Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #20 · 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.
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.