ExPixelPeeper Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
CanadaMark wrote:
I went through this debate a while ago and here is the condensed version of the facts:
16-35VR Pro:
- Better between 20-24mm than the 14-24
- 25-35mm bonus range
- Can use 77mm filters, which you likely have already
- Has VR (this is an unbelievably huge bonus)
- Lighter than the 14-24
- Cheaper than 14-24
- Crazy sharp at typical landscape apertures, especially from around 18mm onward.
16-35VR Con:
- Some distortion at 16mm, but easily correctable in PS
- Fairly long physically (not a big deal)
- F4 vs 2.8 (doesn't matter for most landscape shooters)
- Not as sharp in the corners wide open
14-24 Pro:
- Sharper from 16-20mm or so
- 14-15mm capability
- F2.8 if needed
14-24 Con:
- Huge bulbous front element and no great way to protect it
- Filters require expensive and inconvenient holders like the Lee or Cokin system
- Heavier
- More expensive
- No VR
- More prone to flare
...Show more →
This is one of the best comparisons of these two lenses. Very clever pros / cons. I agree 100%. I have 16-35 and thinking of 14-24 (for wider and less distortion), but still not decided.
As ex pixel peeper I still wonder how you guys evaluate sharpness of the lenses: out of camera viewing at 100% raw files (much less sense) or you comparing final images with different sharpening applied.
What I noticed that many of us do not print that often and looking at images on large screens at 2500 px or similar or smaller - web resolutions. I personally print very rarely, enjoying images on 27 inch or a4 books sometimes.
I am asking this, because if viewing final images say at 1500-2500 px, these all sharpness differences disappear after post processing. I compared many lenses (zeiss, tamron, sigma, etc.) at every pixel (liked that much) and can say you do not see any difference (or very marginal sometimes) between very sharp Zeiss 25 f2 and nikon 16-35 @ 2500 px or sigma 35 1.4 and Nikon 24-70, etc.
That's why I reconsider lenses more for convenience (especially VR when traveling) rather that sharpness differences at raw 100%.
So my idea is not always compare lenses at 100% raw's but to compare them in a way you most often look (and share) at you pictures.
Paul.
|