I got the 14-24 and 24-70 when I switched to Nikon, 16-35 was not out then. Really missed not being able to use my exisiting Lee filters.
I do weddings so need something fast that can cover the 24mm end in case the 24-70 dies on the day. However if I was buying again I would be very tempted to go 16-35mm and put the cash I'd save (both on the lenses and the filters) on a 24mm f/1.4.
However as it would not be worth selling the 14-24 to get a 16-35, I sold all my existing Lee stuff and waiting for the SW150 to come in.
I have both the 14-24 and the 16-35 and to be honest, I grab the 16-35 much more than the 14-24... The VR and the ability to use filters on the 16-35 usually wins the day for me.
I have the 14-24mm and the 17-35mm and I only use the 14-24mm when I shoot landscapes and I want to have the wider angle possible. My impression is that the 14-24mm gives you sharper images from the center to the corners. On the other hand, it is not a "practical" lens. You cannot use "normal" filters and it is bulky. Most of the time I use the 17-35mm that is a pretty sharp lens. A potential problem with the 17-35mm is the AFS engine and some copies do make squeaking noises. My copy made that noise for several years until one day the AFS stopped working. I replaced the AFS engine and it is working superbly without any noise. Both lenses (14-24mm and 17-35mm) are not "cheap" and if money is a significant factor, you can get a new copy of the 16-35mm for $1000 (more or less). If you can spend $1500-1700 in a new copy, then the 17-35mm would be my first choice.
I shoot in pretty rough conditions and after my 14-24 sustained scratches from flying debris and I spent $560 to get it fixed, I picked up a 16-35 for the ability to use a filter. Having said that, I prefer the 14-24 over the 16-35…….
Todd Warnke wrote:
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.
More like filter, not filters. OK, maybe not singular, but definitely no more than two (2-stop and 3-stop GND). No NDs, no polarizers, at least not anything intended to be used with it. You can hack a polarizer on there with some effort, but no amount of hacking gets you a strong ND. And yes, a polarizer has a role on a lens this wide, around wet foliage, reflections, wet rocks.
Filters alone are a reason for me to pass on the 14-24. Otherwise by all accounts it is a magnificent piece of glass. Heck, half the Canon togs who do this for a living shoot with it.
