maximum opening is not very clear both in the center than at the edges, defect that is lost to the focal more 'closed. Low flare, after several tests, on that side, and the best of 18AFD Nikkor 20-35 AFD. You lose at least one stop of light, perhaps for the particular type of treatment of the front lens, (at first glance one might say polarized) and last thing ... cartoon in extreme shooting conditions .. but being a 14, it is also justifiable. Not the advisor to the exorbitant price even at the level of the more 'recent 14-24. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
