Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8
  
 
knower
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8


Not sure 2mm makes a difference worth the money.
With high ISO capabilities of current cameras I don't see a problem shooting night or low-light to be honest.

About the IQ, in some tests the 16-35 resulted as sharp as the 14-24 if not sharper in the corners, just with more distortion.
I guess they are both very good, I wouldn't complain with any of them.


Ciao!
G.



Jan 18, 2013 at 08:22 PM
Sambru
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8


Steve Perry wrote:
I have both a 14-24 and 16-35. The poor 16-35 is all red and bruised form being spanked by the 14-24 in IQ all the time. The 16-35 just isn't as sharp - esp. on a D800 - as the 14-24. Even stopped down.


Wow you must have a bad copy or I have a good copy. I took my 14-24 back, I like the 16-35 much better and not only for the IQ. It's a stellar on my D4 & D800.



May 19, 2013 at 04:37 AM
Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8


there is a bit of difference between 16mm and 14mm. You may not notice it until you need it


May 19, 2013 at 05:31 AM
DontShoot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8


For landscapes, stopped down... I doubt you'll see much of a difference.


May 19, 2013 at 05:32 AM
Steve Perry
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8


Sambru wrote:
Wow you must have a bad copy or I have a good copy. I took my 14-24 back, I like the 16-35 much better and not only for the IQ. It's a stellar on my D4 & D800.


I really like the idea of the 16-35, have tried a couple, same results.



May 19, 2013 at 02:33 PM
ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8


I'm with Steve.
Are you going to be shooting hundreds of landscapes per day? Are you going to print large? Or will it be occasional use? Are you a big filter guy? If you are constantly using a polarizer or GND with your landscapes get the 16-35mm and don't look back. However, the edge to edge sharpness, color, and lack of distortion on the 14-24mm make it one of the best landscape lenses in the world. Canon shooters buy Nikon adapters to use this specific 14-24mm lens. I had both, have shot thousands of frames up in Canyonlands and Arches with sweeping vistas, and use the 14-24mm. Maybe it was just me, but there was a clear difference. Read further professional on-line reviews of the 16-35mm and comparisons.



May 19, 2013 at 02:58 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Steve Perry
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8


PS - I'll add that if you want to use a polarizer with your 14-24, the Fotodiox adapter setup with polarizer really works well. I gave it a try and although it's kind of a no-name brand polarizer, it does a good job and there's no noticiable difference in sharpness. Only drawback is it's crazy big. I'll probably do a review of it soon on my site.


May 19, 2013 at 03:11 PM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8


70-200/4VR is not weather-sealed, which may or may not be an issue for you. and just be aware 16-35VR has larger sample variation than 14-24.


May 19, 2013 at 05:12 PM
Mishu01
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8


My personal pick is 14-24/2.8 and 70-200/4.

The first is really a unique lens that can be used in very creative ways in all kind of situations. It is also unbelievable good for landscapes. Canon shooters use it with adapters because in Canon land they do not have anything like that. I tested 16-35/4 and wasn't impressed. Good but not great.

The later replaced my 70-200/2.8 VR1. If you do not need f2.8 it is everything you need at a reduced size and weight.



May 19, 2013 at 07:56 PM
Perreault
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8


I do mostly photography when I travel.

I had the 16-35 and 70-200 2.8 and I bought the f4 a few months ago. What a difference it makes on the shoulder after a day of walking. I just sold the 2.8 VR II.




May 19, 2013 at 08:52 PM
barisaxer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Landscapes..Nikon 16-35/70-200 F4 vs. 14-24/70-200 2.8


I had the 14-24 and 16-35. I kept the 16-35 maybe I have a great copy but the difference was small and the convenience of filters and vr and I use the 35mm end alot made the choice easy for me.


May 20, 2013 at 02:17 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password