Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 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