p.1 #7 · Update: Nikon 16mm vs. 14-24 (For weddings)
14-24 is totally worth it. Granted, you won't use it as much as other lenses. But it is world's better and more useful than the 16. One of those lenses that is so tasty to start inventing reasons to use it.
p.1 #9 · Update: Nikon 16mm vs. 14-24 (For weddings)
deepbluejh wrote:
A fisheye is not a general purpose wedding lens regardless of its price and optical quality (or lack thereof). I'd pick a 14-24 over this, hands down.
Optical quality on the fisheye is pretty amazing, I'd argue the price is fine and it's an very useful wedding lens. My last image picked for year in pictures for seattle bride mag was with the 10.5 fisheye.
I don't doubt the 16mm at all, I'm just thinking is the flexibility of the zoom worth the price jump.
p.1 #11 · Update: Nikon 16mm vs. 14-24 (For weddings)
NikonAndy wrote:
Optical quality on the fisheye is pretty amazing, I'd argue the price is fine and it's an very useful wedding lens. My last image picked for year in pictures for seattle bride mag was with the 10.5 fisheye.
I don't doubt the 16mm at all, I'm just thinking is the flexibility of the zoom worth the price jump.
Well sure, the price is bargain basement compared to the 14-24 and the optical quality is good. I guess my point was that a fisheye is a one trick pony. Its cool for a little while, but the look gets old in a hurry.
p.1 #13 · Update: Nikon 16mm vs. 14-24 (For weddings)
I don't know if it helps, since I've never used the 16mm, but I wanted to say that I use my 14-24 at 14mm about 95% of the time. That makes me believe that having a 14mm prime would be absolutely fine with me. That said, I don't use it much, but when I use it, it is awesome!
p.1 #15 · Update: Nikon 16mm vs. 14-24 (For weddings)
Now that's a good question ..
14-24 mm or the 17-35 mm ?
I love my 14-24 and I'm only considering to switch it for the 17-35 because it
can take filters. UV and Grad ND filters to be specific. I think I will also love the
fact that I can just treat it like every other lens I have and I won't have to baby
it all the time like I have to baby the exposed massive front element of the 14-24.
Will I cry over the 14 - 17 mm difference ?? Probably ..
Will I cry over losing sharpness at the corners at f2.8?? Sure..
Will I rip my hairs out if Nikon upgrades the 17-35 right after I buy it? Definitely...
To complicate matters, I have the 24-70mm too so I'm covered in the 24-35mm
range, so the 17-35 would technically be a 17-24mm for me, while the 14-24mm
is full of these juicy focal lengths that I don't have.
If the 14-24 had a 77mm thread, it would be the obvious choice for me.
p.1 #20 · Update: Nikon 16mm vs. 14-24 (For weddings)
Good for you, the fisheye is superb for some images but the 14-24 is more useful for weddings. I think you will end up getting with a 16mm too, it's small enough that there's always room for it
