Anyone have any thoughts on these two lenses? Looking for a fun lens to play around with shooting ultra-wide landscapes and maybe some indoor architecture shots. Originally I was leaning towards the 14-24mm but after learning you can't use filters with it I'm thinking 16-35mm might be more versatile. Not too worried about speed. D3s body.
16-35mm if you need filters and don't care about speed
17-35mm if you need filters and care about speed
14-24mm if you don't need filters and can live without 25-35mm.
That's the exact reason I sold my 14-24 and got the 16-35. I miss the sharpness of the 14-24, but I use the 16-35 10X as much because I can put ND and CPL filters on it.
Well, if you can find the Lee kit, you can put filters on the 14-24. I have both and am glad that I didn't go with my initial instinct and dump the 14-24 for the 16-35. The Lee kit, like the 14-24, is very well made, expensive, and worth every penny.
I've got both and use the 16-35mm 98% of the time, but I wouldn't sell the 14-24mm. The 16-35mm is much lighter and balances better with my D700 and more versatile. Colours pop on both but the 14-24mm is sharper, especially corners. Distortion can be controlled on both with DxO but the 16-35 is not as good.
The 14-24mm is supersharp and i have trouble letting that go even if it does not take filters. I like using it for late evening shots when the level of light is quite low. Its sharpness is definitely higher than the other 2 lenses, which also happen to be fantastic lenses.
I also have the 21mm zeiss and 45mm PC-E for when i want to use filters and dont mind slowing down to MF.
The 14-24mm is supersharp and i have trouble letting that go even if it does not take filters. I like using it for late evening shots when the level of light is quite low. Its sharpness is definitely higher than the other 2 lenses, which also happen to be fantastic lenses.
the 14-24mm is fantastic and I'd have trouble letting it go for the 16-35. However I have to disagree with the 14-24 being sharper than the zeiss. The zeiss 21 kills it for corner to corner sharpness and microcontrast at =< f/8 .
I got the 16-35, I can't complain. Mines more than sharp enough for me. I don't print big, so yeah. For low light, the VR definitely makes up for the two stops of light. 1/6th at 16mm, no problem.
My 16-35 works really well on the D700 and I particularly like the contrast & color pop (more a function of the nano coating, I think). My only real complaint is that distorsion can get a little crazy at the wide end. Shooting people near the edges of the frame (think large group shots) is a no-no at 16mm. While some of the distorsion can be corrected in LR3, it's not a perfect solution.
Compared to my buddy's 17-35mm, I'd say my 16-35 holds up well and is the better all around lens.
I'd rather own the 14-24 for my purposes, but for now the 16-35 fits the bill nicely.
mansurovs view of the 16-35 is very good..very sharp comparable to the 14-24. http://mansurovs.com/nikon-16-35mm-f4-vr-review. and http://mansurovs.com/nikon-14-24mm-f2-8-review/3. center sharpness is comparable he states several times. inthe long run however, i compared the 14-24 with my prime nikkor 28 mm f2 and that outshines any zoom nikon makes. primes still rule, even tho the older primes need a contrast boost.
I picked the 16-35. For my use, I am such I will need to change lens much more often if I use 14-24 instead of 16-35. Size and weight are big issues for me (otherwise I 'd consider Tokina 16-28 2.8 as well) , filter is also another consideration. I love shooting in low light but I 'd trust my tripod rather than f2.8. If I really can't use tripod, VR is more useful than 1 stop aperture.
The 14-24mm is sharper than the 17-35mm f2.8 which in turn is much sharper than the 16-35mm f4. I rented the 16-35mm for a week and shot it alongside my 14-24mm f2.8 zoom on both a D3 and a D300. After reviewing the images I was glad I had rented before buying.
The IQ of the 16-35mm is on par with that of the DX 12-24mm f4.
elkhorn..you must have had a bad copy of the 16-35... mine is razor sharp in the center almost to the extreme edge from 16mm toabout 32mm ..it matches my extremely sharp prime 28mm f2 nikkor from center to edge stopped down to f5.6. however depth of field is not as good as my 28mm at the same f stops. my 28mm f2 also exceeded the sharpness of the 14-14 f2.8. this is pixel peeping shots comparable at 200% of landscape.
Yeah, I'd have to agree that it sounds like a bad copy of the 16-35. Mine has been very good to me. I didn't go for the 14-24 because it wouldn't take filters (Lee kit wasn't out yet), and because I rarely have the freedom of using a tripod so VR was more valuable.
I strongly recommend treating the choice between the 14-24, 16-35, and 17-35 as one of preference and personal style. There is no "better" lens here... which one is best depends entirely on what you value.
