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 2015 · Wide angle lens for a trip.

  
 
thedruid
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


My advice to rent was to come to a decision before you go!


Feb 18, 2015 at 12:49 PM
youie
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


Andre Labonte wrote:
Youie,

I'm curious about your strong interest in the 24mm 1.4 given that you already have the 24-70 and are considering the 14-24?

Cheers,
Andre


Very good question Andre, my interest in the 24mm comes from the fact that it's an amazing lens with great IQ, and it's 1.4. The 24-70 is very good at 24mm but not excellent.
My plan was using the 24 1.4 for landscaping but also for general photography, something that the 14-24, according from what i have read cannot do.



Feb 18, 2015 at 02:05 PM
youie
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


thedruid wrote:
My advice to rent was to come to a decision before you go!


Here in Canada the rental fees are very expensive, up to $300 per week.



Feb 18, 2015 at 02:07 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


youie wrote:
Very good question Andre, my interest in the 24mm comes from the fact that it's an amazing lens with great IQ, and it's 1.4. The 24-70 is very good at 24mm but not excellent.
My plan was using the 24 1.4 for landscaping but also for general photography, something that the 14-24, according from what i have read cannot do.


***************

Interesting, thank you for the response.

Yes, Nikon does seem to have hit one out of the park with the 24mm f/1.4

Why do you say that the 14-24 cannot do "general photography" @ 24mm? Just curious because I'm not privy to what you have read nor do I quite know what you are thinking when you say "general photography".

Cheers,
Andre



Feb 18, 2015 at 02:42 PM
thedruid
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


Lens Rentals Canada Nikon 16-35mm lens four day rental $79 + shipping, you rule one lens out, Henrys rents a the 14-24mm for $35 for the Weekend or $105 for a week


Feb 18, 2015 at 03:21 PM
youie
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


Andre Labonte wrote:
***************

Interesting, thank you for the response.

Yes, Nikon does seem to have hit one out of the park with the 24mm f/1.4

Why do you say that the 14-24 cannot do "general photography" @ 24mm? Just curious because I'm not privy to what you have read nor do I quite know what you are thinking when you say "general photography".

Cheers,
Andre


I should have said "not as good", "cannot" was the wrong word to use of course. According to what i have read when i was researching the 14-24, the main reason why the 24mm 1.4 was a better lens for general photography, besides better IQ, it had two biggest advantages, less flare issues and the weight.
Is this correct information, or depends on the point of views from each user. My biggest concern is the flares on the 14-24mm, if this information is made worse than actually is, then for me it's a no brainner, i will go with the 14-24mm 2.8g.
Thank You.



Feb 18, 2015 at 03:25 PM
youie
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


thedruid wrote:
Lens Rentals Canada Nikon 16-35mm lens four day rental $79 + shipping, you rule one lens out, Henrys rents a the 14-24mm for $35 for the Weekend or $105 for a week


I am refering to my local store here in Montreal (Lozeau), i never dealt with web stores, not my thing.



Feb 18, 2015 at 03:28 PM
Ripolini
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


Andre Labonte wrote:
This article from DXOMARK pretty well sums up my impressions of Zeiss:

DxO said, or "measured", in the past that the 105 VR was better than the 100/2 Makro-Planar.
Since then, I did quit considering DxO as something worth reading.

P.S.: I own both 100/2 ZF and 105 VR.

P.S. 2: about MTF measurements by target reproduction photography, like those made by DxO, I would suggest the following reading: http://toothwalker.org/optics/lenstest.html



Feb 18, 2015 at 04:12 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


youie wrote:
I should have said "not as good", "cannot" was the wrong word to use of course. According to what i have read when i was researching the 14-24, the main reason why the 24mm 1.4 was a better lens for general photography, besides better IQ, it had two biggest advantages, less flare issues and the weight.
Is this correct information, or depends on the point of views from each user. My biggest concern is the flares on the 14-24mm, if this information is made worse than actually is, then for me it's a no brainner, i will go with the 14-24mm
...Show more


****************

Ah, I understand know. You might consider talking to Steve Perry here on the forums. He has a 14-24 and uses it to great effect. He can give you the lowdown on its performance @ 24mm.







Feb 18, 2015 at 07:03 PM
Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


I have the 14-24 f2.8, 16-35 f4 VR, Zeiss 21 f2.8, 24 f1.4G and 24-70 f2.8 all covering the wide end. I have also been to Europe on 4 occasions and have always taken my 16-35 f4 VR and 24-70 f2.8 as the pairing for my wide angle duties simply because the 16-35 is the most versatile and has VR. I didn't have the 24 f1.4G until after my last trip, but I would also take that along as well as taking the 16-35 f4 VR and the 24-70 f2.8. I am going to sell my Zeiss 21 f2.8 as I just don't use it enough and using manual focus is a pain.

If I had to choose between 14-24 f2.8 and the 24 f1.4 I would choose the 14-24 simply because you really need that extra wide angle inside those castle and cathedrals etc. My 16-35 f4 VR was at 16mm much of the time inside those castles and cathedrals and VR came in handy. The benefit of the minor IQ advantage of the 24f1.4 over the 14-24 is outweighed, IMO, by the versatility of the zoom.



Feb 18, 2015 at 07:45 PM
youie
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


Lance B wrote:
I have the 14-24 f2.8, 16-35 f4 VR, Zeiss 21 f2.8, 24 f1.4G and 24-70 f2.8 all covering the wide end. I have also been to Europe on 4 occasions and have always taken my 16-35 f4 VR and 24-70 f2.8 as the pairing for my wide angle duties simply because the 16-35 is the most versatile and has VR. I didn't have the 24 f1.4G until after my last trip, but I would also take that along as well as taking the 16-35 f4 VR and the 24-70 f2.8. I am going to sell my Zeiss 21 f2.8
...Show more

Thank you Lance for your feedback,
It becomes more clear to me that i will buy the Nikon 24mm 1.4g, but further down the road.
It's also obvious that i will be better served with a wide zoom for my trip.
Lance, in your own opinion and based on your experience with the 14-24 and the 16-35 f/4, if you had to pick only one of them which lens would you keep?
I know it's maybe a hard question to answer because your not in my shoes, but i cannot afford the two of them, and i would need some experienced advice.
Once again thank your for your help.
youie.



Feb 18, 2015 at 08:30 PM
Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


youie wrote:
Thank you Lance for your feedback,
It becomes more clear to me that i will buy the Nikon 24mm 1.4g, but further down the road.
It's also obvious that i will be better served with a wide zoom for my trip.
Lance, in your own opinion and based on your experience with the 14-24 and the 16-35 f/4, if you had to pick only one of them which lens would you keep?
I know it's maybe a hard question to answer because your not in my shoes, but i cannot afford the two of them, and i would need some experienced advice.
Once again
...Show more

Gees, you don't make it easy! It's a tough question as to which I would keep out of the 14-24 f2.8 and 16-35 f4 VR. I use the 16-35 f4 VR mainly for trips due to the VR and longer zoom range for versatility. Canada Mark gave an excellent pros and cons for 14-24 vs 16-35 a while back and I can't argue with any of it:
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

A couple of notes on all of the above. Flare doesn't raise it's head all that much with the 14-24, but if it does you can be sure it will be when you're on a once in a life time landmark spot and it may ruin the image, another reason I don't take the 14-24 on my travels. When I am at home or are traveling locally, I will generally take the 14-24 but that also depends on what I am doing.

I am going to say I would keep the 16-35 f4 VR simply because of the versatility, zoom range, VR etc, and the very slight minor foibles compared to the 14-24 aren't that great, like distortion at the wide end (which can be fixed in PP) and corner softness wide open (which can be fixed by stopping down). If you know how to use the 16-35 you can get superb results, knowing where to focus in a scene, as far as getting everything sharp, to make use of it's strengths etc. The thing is, where the 16-35's strengths are are between 20-24mm and this is where I shoot most landscape shots and it is a tad better than the 14-24. When I need wider then even down to 16mm is still excellent if you stop down and distortion can be fixed in PP.

However, ask me again tomorrow and I will probably say I'd keep the 14-24 as it really is a legendary lens! Hence why I still have both lenses and am not going to sell either.



Feb 18, 2015 at 09:12 PM
youie
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


Lance B wrote:
Gees, you don't make it easy! It's a tough question as to which I would keep out of the 14-24 f2.8 and 16-35 f4 VR. I use the 16-35 f4 VR mainly for trips due to the VR and longer zoom range for versatility. Canada Mark gave an excellent pros and cons for 14-24 vs 16-35 a while back and I can't argue with any of it:
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
...Show more

Thank you for the excellent write up Lance, very much appreciated. I can say now that i have all the information needed to make my decision on my wide lens purchase.
Regards...youie



Feb 18, 2015 at 09:40 PM
Lance B
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


Thank you for the excellent write up Lance, very much appreciated. I can say now that i have all the information needed to make my decision on my wide lens purchase.
Regards...youie


All I can say is good luck with your decision. There is no right or wrong answer, just what is right or wrong for your requirements as any of these lenses are capable of superb results in the right hands.



Feb 19, 2015 at 02:44 AM
Chestnut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


Youie, you can also consider delaying the Nikon 24/1.4 longer, and see how the soon-to-come Sigma 24/1.4 ART for. It will be substantially more affordable, and likely a very good lens that will give the Nikon a run for its money.

If I were you, on a *limited* budget, with a focus on candid photography, I'd go with the 16-35VR and wait for the new Sigma 24/1.4. Yes, the 16-35 will have a more useful range for general photography, lighter, cheaper, takes filters, has VR, and still an optically very nice lens.

If I was on a more flexible budget, and shoot very wide a lot, and do occasional night sky photos, if pick the 14-24/2.8, and still wait to see about the Sigma 24/1.4 - no need to spend the $ for the Nikon of you don't have to. I've been thoroughly enjoying the latest sigma ART and SPORT offerings - definitely pushing the price-performance envelope, and taking very good shots at Nikon and Canon offerings.

And FYI, I do own and use the 14-24, 16-35VR, 24-70 (although I use the 24-120/4VR more now), Nikon 24/1.4, and Sigma 35/1.4 ART. And I still can't wait to see what sigma can do with this new 24/1.4.

Focus your energy on deciding if you want the versatility of the 16-35/4 (lower cost, VR, filters, range), or the absolute performance of the 14-24 (super wide, f/2.8, bleeding sharp wide open, unmatched optical quality).

You can't go wrong between these two lenses. They are both great, just at different things. The goodness of the 16-35/4 gets overshadowed by the 14-24, but that doesn't mean it's poor. It's a very good lens. Either way, you'll be working you had the other at times... For candid and general walk-around, you'd wish the 14-24 had more reach (but you have the 24-70 for that already). For indoors, and especially castles, you'd wish the 16-35 had the extra width of the 14-24. If you try astro, you'd wish for the 14mm to get as much of the Milky Way as you can. The 14-24 can do wonders with landscape, giving a very special perspective that a narrower lens like 16-35 can't provide... But you may itch for filters (?). But either way you'll end up with a great photographic tool.

Regarding the 24/1.4: with the way Sigma has been making their Global Concept like if lenses, I'm watching them VERY closely. The 35/1.4 is half what Nikon charges, and you can see plenty of examples on this forum on how wonderful that lens is. If the new 24/1.4ART is anything like the rest of their ART lenses... You may be very pleasantly surprised. Pay Sigma 50-60% of what Nikon wants, and get 95-99% of the optical performance.



Feb 22, 2015 at 11:43 PM
krickett
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


I agree with a lot of what Lance B said.

For travel, I use the 16-35 much more, because it's lighter and more versatile. The 14-24 is very bulky... imagine gluing a grapefruit to the front of your camera.



Feb 23, 2015 at 06:58 PM
youie
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


Hi guy’s
Just to give you a little update, when I started this thread I was debating between the Nikon 24mm 1.4G and the 14-24mm 2.8 for my trip to Europe, I finally picked the Nikon 24mm 1.4g.
I enjoyed a lot using the 24 1.4g, took beautiful photos in amazing places, the lens performed very well, very sharp lens indeed.
But, like a lot of you suggested I should have taken a wider lens but more important a wide zoom lens, oh man what a big mistake. 24mm is wide but inside of a 62k seat stadium, or inside oh a castle per example you need wider to really want to get everything in.
So a little apology to those that that told me so, but I did not listen to. The good thing in a way, I enjoyed my trip so much that most provably I will return some time in the future.
I just have to bring next time the right “tools” for the job!
Best regards



Nov 16, 2015 at 05:09 PM
CanadaMark
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


^^ All part of the learning process my friend. Most of us who recommended a wider zoom probably only did so because of similar mistakes (mistake probably isn't the right word but you know what I mean). I distinctly remember a time when I used to think 24mm was wide enough until I discovered the UWA and found out what I was missing! Also with most things photography, you can read on forums as much as you want, but often you don't know for sure until you try it yourself, so just chalk it up as a valuable learning experience.


Nov 16, 2015 at 05:23 PM
adamba100
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


Than take a look at Nikon 20 f/1.8. Light and sharp, perfect for travel.


Nov 16, 2015 at 09:08 PM
Diallo_Jamal
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · Wide angle lens for a trip.


Youie glad to hear the trip went well! I am a fan of the 14-24 and wish I had found this thread a bit earlier. I am a big fan of the 28 1.8 as a walk around due to both its quality as well as my affinity for the FL, but when I don't have to worry about being light starved, I am beginning to lean towards the 14-24 as a walk around when on vacation (the weight doesn't bother me as I am large chap, and I don't use filters). I think the 24 1.4 is a great addition to your line up. Both the 14-24 and 24-70 I believe are noticeably weaker performers at 24 (I don't own the 24-70, but based on what I have read).


Nov 17, 2015 at 12:16 AM
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.