Using a Nikon D800 and for landscapes how much of a difference in terms of sharpness and overall image quality is there going to be between the

Nikon 14-24 2.8 and Nikon 70-200 2.8 vs. the Nikon 16-35 F4 and Nikon 70-200 F4.

Obviously there is a stop difference and a bit of range difference and the filter advantage of the 16-35 over the 14-24.. but in terms of distortion, sharpness, color, and overall impage quality is there really going to be much of a trade off when shooting from F4 to F16? Also, keep in mind the demands of the D800 sensor.

Thanks
Jack

No.

I have all four of those lenses (and a D800E), and I still can't make up my mind... although I haven't touched the 70-200 f2.8 VR II since I got the f4 version...

BenV wrote: No.

Thank you for insights and in depth analysis.

allstarimaging wrote:
BenV wrote: No.

Thank you for insights and in depth analysis.

Beggars can't be choosers.

Having read lots of reviews recently... they're quite close.

If you're not shooting night time landscapes (stars, that is) the 16-35 offers more advantage where versatility (filters, range, VR) is concerned. Although at its widest it does offer more barrel distortion.

Believe there can be some copy variability. (though that is seemingly true with almost any lens anymore)

I'd consider getting something like that and supplementing it with the samyang 14mm 2.8 at < 400 dollars. (its quality being as good as or better than other 14mm offerings priced magnitudes higher)

I haven't been doing landscapes for several years now, but I'm wanting to get back into it a bit. Given that I'm not a "serious" landscaper, I'm not really wanting to dump a lot of money into it, at least until I have time to figure out if I want to become serious.

I have decent landscape lenses for DX, but my FX lenses are rather sparse beyond the 24-70, an old Sigma 12-24, 15mm fish, 20 f/1.8, and 17mm Tokina.

The 14-24 doesn't seem like a lens for my bag, but the 16-35 and 17-35 Nikons aren't exactly cheap either. I'm leaning toward the 16-35, but I'm wondering if I should just dust off the old Sigma 12-24 and see how horrible it looks on the d800. The new Sigma 12-24 is supposed to be much improved over the old version and is only $950 new. So, I'd like to know if anyone has compared the new Sigma 12-24 to the Nikon 16-35 and how they stack up.

I hope that Jack doesn't mind a little diversion off the main question. But, if you think this isn't appropriate, Jack, just let me know and I'll remove it.

thanks
Kerry

14-24 2.8 is good if you make a lot of indoor shooting or night shooting. Is big, heavy and no common filters.
16-35 f4 is always and whatever you do, does mount the filters and is super sharp.
After trying both extensively I took the 16-35f4.
It is very good lens, distortion is high but easy to fix. Not sure why should one use the 14-24 2.8 in real life to be honest.

70-200 f2.8 vs f4 = 2.8 has faster AF, much better build quality. That's all. If you don't have very fast moving subjects and/or very harsh environments the f4 is the one to go with, costs 1000$ less, has half the weight, and good if not better image quality. Worth to consider the use with converters if you have the 2.8.
I have the 2.8VRII, I do need faster AF, use it with TCs and harsh environments are my everyday shooting, that's why.

Hope this helps!
G.

For landscape shooting I'd take the F/4's. I LOVE my 14-24, absolutely love it, but it's because of what it does indoors and in confined spaces that separates it. I haven't shot the new 70-200 f/4 but I imagine it's fantastic and similar in image quality to the 2.8 at f/5.6 and smaller. If portraits or TC's are your thing go with the 2.8 otherwise I think the f/4 would hold it's own.

I only know of the 14-24's power to amaze. Wonderful lens. I never jumped into the 70-200vrii... I still have my vr1 and I get by just fine with it.

Yeah, I think the trade off in weight isn't going to be worth it when you are shooting stopped down. I couldn't imagine hiking around with 2 big lenses like those, heck even the f/4's are bigger than I'd like. When I shot Canon I had the 17-40 and 70-200 f/4 IS as my go to landscape lenses.

I picked 16-35 because of weight and price I can use filter on it and i nevere shot indoor
For landscape I alwayse use f5.6 to f16.
Then again it comes to personal choice.

I use the 17-35mm AFS as there was no 16-35mm at the time, I also wanted to use my filters. I rented the 14-24mm and saw the benefits not in landscapes but in my cityscapes, the detail was a notch above.

I've been waiting four years for the 70-200mm VR F4 coming over form Canon this was my most used lens, I have both f2.8/f4 right now it's early days but I'm impressed with the F4 for my needs it's perfect.

when i was looking for a WA lens, I couldn't find the 16-35 anywhere so i picked up the 14-24. i haven't been disappointed, and sorted the filter issue out with the Fotodiox solutions. I've got the 70-200 II, but rarely use it, have been eyeing the 70-200 F4 because of it's size/weight advantage.

allstarimaging wrote:
BenV wrote: No.

Thank you for insights and in depth analysis.

i answered your question,what else do you want? these lenses havent been conpared thousands of times.

These icons are an indication of humor. As in a joke. That's why I used one. I was kidding

Hope this time they work.

Jack

BenV wrote:
No.

Yes.

knower wrote:
14-24 2.8 is good if you make a lot of indoor shooting or night shooting. Is big, heavy and no common filters.
16-35 f4 is always and whatever you do, does mount the filters and is super sharp.
After trying both extensively I took the 16-35f4.
It is very good lens, distortion is high but easy to fix. Not sure why should one use the 14-24 2.8 in real life to be honest.


Not sure why? You said it yourself: indoor and night [or low light] shooting. The extra 2mm are also useful if going wide as possible is important, but that's entirely subjective.

at MFD the 2.8 lenses win for me - otherwise save the weight and for landscapes the f4 versions are excellent

The AF-S Nikkor 14-24 and 70-200 VRII are in a class by themselves.
If you always shoot F/4 or higher and cannot tell the difference, then why waste your money.
I like the 17-35 better than the 16-35 that I sent back.
My only interest in most f/4 lens are lighter weight and cost.
Of course that does not apply to the 200-400 or 600mm.

I have both a 14-24 and 16-35. The poor 16-35 is all red and bruised form being spanked by the 14-24 in IQ all the time. The 16-35 just isn't as sharp - esp. on a D800 - as the 14-24. Even stopped down.