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

  

Archive 2013 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape
  
 
diamondroad
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


Hello,

My wife and I are planning a HUGE road trip this summer hitting Valley of fire, Death Valley, Zion, Bryce and maybe even Yosemite.

We D700's and I'm about to add a D3s to my camera bag by then.

Which lens should we buy for landscaping? Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II or the 14-24mm 2.8? I'm torn and hoping someone here can add their two cents.

I thought I already posted this a few weeks ago but I can't find it? Sorry if I already did.

Thanks
Steve and Janice



Mar 15, 2013 at 02:47 PM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


Do you use filters and have an existing set of 77mm filters? If so, 16-35. Otherwise, 14-24.


Mar 15, 2013 at 02:50 PM
sb in ak
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


I'd consider the 16-35 the more "usable" lens: you can use filters easily, has VR, and no bulbous front to take care of. Also somewhat cheaper. If money isn't an issue, the 14-24 and the expensive adapter options.


Mar 15, 2013 at 03:39 PM
pbraymond
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


Since you only asked for $0.02 worth here's mine, without knowing too much specifics regarding your preferences or priorities

14-24 if you want
top sharpness
need wider than 16mm
want lower distortion

16-35 if you want
save some $$$
use filters
VR is more useful to you than f2.8
less weight and bulk
the 24-35mm range matters more to you than the 14-16mm range.

For my priorities, I would pick 16-35. Disclaimer, I've never used either, just presenting my $0.02 based on many hours of thinking about replacing my 17-35. In the end I'm very happy with the 17-35 for what I shoot and cannot justify owning two UW zooms.

Sounds like a great trip lined up, all the best!



Mar 15, 2013 at 04:00 PM
Dpedraza
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


I own the 16-35 mm it's a great lens which you can easily use filters with without breaking the bank buying them. I've never used the 14-24 but I hear great things about it. I was debating on these two as well I found a much better deal on the 16-35 which is why I bought it instead.

A lot of the reviews I've read the 16-35 is almost as sharp as the 14-24 plus you get the vr for handheld shooting even though I'm sure majority of your shots will probably wit a tripod.



Mar 15, 2013 at 04:22 PM
Zichar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


You can get hold of your previous posts by clicking on the "POSTS" button at the end of your own messages

Here's the thread from before
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1188760/



Mar 15, 2013 at 04:26 PM
BenV
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


Zichar wrote:
You can get hold of your previous posts by clicking on the "POSTS" button at the end of your own messages

Here's the thread from before
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1188760/


hahaha, I was about to post a few links from the SEARCH button when I noticed he asked the same exact question a little while ago. You beat me to the punch.



Mar 15, 2013 at 04:47 PM
diamondroad
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


Thanks Zichar and BenV



Mar 15, 2013 at 05:10 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



BenV
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


diamondroad wrote:
Thanks Zichar and BenV


Just doing our best to slow down on the spam.



Mar 15, 2013 at 06:28 PM
ADCOLE
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


I've owned the 16-35 and I must say that it was a excellent lens. However, I sold it to get the 14-24 and I am glad that I did. It is a lot sharper lens and you can always get an adapter if you require the use of filters. VR isn't a concern because if I am shooting landscape it would be mounted on a tripod.


Mar 15, 2013 at 07:54 PM
ja_joyce
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


They are both great lenses, I think which one works for you is a matter of style. The 14-24 has the ultimate IQ, but it is big and heavy. If you like to linger over your composition with the camera on a tripod this would be my choice. If you like to shoot hand held then I'd go with the 16-35 for the VR. The other issue is the zoom range. 14mm is a pretty extreme FOV while the 24-35mm range is very handy IMO. Even though I loved the IQ of the 14-24 I eventually sold it because I just didn't use the ultra-wide end enough.



Mar 17, 2013 at 02:29 PM
Iron_Dreamer
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


I've used a partner's 16-35 during a 2-week photo trip, and came home unimpressed with the files. The 14-24 never disappoints. I will tolerate it's limitations, because it's just that good.

BTW, I hope you're prepared for the insane summer heat in some of those locations!



Mar 17, 2013 at 03:25 PM
Jammy Straub
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


Have you also considered the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8? It'll run you about $900 more than the 14-24, but if it's in the budget...


Mar 17, 2013 at 03:30 PM
Grantland
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


steve,

maybe pick up a used D800 for landscape? 36 mpx is a big improvement over 12 mpx especially for landscape. and after your road trip you should be able to sell it without much of a loss.

i shot a D800 w/12-24 f/2.8 last year and it is a great combo.

grant







Mar 17, 2013 at 03:50 PM
Kee Woo Rhee
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


Here is my story.
I shoot with D800 and D700.
I had 17-35 f2.8. Sold it. And bought 16-35 f4.0. I really didn't like 16-35 and regretted selling 17-35. So I purchased another 17-35. Used it for a while. Then I had to have 14-24 f2.8. I am really happy with 14-24. And I acquired adaptor with filters from Fotodiox for 14-24mm. Now I am very happy with my set.

So.. I would choose 14-24mm. Regards, -Kee



Mar 23, 2013 at 02:18 AM
DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape


14-24 if you can manage the filter question.


Mar 23, 2013 at 03:45 PM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password