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 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape
  
 
popinvasion
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


BenV wrote:
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.



yeah I have a rig. I just need a little more experience. I think the VR at some point might be a tipping point, but again indoors I am not sure the 16-35 will be up to the task unless I bring in lighting which is a pain.



Feb 09, 2013 at 08:15 PM
Javier Munoz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


2 words: flare and filters.




Feb 09, 2013 at 10:38 PM
bemyzeke
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


I will wait to see how the newly announced Nikon 18-35 performs. Plenty of time to buy before summer.


Feb 10, 2013 at 07:08 AM
Grantland
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


i use the 14-24 f/2.8 for landscape and it is an amazing lens.

i find i shoot at 14mm most of the time so for me it is a no brainer.



Feb 10, 2013 at 07:09 PM
ChrisDM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


The 14-24 is ruled out by lack of filter acceptance. Also, for this type of photography you're going to be shooting stopped down anyways so those who are more interested in pixel peeping rather than actual printing are the only ones who will really notice the difference in image quality between the two. Also, that is a lot of fast, heavy glass to hike national parks with just to stop it down. Choose the 14-24 for speed, such as indoor concert photography etc, not for stopped down landscapes. The 16-35 is much lighter, less expensive, and accepts filters. The only person that will notice the difference is you, your back and your wallet.


Feb 11, 2013 at 01:01 PM
ACNYPhoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


I have both the 14-24 and 16-35 as much as I love the 14-24 I tend to grab the 16-35 more so I can use my ND filters on it...


Feb 11, 2013 at 03:55 PM
Hardcore
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #7 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


There are filter options for the 14-24mm. Not as easy as the 16-35mm screw on, but still an option nevertheless.


Feb 11, 2013 at 04:58 PM
DontShoot
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


I want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Are you listening?

"Filters."

There are great possibilities with Filters. Think about it. Will you think about it?


Tunnel View at Yosemite, CA / Nikon D700 & 16-35 by JGI, on Flickr


Abalone Cove tidepool by JGI, on Flickr


Sunset at Redondo Beach, CA by JGI, on Flickr



Feb 11, 2013 at 07:10 PM
Grantland
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


i think i need to start using filters.

these are great pictures

wow



Feb 11, 2013 at 08:16 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



popinvasion
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


DontShoot wrote:
I want to say one word to you. Just one word.

Are you listening?

"Filters."

There are great possibilities with Filters. Think about it. Will you think about it?

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4008/4662770968_6896cd3ab3_b.jpg
Tunnel View at Yosemite, CA / Nikon D700 & 16-35 by JGI, on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5052/5525319049_629d28ab03_b.jpg
Abalone Cove tidepool by JGI, on Flickr

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5136/5424322998_9919f8c370_b.jpg
Sunset at Redondo Beach, CA by JGI, on Flickr


All ND? Thanks great shots.



Feb 11, 2013 at 08:23 PM
BenV
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


popinvasion wrote:
All ND? Thanks great shots.


Filters were obviously used for those photos, but its not the filter that makes the images. The photographer had a keen eye and obvious talent. The filters were just one of the tools used in the process. Amazing photos BTW. I've seen them posted before either in the Landscape or the 'best of Nikon' section, cant remember which.



Feb 11, 2013 at 09:33 PM
popinvasion
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


BenV wrote:
Filters were obviously used for those photos, but its not the filter that makes the images. The photographer had a keen eye and obvious talent. The filters were just one of the tools used in the process. Amazing photos BTW. I've seen them posted before either in the Landscape or the 'best of Nikon' section, cant remember which.


Absolutely, but i still have interest in the nuts and bolts of it all.



Feb 11, 2013 at 09:40 PM
BenV
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


popinvasion wrote:
Absolutely, but i still have interest in the nuts and bolts of it all.


Don't we all thats the main reason I'm on the forums. I have NAS



Feb 11, 2013 at 09:58 PM
mick5
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


popinvasion Beautiful shots I just bought this lens and I really like it would you mind to share what filters you used for theses shots


Feb 11, 2013 at 10:15 PM
popinvasion
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


I had the same question. They are not my shots. Wish I did create them. I was just quoted in a response.


Feb 11, 2013 at 10:45 PM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


Either lens is fine for landscape, because either can work with filters, if you are after them. However, I am not a big fan of those highly saturated colors, which have some evident color shifts added by filters in the examples shown above. My lowly taste tend to favor slightly desaturated grading, such as those shown in Nadav Kander's Yangtze:















Feb 11, 2013 at 11:07 PM
ChrisDM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


Of course there are filter systems that can be adapted to just about any lens, but the fact that the 17-35 2.8 and the 16-35 f4 use the same filters I already own for my 24-70 and 70-200 is a significant fact, for this landscape shooter. The above example shots are very dramatic, but nothing that couldn't be achieved with the 16-35 or 17-35 a lot easier, and less expensive particularly now that you're factoring in the cost of a new and VERY large filter system, just for this very large and expensive lens.


Feb 11, 2013 at 11:57 PM
BenV
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


ChrisDM wrote:
Of course there are filter systems that can be adapted to just about any lens, but the fact that the 17-35 2.8 and the 16-35 f4 use the same filters I already own for my 24-70 and 70-200 is a significant fact, for this landscape shooter. The above example shots are very dramatic, but nothing that couldn't be achieved with the 16-35 or 17-35 a lot easier, and less expensive particularly now that you're factoring in the cost of a new and VERY large filter system, just for this very large and expensive lens.


Yes, at $400 just for the filter holder, thats something to really consider.



Feb 12, 2013 at 02:03 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password