I have tried a number of UWA lenses both on DX and FX, Tokina 12-24, 11-16, Nikon 12-24, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 12-24 and Rokinon 14. My favorites were the Tokina 11-16 on DX and the Rokinon 14 on FX.
Now I sold my Sigma 12-24 which served me good, however, it wasn't as sharp as I liked and it was very prone to flare. Now I am on the look for an UWA for my D600. Of course the 14-24 comes as a first option and I always heard how great of a lens it is. But I just wanted to know how much better it is compared to the Nikon 16-35 and the Tokina 16-28 2.8. I know the extra 2mm on the wide end makes a difference but my main concern now is only optical differences, sharpness, color, distortion, vignetting, etc... The price difference between the 16-35 and the 14-24 isn't astronomical. However, it is to me etween the 14-24 and the Tokina.
Filters are not an issue since I have a solution for that. I will use it mainly for night landscape and architecture. Another thing, for those who have a 16-35 f/4, how well does the perform as a general walkaround lens? How does it compare to other primes in the 24-35 range?
You could do a topic search as this is a well discussed topic.
I own the 16-35 and owned the 14-24
IMHO the 14-24 is the best UWA there is, but for me the versatility of the 16-35 made me decide for that one.
Cons of the 14-24: weight/bulk, protruding front element, small reach, no filters
It was by far my best not-used lens.
I too own both the 14-24 and 16-35 - I keep the 14-24 because it's just that good. If I need the versatility (or filters) I'll pop on the 16-35, but the rest of the time it's the 14-24. Just plain sharper.
Loved mine when I had it...save for the bulbous protuberance Was a nervous wreck when
workin' the crowds at events with it, so we parted ways. My old PJ standby, the 17-35 f2.8
gets the call these days. Center sharpness on FX...is literally off the charts.
I’m thinking that if you sold one lens because you weren’t impressed with its sharpness, the Tokina 16-35 could be more of a sideways move than the Nikon 14-24.
If you want sharp corners at f/2.8 and prefer to shoot on the wider end, it’s easy to recommend the Nikon, notwithstanding the price. The results it can produce have made it my all-time favorite lens. It does have a tendency to produce ghosts, but veiling flare really isn’t a problem.
This lens is steller! no question about it one of the best lens's in Nikons line up. The 14-24 2.8 was one of the reasons that I made the move from Canon to Nikon about 4 years ago now. The images that 14-24 produce always just blow my mind! it's that good!
it's a fantastic lens, i only wish i had more instances where i could put it to use. only downside is the filter issue, but for most of my limited use that hasn't been much of an issue.
I've had a 14-24 for maybe 4-5 years now and I've only used it a handful of times.
Not that it's not worth using, but I just rarely shoot ultrawide shots. The lens didn't really fit in my bag so it wasn't there when I might have needed it. For wide landscapes I generally stitched.
I recently got a larger bag and took the trinity with me to an event. The 14-24 was very useful indoors for large groups.
I had both and felt the 16-35 was sharper, lighter, more resistant to flare and more practical. I only use UWA for landscapes, so speed was not important to me.
Actually I've had the 14-24 twice, figured I should give it another chance. 16-35 still won out.
Hardcore wrote:
I love the 14-24mm. I had the zeiss 21mm and the 14-24mm is everything the zeiss is and more except corner sharpness at f2.8.
My experience with the Zeiss 21 was that it was a healthy amount sharper than the 14-24 @ 21, but probably not so much that I'd give up the flexibility of the zoom.
*shrug* the perils of sample variation...
Edit: As I was typing "the perils of sample variation," Ryan posted that his 14-24 wasn't as sharp as his 16-35, which is very much contrary to my experience. Point made, thank you sir. :P
Was a nervous wreck when