Okay, so this is a question for Nikon peeps, or canon peeps with experience with these lenses.

I'm looking for an UWA lens for the look that my 10.5mm FE once gave me when I shot dx. I now shoot with the D3 and D700.

The 16mm seems like the perfect fit to replace the 10.5 for FX, however, I'm just as impressed and happy with the 14-24's look at 16mm.

So, let me know which you chose for weddings and why. Is the zoomability of the 14-24 awesome enough to justify twice the price?

I would have posted this in the Nikon forum, but I'd love a wedding photographer's experience specifically, not a landscape photographer, etc.

Thanks so much, any opinions would be greatly appreciated in making this next purchase.

~Andy

So, 5 votes and no reasons? I know that the 14-24 is a superior lens overall, but twice the price superior? and useful for weddings?

I had a similar post just 2 days ago...

here

I bought the 14-24mm because it's superior and because it can do a lot more.

14-24 just incase you need to shoot a massive group. But if you like fe look get the 16 but I'll vote on the 14-24.

Sorry double post

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.

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.

- trr

i traded my 14-24 and got a 17-35 instead

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.

I really appreciate everyone's comments, it's very helpful, thanks for taking the time.

NikonAndy wrote:
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.

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.

because the 14-24 is a better lens and more versatile.

Evan

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!

less distortion and said above the fisheye look gets dated. 14 - 24 = multiple choices in focal length.

The 17-35 is no slouch and probably more versatile, but it's not 14mm

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.

I'm still not sure what to do..

stecson wrote:
i traded my 14-24 and got a 17-35 instead


mmm i second this

I need them both.. I like the fisheyness of the 16mm and the clean overcorected look of the 14-24mm

..m

Update: I went ahead and pulled the trigger on the 14-24. It's first wedding will be the weekend after this one in Kauai. We'll see how she does

Watch the front element!!

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