Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       end
  

Archive 2014 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons

  
 
Chaz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


Steve Perry wrote: Another sunstar example. I like 'em best around F16~22, but F11 pulls out nice ones too. This is F16.

Exquisite in all respects! Really illustrates the corner-to-corner sharpness and the sunstar is killer.

Yep, I'll be adding the 14-24 to my kit.

And, since I like to beat a dead horse, I'll say again for the umpteenth time, "C'mon, Nikon, give us a T/S refresh plus a 17mm with independent dual-axis rotation like Canon shooters enjoy!"



Jul 06, 2014 at 03:12 PM
Steve Park
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


ckcarr wrote:
It distorts a little though, that violin looks bigger than normal.




I totally agree with you, except it's Viola.



Jul 06, 2014 at 06:45 PM
Dustin Gent
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


I use the ACR 14-24 profile, and it works amazing


Jul 06, 2014 at 09:33 PM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


If you have Photoshop or GIMP, almost all distortions can be corrected if you know how.


Jul 06, 2014 at 09:34 PM
Dpedraza
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


wiseguy010 wrote:
It is my experience that asking questions on a forum like this about the qualities of a lens will result in numerous different opinions. And even when all opinions are very positive, it doesn't mean these are correct for you. I once bought a lens based on some raving opinions here, but for me that particular lens didn't work. And I decided to sell it again. I then decided to ignore the opinions on forums like this when I was in market for a new lens. I now look at 2 things on the internet:

1. Real world examples of the
...Show more
I was in the same boat as you I bought a lens because there were raving reviews and people say it was comparable to another lens but cheaper. I bought the lens and regretted my purchase. My overall favorite wide angle I sold like an idiot but just repurchased it the other day from Steve perry. I still prefer the zeiss 21mm over either of the two the op was looking at. I own a 14-24 right now and previously owned the 16-35



Jul 07, 2014 at 09:39 AM
CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


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


In the end I went with the 16-35. Being able to use the same screw-on filters as all my other lenses without lugging extra stuff around with me, especially while hiking, was a huge plus. Also VR has got me dozens of shots I simply would not have without it, as there are many places it is impossible or inconvenient to bring a tripod. It is also as sharp as can be beginning around 18mm, and 16mm is still excellent. Right around 18-24mm is the sweet spot for this lens, and it is as good as anything else in that range with little distortion. The 14-24 is the king of landscape zooms however if you don't absolutely need 14-15mm and/or F2.8 there is little reason to get it over the 16-35.

Hope that helps, that was just my reasoning when I was looking to buy.




Jul 07, 2014 at 10:05 AM
Jglaser757
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


I borrowed a friends D800 with 14-24 attached yesterday..first off,,love the ergonomics of the camera and gotta get used to the viewfinder readout. Instead of a single large dot corresponding to correct exposure, there is this series of dots that gets thicker depending upon how far over or under your exposure is. Strange method.

Anyhow,,the lens is really great,,had one weird distortion with it when first viewed like if you had on a pair of glasses that curved everything on the corners.

Going to shoot some in the backyard today. its incredibly sharp,,amazingly better than the canon.

Could someone suggest any tips to using this. Any thing i should be conscious of besides the distorting angles.. I used a 24mm tilt shift once but didnt care for it..

thanks

Jon



Jul 08, 2014 at 06:46 AM
Ryder
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


Generally, you have to use a TS more than once to care for it.


Jul 08, 2014 at 08:37 AM
ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


Jglaser757 wrote:
I borrowed a friends D800 with 14-24 attached yesterday..first off,,love the ergonomics of the camera and gotta get used to the viewfinder readout. Instead of a single large dot corresponding to correct exposure, there is this series of dots that gets thicker depending upon how far over or under your exposure is. Strange method.

Anyhow,,the lens is really great,,had one weird distortion with it when first viewed like if you had on a pair of glasses that curved everything on the corners.

Going to shoot some in the backyard today. its incredibly sharp,,amazingly better than the canon.

Could someone suggest any tips to
...Show more

Practice. The 14-24mm is a difficult lens to use without learning it. The same goes for tilt-shifts.

Not sure about the "glasses" comment. Perhaps inexperience with UWA lenses, or were holding the camera at a tilt.





Jul 08, 2014 at 08:49 AM
nburwell
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


mshi wrote:
I own both and love both because they are different tools for different intended use.


Same here. I generally reserve the 14-24mm for astro work and since the 16-35mm accepts screw in filters, I use that for my general WA landscape photography.

-Nick



Jul 08, 2014 at 10:40 AM
Jglaser757
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


nburwell wrote:
Same here. I generally reserve the 14-24mm for astro work and since the 16-35mm accepts screw in filters, I use that for my general WA landscape photography.

-Nick


The inability to use filters on the 14-24 was a big issue for my until I found researd on the wonderpana by fotodiox.

Looks like a pretty decent setup,,little pricey but not compared to singh ray..



Jul 08, 2014 at 11:27 AM
Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


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
...Show more

This is perfectly put. A succinct pros and cons for both lenses.




Jul 09, 2014 at 02:23 AM
ExPixelPeeper
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


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
...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.





Aug 09, 2014 at 01:10 AM
ckcarr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


Doesn't sound like you're an Ex Pixel Peeper to me.

More you've doubled down.



Aug 09, 2014 at 08:12 AM
molson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


Optically, the 14-24 f2.8 is noticeably better than the 16-35 f4 VR at all apertures and all focal lengths. Flare is a non-issue.

The next best Nikon wide zoom is the AF-S 18-35mm f3.5-4.5G, and while it's quite a bit cheaper than the other two lenses, it obviously doesn't quite have the range or the speed. Optically, it's a little better than the 16-35 f4 VR.

The 16-35 f4 VR is very sharp in the center but things can sometimes degrade pretty quickly towards the edges of the frame. The VR feature is very handy.


It I had lots of money, I would buy both the 14-24 f2.8G and the 18-35 f3.5-4.5G... but I compromised and bought the 16-35 f4 VR.



Aug 09, 2014 at 09:05 AM
OccAeon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


molson wrote:
Optically, the 14-24 f2.8 is noticeably better than the 16-35 f4 VR at all apertures and all focal lengths. Flare is a non-issue.

The next best Nikon wide zoom is the AF-S 18-35mm f3.5-4.5G, and while it's quite a bit cheaper than the other two lenses, it obviously doesn't quite have the range or the speed. Optically, it's a little better than the 16-35 f4 VR.

The 16-35 f4 VR is very sharp in the center but things can sometimes degrade pretty quickly towards the edges of the frame. The VR feature is very handy.

It I had lots of money, I would
...Show more

I went with the 18-35 myself. I don't use the range that often (although the Sigma 35 Art is practically glued to my camera), and the 18-35 is plenty sharp for me. I usually shoot it stopped down anyway, so I doubt that there would be any visible difference between it and the other two. Plus it's super lightweight, and it's small enough that it fits in a little pocket in my camera bag perfectly :-). Sometimes I wish it had VR, but I wouldn't trade up to a bigger & heavier lens for that feature.



Aug 09, 2014 at 10:34 AM
ExPixelPeeper
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


OccAeon wrote:
I went with the 18-35 myself. I don't use the range that often (although the Sigma 35 Art is practically glued to my camera), and the 18-35 is plenty sharp for me. I usually shoot it stopped down anyway, so I doubt that there would be any visible difference between it and the other two. Plus it's super lightweight, and it's small enough that it fits in a little pocket in my camera bag perfectly :-). Sometimes I wish it had VR, but I wouldn't trade up to a bigger & heavier lens for that feature.


Yes, I had it, it's better except 18 mm and at 100% After you resize to your usable size (if you do so) then no difference.



Aug 09, 2014 at 01:12 PM
AnnJS
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


If there were non-VR versions of the entire F/2.8 range of Nikkors, I would swap most of my VR ones for them in a heart-beat!

VR does not work with shutter speeds faster than 1/300 (the zone in which I usually operate) and the mechanism adds both weight and cost to the lenses.

The only time that I find much need for VR is on wildly-rocking small boats and for hand-held ultra-tele and Macro photography. VR can also do horrible things to any hard-edged oblect in what should be an OOF background.



Aug 09, 2014 at 01:45 PM
ExPixelPeeper
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


AnnJS wrote:
If there were non-VR versions of the entire F/2.8 range of Nikkors, I would swap most of my VR ones for them in a heart-beat!

VR does not work with shutter speeds faster than 1/300 (the zone in which I usually operate) and the mechanism adds both weight and cost to the lenses.

The only time that I find much need for VR is on wildly-rocking small boats and for hand-held ultra-tele and Macro photography. VR can also do horrible things to any hard-edged oblect in what should be an OOF background.


what about walking when sun starts to let down and get images at f8, sharp and with good DOF @ 1/5 - 1/10 with no tripod. I usually don't take any tripod when go out from hotel to some restaurants or city walking with VR lenses. VR for me is killing feature. Don't know how you guys?

Paul.



Aug 09, 2014 at 01:56 PM
AnnJS
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · 14-24 or 16-35 ? Pros and cons


ISO 6400!

I love the freedom and flexibilty that ultra fast ISO has given me and I use it frequently.



And unless the objects in your shot are completely stationery (which they very seldom are) 1/5 or 1/10 sec is not much use VR or no VR.





Aug 09, 2014 at 02:06 PM
1       2      
3
       4       5       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.