Looking to buy a D700 to get a 14-24 for the extra wide angle over the 12-24 on my D2x. The question is for those that have both, are there other benefits in image quality to justify 5 grand?

"Other" benefits than what? Although I can think of several image quality benefits, you haven't specified what they are. Whatever the benefits are, you are the only one who can determine what the value of those benefits are. Just to clarify here, what you really want to know is if the difference between spending $4500 over $2500 is worth it; and the answer really depends on what you are going to do and how much money you have.

I think you are proposing an "all or nothing" proposition. Consider instead that you are comparing different camera bodies, different lenses (one of which is a stop faster), and even different fields of view at the narrow and wide ends. Each one of those factors favors the more expensive option you proposed, and the price difference should be parsed between all three as well as the improved image quality which will be more obvious when comparing the D700 and Nikkor 14-24/2.8 at 18mm to the D2x and 12-24/4 at 12mm. I think with the D2x and 12-24/4 at 16mm and stopped down to f/11, you would have a hard time justifying the $2000 difference.

The question for you is: What are you trying to photograph and how much do you need to spend (or are willing to spend) to accomplish that? For better higher ISO capability you will spend an additional $1500 on the D700, for faster lens speed and better IQ you will spend an additional $1500 on the Nikkor 14-24/2.8. For all of that and the wider field of view you have to spend the extra $2000.

[The only thing that I'm trying to achieve is a wider view, very important to me. Any benefits beyond that are a bonus, will definately step up to a 24MP Nikon next year, the D700 will make a good BU. Peter

Check out Thom Hogan's review of the D700 that was posted today. At the end of the review he gives some +'s and -'s as to which of the current stable of Nikon DSLRs to consider.

Jay

Consider a Kodak DCS Pro 14n and the 14-24/2.8, that should hold you over and will deliver more resolution than a D700 (it has no AA filter, so it's even more of a difference than the extra 2 MP implies).

Franckly speaking, I don't think that this advice is a good one. I used to own a SLR/n, and it really has a very narrow enveloppe of usage.

Regarding the initial question, both are very good options that I have used (a D3 in fact).

I feel that the D3/D700 has significantly more DR, which is most important for me. Regarding detail, no major difference, but the 14-24 is of course wider.

Cheers,
Bernard

The suggestion was in reply to "The only thing that I'm trying to achieve is a wider view", and the SLR/n has the added advantage of being much more affordable while he waits for a higher MP FX DSLR to use with his Nikkor lenses.

Out of curiosity Bernard, have you ever tried the 12-24mm on the D3 in FX mode?

I will be interested to read Bernard's observations, but in the meantime here are some observations from Thom Hogan that might be of interest to some.

From 12mm section of this article: http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm

"The Nikkor 12-24mm has one thing going for it the others don't, though: it can go DX or FX. That's right, it makes a perfectly fine 18-24mm lens on an FX body, covering the full FX frame at those focal lengths."

From the 18mm section below in the same article Thom writes that:

"On a full-frame camera, the 14-24mm wins, especially if you need a fast aperture (the 12-24mm DX is a close second on an FX body, believe it or not)."

It's an excellent article and well worth reading. I would note that Thom has recently been writing that for his purposes a D700 with a Zeiss 18mm and a Nikkor 24mm PC-E may be part of a preferred kit, but he hasn't tested those lenses yet.

Interesting. I didn't want to prejudice the response.

My own experience is that above about 16/17mm the performance of the 12-24mm is actually very good in FX mode.

The 14-24mm is very impressive indeed, but it is heavy and can't take filters without some creativity. I never thought to try my 12-24mm on the D3. In retrospect, if I had tried it, I might have gone down the route Thom Hogan recommends and go with a couple of primes, supplemented with the 12-24mm and perhaps a future fisheye.

Although Thom had also advised this option to me me a few months back, I had to sell the 12-24 so in the end I never had the chance to try it on the D3.

My reaction back then was that 18-24 was too short a focal range to justify using a zoom lens.

The truth is that 70% of my shooting now is done with the 60 mm f2.8 AF-S since I do mostly stitching. The rest is mostly the 70-300 VR.
Both my 17-35 f2.8 that I have kept so far, and the 14-24 f2.8 get very little usage.

The following image is a recent exception, and frankly is the only image I remember shooting with the 14-24 in the last few months.



Both lenses are amazing, I am keeping them thinking of the next generation high mega pixel body where stitching will be less needed. If the next high end Nikon is MF, then chances are that a least one of these 2 lenses will end up on Yahoo Auction.

Regards,
Bernard

Nice.



It might be timely to start a thread on the topic of Nikon's next move. I remain confident that Nikon will deliver a high MP DSLR and my guess is that they will announce it in November. Thom says they have to announce a high MP DSLR by March or they will be back where they were before the D3 was announced, I would add that this time they could fall to third place rather than to merely a distant second place in DSLRs. I do not believe that Nikon would bother delivering lenses like 14-24, 24-70, 24 PC-E, and 45 PC-E if they weren't planning on eventually delivering cameras than can fully exploit those lenses' potential.

Yes, but they have shown an impressive ability to resist to the requests of their customers in the past, so who knows.

Cheers,
Bernard