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.
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.
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.
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.
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 05:45 PM
mshi Offline • • • • [X]
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:
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.
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.
thats the main reason I'm on the forums. I have NAS 
I had the same question. They are not my shots. Wish I did create them. I was just quoted in a response.