And there *IS* fairly significant distorsion at the wide end of the 16-35mm. I like my copy of the lens, but it definitely has its foibles.



trenchmonkey wrote:
If you can live with the distortion and f4...more power to ya. I shoot for a living,
and time is money.

I've owned 2 14-24's in the past. I am now shooting with the 16-35. It is very sharp on my d800, vr helps in low light more so than 2.8 on the 14-24 for me. Plus I can use filters.

trenchmonkey wrote:
If you can live with the distortion and f4...more power to ya. I shoot for a living,
and time is money.

I agree with you, the distortion at 16-18mm is significant. That is why Randy sold his copy to me

However, I found that if you are shooting jpg, the new firmware corrects that significantly. Also, LR and ACR handles these corrections pretty well, and not much extra effort is involved.

All being said, different strokes for different folks, and I am glad that Nikon is giving us all these choices to work with what suits us best.

AMaji wrote:
All being said, different strokes for different folks, and I am glad that Nikon is giving us all these choices to work with what suits us best.


And that right there is the TRUTH. Amen.

At one time I had both and they're different animals to me. However, after having noticed oil leaking from the front of my 16-35, I decided to send it back.

I'm with TM for me it's the 17-35mm F2.8 AFS all the way...I've used it for past four years and sold many an image. All the wide work on my web site was made with this lens, stopped down to F5.6 through F13.

I chose the 16-35 f/4 VR over the 14-24 mostly due to price and lightweight/filters. It's tack sharp and I love it.

trenchmonkey wrote:
If you can live with the distortion and f4...more power to ya. I shoot for a living,
and time is money.

The corollary there though is for some (speaking for myself here!), we do it as a hobby/for fun and don't need to worry about quickly processing hundreds or thousands of images---for hiking and such, the VR is very handy, I certainly wouldn't trade the VR for f2.8, but I'm sure many people would--depends on what one is doing. All three are great lenses I think.

But yep, the distortion at 16mm can almost be described as "almost a fish-eye" (not really, but it's heavy). I wouldn't get it for architecture photos at 16mm, that's for sure!

14-24mm advantages:
1. F2.8
2. Wider
3. Sharper corners from 14-19mm or so
4. Less distortion on very wide end of zoom range

16-35mm advantages:
1. VR
2. Also gives a great 24-30mm and a usable 30-35mm
3. Cheaper
4. Takes filters

Figure out which you care about more. There are filter setups for the 14-24mm, but if you are doing hiking and such, you may want to look at the size of the filter adapters, filters, etc, before you jump to any decision. Good news is, they (and the 17-35mm) hold resale value very well, so if you hate your lens you can give it a good new home and change to one that better suits your needs! ;-)

I use the 14-24mm and it can feel like it weighs a ton when I'm out and about
Which means I pull it out of the bag lesser times than when I had the 17-35mm (great PJ-type lens)
And that necessitated a shift of shooting style to using a prime as my always-on lens instead

But IQ is excellent, and my DIY filter holder takes care of my ND filter needs for landscape work (most shots manually blended via PS)
It also messed up my filter selection and compatibility - I had everything standardized to 77mm before

Anyway I've seen amazing stuff taken with the 16-35mm so *shrug* I guess sometimes we're simply splitting hairs

*I have the old LumaLoop and always have a fear of losing the cap of the 14-24mm though it hasn't happened yet

I have both the 14-24 and the 16-35 and to be honest I use the 16-35 much more... I like shooting long exposures in the daylight and the 16-35 allows me to use my standard 77mm ND filters where the 14-24 doesn't...

The 14-24 is the lens that sold me on FX, so my answer is an emphatic “no.”

I've owned both and used on a D700. I liked the 14-24, but it just wasn't practical for me. I thought 14mm on a D700 would be fun to use, but I rarely found a use for going that wide. So next time I'm looking for a wide lens, the 16-35 will be my choice. Smaller, lighter, easier filters, the lens cap is a real cap and I just prefer it.

BenV wrote:
I've owned both and used on a D700. I liked the 14-24, but it just wasn't practical for me. I thought 14mm on a D700 would be fun to use, but I rarely found a use for going that wide. So next time I'm looking for a wide lens, the 16-35 will be my choice. Smaller, lighter, easier filters, the lens cap is a real cap and I just prefer it.

You raise a very good point that is often dismissed: ultra-wide angle photography isn't for everybody. I tend to have my lens glued to 14mm, but I'm probably in the minority.

Sneakyracer wrote:
Hi, for landscapes I would choose the 16-35mm. It allows me to use filters and I mostly use the range around 24mm so 16mm is wide enough. I prefer the 14mm range for architectural interiors though but for landscapes and people 16-35mm is perfect.

I agree and this is what I did

F4 is ok and DXO is for the distortion!!

I opted for the 16-35 and love it. The 14-24 is not practical for what I do (travel, landscapes, and heavy filter use). If I shot more action/events then maybe I'd consider the 17-35, but for what I do, the 16-35 is perfect.

I've owned three different copies of the 16-35 f4 VR, and none were particularly good compared to the 14-24 f2.8 - much more distortion, and much weaker corner performance at either end of the zoom range. If the multiple copies I had were representative of the design, the 16-35 f4 probably should have been designated a DX lens.

The inability to use filters on the 14-24 is pretty much a non-issue for me; polarizers are of little use on a lens that wide, and with the D800's dynamic range, there's much less need for graduated ND filters.

Airphoto wrote:
look at lens rentals imatest for d800 i would go for d800e and d4

I'm wondering if you even read one post in this thread...?



Anywho to answer the OP's question. I've owned both, and while the 14-24 was an excellnt lens, I just didn't like it that much. I was always worried about scratching the front element. The 16-35 was a great piece of glass, much more useful for me. I rarely even used either lens wide open, so the 2.8 vs. 4 debate doesn't apply to me. In the long run, when I get my finanaces back in order, the 16-35 will be purchased again.

I have been debating the same question in my mind. In the end I opted to get both. Yes...it is spendy, but I sell my work as a landscape photographer and ultra wide to wide as well as large prints (were talking 40" x 60")is my wheelhouse.

Points I came up with during my considerations.

1. Technically the 14-24 tromps the 16-35 in edge quality. There is no getting around this.

2. The 14-24 has a problem with filters that is not very easy to get around and the only filter I am concerned about is the CPL. I know CPLs don't do well on skies, but I am more concerned with knockng the shine off waterfall foliage, and the reflections on water surfaces when I would rather have the creek bed in the composition...etc. And for that even with a superwide CPL's are nessassary.

3. The 16-35...while not up to the same level as the 14-24 is a very useful and sharp lens. It WILL hold filters...especially the CPL I so need.

My thoughts are....if the composition and the shot are taken with emotion and that is what draws the person into your shot in the first place. The MINOR softness in the corners shold not be a drawback.

The reason I am going for the 14-24 first is I have the extra elbowroom in my budget. The 16-35 should be coming soon after.

If I were not shooting professionally OR printing huge on a regular basis, the choice would be MUCH clearer. I would put the 16-35 in my bag and never look back. It is not a bad lens....its just that it's perfect brother (the 14-24) is almost always in the room and compairson is inevitable.

Roman

Good points, Roman, and it's good to see you here. I may follow you down that road, but only to the 16-35. Did you end up with a d800e?

Thanks to all for the great input. I'm not the OP, but the info was quite useful to me as well.

Kerry