Frogfish Online Upload & Sell: Off
|
I recently bought the Tokina 16-28/2.8 and if it hadn't have been for the excessive flare I'd have kept it because everything else about it is excellent, even more so when you consider the incredible low price. It's still sitting next to me in it's box - I really need to sell it !
As a replacement I ummed and aaaghed between the 14-24 and Tamron 15-30 (which had been my first choice before I bought the Tokina) and asked questions here on FM. All of these lenses have bulbous front ends of course.
For most of your requirements the 16-35 is also a strong contender with the added bonus of VR (which the 14-24 and 16-28 lack), however it is far weaker than the Tamron VC in the corners and borders so if that is important to you (it is to me) then, especially considering it's more expensive than the Tamron anyway, you may want to cross that off as an option.
I finally bought the Tamron when FMers confirmed what I was reading elsewhere, that the 14-24 is also susceptible to flare and may need more PP work than I was prepared to devote per shot. The first thing I tested upon buying the lens was the Tamron's supposedly excellent resistance to flare .... and it is superb. I compared it to my Zeiss 21mm and it's very close. So that's the lens I bought and will use for an upcoming trip.
Note you do have to buy an adapter and 150x150mm filters if you require them. I bought a Benro adapter (US$130), the highly rated NISI polariser & 10 stop ND (US$160 each) and 3 GNDs (US$70 each) so that saving over a 16-35 or new 14-24 is quickly eroded (though of course it's the same additional cost for filters for any of the bulbous front end lenses) though large filters (e.g. 82mm for the Zeiss) are expensive anyway so it's not a major increase in the cost, if you going to invest in filters, whichever lens you buy.
|