Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

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

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 end

diamondroad
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

Which lens is best for landscaping, the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 My wife and I are planning on visiting A LOT of national parks this summer: Banff, Jasper, Death Valley, Zion, Bryce and Yosemite.

We both have Nikon D700's.

Thanks for your input and help

Steve and Janice
Diamond Road Photography

Feb 09, 2013 at 05:03 PM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

I would much rather have the 14-24, the 16 end of the 16-35 is quite distorted and the 16-35 also can be quite soft.
The 16-35 does have the fantastic vr, but I am not sure you really need vr on a uwa, maybe if you use it in the 35mm. I also feel like the F4 is sort of pushing it indoors when it is dark, just something to think about.

I am a big fan of the tokina uwa's. Look into the 16-28.

Feb 09, 2013 at 05:06 PM

playerofwar
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

The 14-24 is fantastic on any fullframe camera, super sharp with almost no distortion and vignetting. But the 16-35 is a much more versitile lens and has fantastic vr, it's less sharp than the 14-24, but still very good in my oppinion, especially if you use it on the D700 (it becomes noticable on the D800e).

Feb 09, 2013 at 05:13 PM

Bruce Sawle
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

I owned both I prefer the 14-24 one of the best wide lenses ever.

Feb 09, 2013 at 05:25 PM

juicer
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

Don't get too caught up in the incremental differences in sharpness. At f8-f16 you will need to pixel peep to see any difference, and even then it will be at the extreme corners.

Also regarding distortion, with lanscapes the perpective distortion will far outweigh any lens distortion, unless you are shooting with your camera perfectly level - which is unlikely unless you want the horizon in the middle of the image.

I think the usability of the 16-35 will get you more keepers than the small difference in IQ when stopped down. VR aside, a screw-in 9-stop ND is easier to carry, set up, and gives less flare than a monstrous ND that will be necessary for the 14-24. Same with a circular polarizer. Many say polarizers are useless for wide-angles, but I NEVER use them for the sky. Below is a image with water, wet rocks, and leaves. It's easy to see which did not use the polarizer, no matter how sharp I would consider the non-polarized image as useless. It also made a huge difference in Death Valley to take the shine off the sand.

2013 © juicer

Feb 09, 2013 at 05:38 PM

AMaji
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

I went through this tortuous path before and ended up selecting the 16-35VR for the exact reasons stated by juicer above. The distortions at the 16mm end is very easily corrected in software, so I have never found it to be an issue. Of course if you need 14mm and f/2.8 most of the time, then your choice is easy

Feb 09, 2013 at 06:01 PM

ja_joyce
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

I have the 14-24 and it is a fantastic lens. But it is also big and heavy. To me the question is how do you shoot? If you like to setup with a tripod and linger over your composition, or if you really like super wide then the 14-24 is for you. I also like the extra stop on the 14-24, not because I shoot wide open but because it makes the view finder a bit brighter when the light is low. I personally would love a UWA with VR so I could shoot hand held in low light either indoors or at sunrise/sunset, and at some point I hope to get 16-35 for those situations.

I agree with the previous poster who said stopped down for normal landscape shooting the IQ differences between the lenses is small and would base my decision on factors like handheld vs tripod (16-35 wins for handheld), size and weight (16-35 wins if those matter) and do you want super wide (14mm) more than more normal (35mm). But both a great lenses and you can't go far wrong with either.

Feb 09, 2013 at 06:02 PM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

I really still see no need for a polarizer. ND filter is one thing that I do like and for that it does have me questioning the 16-35 as a handheld/nd uwa. I just wish it did have that extra stop.

Feb 09, 2013 at 06:07 PM

Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

A few things to take into consideration, obviously. First, do you use filters a lot? I have not used a filter of any sort (or even owned one) in years - so yes, it can be done. If you need filters, the 16-35 is probably the better choice.

Also, the price difference is something to consider. Regardless if you buy new or used, there is going to be a bit of a savings in going with the 16-35mm. You can use the savings to get some nice B+W filters and Sing-Rays.

I just bought the Samyang 14mm 2.8 that is said to be 90% of the 14-24 at 25% the cost. I am heading to Yosemite in 2 weeks and will hopefully be happy. I shoot with a D700.

Feb 09, 2013 at 06:14 PM

sb in ak
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

I've been looking at UWA zooms myself, though I've largely ruled out the 14-24 due to the price. The Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 gets some good reviews too, and is $750 new. The big downside being the inability to use filters, but it looks to be slightly sharper and has a little less distortion than the 16-35 VR from what I've seen. Still haven't made up my mind. But I may go with the Tokina and grab my 24-70 whenever I need filters as that is wide enough for many situations.

Maybe I'll see you out there...will be working near Yosemite this summer.

Feb 09, 2013 at 06:59 PM

Gregg Heckler
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

I've had my 16-35VR for about 2 months and it continues to amaze me. If I was only shooting landscapes I would probably get the 14-24 also but the 16-35 is so versatile with a wider range. It's also very sharp and the contrast and saturation is wonderful. As another poster stated there really is no need for a polarizer unless you are trying to control reflections. Yes there is distortion at 16 but LR4 or CS6 makes quick work of that. And you'll really love the build quality for these types of environments, standard 77mm filter size, and the VR when the light starts to drop in the evenings.

Feb 09, 2013 at 07:06 PM

Vox Sciurorum
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

The Tokina 16-28 is a good lens, but heavy.

Feb 09, 2013 at 07:18 PM

Guari
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

popinvasion wrote:
the 16-35 also can be quite soft.

This is not true. The lens may not be 14-24 sharp but it is not "quite soft" by any accounts..

Feb 09, 2013 at 07:26 PM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

Guari wrote:
popinvasion wrote:
the 16-35 also can be quite soft.

This is not true. The lens may not be 14-24 sharp but it is not "quite soft" by any accounts..

The one I had was extremely soft, maybe in comparison sure.. but enough that If I bought another I would want to maybe try a few copies.

Feb 09, 2013 at 07:30 PM

sb in ak
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

I actually had a 16-35 VR briefly and it displayed red streaking when shooting long exposures (high ISO night photography). Seems to affect several of the copies and it's something to check if you get the lens. Apart from that I quite liked the lens (quite sharp), but that was pretty frustrating. Ruined a whole night of shooting. I've since been trying to decide if I want another or the Tokina. People say some of the Tokinas have QC issues but Nikon isn't free of those issues either.

Feb 09, 2013 at 07:46 PM

BenV
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

I own both, and for landscape, the 16-35 is my choice every time. More versatile, much easier filters, and by f/8, they are easily equally sharp. The "distortion" issue doesn't make much sense unless your shooting perfectly straight trees. It's hard to tell whats "distorted" in nature. The only reason I even own a 14-24 is for architecture work, or interiors/exteriors for homes being sold.

Feb 09, 2013 at 07:50 PM

Guari
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

popinvasion wrote:
Guari wrote:
popinvasion wrote:
the 16-35 also can be quite soft.

This is not true. The lens may not be 14-24 sharp but it is not "quite soft" by any accounts..

The one I had was extremely soft, maybe in comparison sure.. but enough that If I bought another I would want to maybe try a few copies.

Sorry to hear you got a dud, but my copy is sharp sharp..

It distorts a motherload though, but easy to correct

Feb 09, 2013 at 08:06 PM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

BenV wrote:
I own both, and for landscape, the 16-35 is my choice every time. More versatile, much easier filters, and by f/8, they are easily equally sharp. The "distortion" issue doesn't make much sense unless your shooting perfectly straight trees. It's hard to tell whats "distorted" in nature. The only reason I even own a 14-24 is for architecture work, or interiors/exteriors for homes being sold.

Great response. Can you elaborate? I work in real estate and I am getting involved in the photography/videography side of things. I did not spend enough time with the 16-35 because it was really soft in the corners, the center was sharp but I was a bit disappointed with it to pursue it. I have played around quite a bit with Tokinas and just bought a 16-28 2.8, however I saw a video the other day where a guy made a killer home walk through video with a 16-35 vr. So now I have been thinking I may need that vr, and might need to eventually buy both, I love the Tokinas but I am not sure if I can hand hold a walk through as smoothly with the 16-28, and conversely I am not sure if the 16-35 will work all that well indoors, I know its just a stop but still. Thanks

Feb 09, 2013 at 08:08 PM

popinvasion
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

Guari wrote:
popinvasion wrote:
Guari wrote:
popinvasion wrote:
the 16-35 also can be quite soft.

This is not true. The lens may not be 14-24 sharp but it is not "quite soft" by any accounts..

The one I had was extremely soft, maybe in comparison sure.. but enough that If I bought another I would want to maybe try a few copies.

Sorry to hear you got a dud, but my copy is sharp sharp..

It distorts a motherload though, but easy to correct

To be fair it was super sharp in the center. It was just soft on the edges. And your right I was comparing it to a very sharp lens.

Feb 09, 2013 at 08:08 PM

BenV
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape

popinvasion wrote:
BenV wrote:
I own both, and for landscape, the 16-35 is my choice every time. More versatile, much easier filters, and by f/8, they are easily equally sharp. The "distortion" issue doesn't make much sense unless your shooting perfectly straight trees. It's hard to tell whats "distorted" in nature. The only reason I even own a 14-24 is for architecture work, or interiors/exteriors for homes being sold.

Great response. Can you elaborate? I work in real estate and I am getting involved in the photography/videography side of things. I did not spend enough time with the 16-35 because it was really soft in the corners, the center was sharp but I was a bit disappointed with it to pursue it. I have played around quite a bit with Tokinas and just bought a 16-28 2.8, however I saw a video the other day where a guy made a killer home walk through video with a 16-35 vr. So now I have been thinking I may need that vr, and might need to eventually buy both, I love the Tokinas but I am not sure if I can hand hold a walk through as smoothly with the 16-28, and conversely I am not sure if the 16-35 will work all that well indoors, I know its just a stop but still. Thanks

Well I personally don't do video walk throughs, just mainly pano's of rooms, and general structure/design of the houses. For recording video and moving, there are tons of rolling camera rigs that'll get the job done. I don't know the name of them, but it looks like a spider attached to you while you walk, and it keeps the camera pretty smooth. Might want to look into that if the money is there.

As far as 'soft' corners go, I guess thats a valid argument, whoever it doesn't bother me at all.

Feb 09, 2013 at 08:13 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end