I was looking to add something near 14 or 16 mm. For the money should I opt for 16-35 f/4 instead of the 14-24 f/2.8?
Originally I was going to buy a D4 and a D800E but have decided don't need the FPS as much as better resolution I've seen with samples from D800E so may opt for (2) D800E bodies instead
p.1 #3 · Would Anyone Opt For 16-35 f/4 VR Before 14-24 f/2.8?
i have the 14-24 and from field experience, the lack of filters is very troubling for me. i tried a DIY solution using various bits and pieces and that didnt work. I then purchased the sw150 from lee and quite frankly im not impressed with the seemingly afterthought plastic baffles that block reflection on the back of the filter. Im currently considering going back to a 16-35 for the filter ring. the 2 mm difference is whats stopping me. Optically the 16-35 is no slouch though.
Ive been doing a little reading on the rokinon 14mm and it appears if one gets a "sharp" copy it is indeed a really fine piece of glass. That may fill the 14mm slot, and use the 16-35 for the bulk of the workload.
p.1 #5 · Would Anyone Opt For 16-35 f/4 VR Before 14-24 f/2.8?
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.
p.1 #6 · Would Anyone Opt For 16-35 f/4 VR Before 14-24 f/2.8?
I owned both and decided to keep the 14-24 because of it not being able to take filters. I have been regretting ever since. The 16-35 is a great lens and IMO, its fast, sharp and light weight and was used quite often as a "walk-around" lens when I owned the D7K. The only issue is the distortion at the wide end which is easily corrected in pp. If you purchase this lens you will find that the 16-35 performs best around the 20-30mm range.
p.1 #8 · Would Anyone Opt For 16-35 f/4 VR Before 14-24 f/2.8?
I have a 14-24, purchased a 16-35 thinking I would use it instead (filters), and ended up sending it back and keeping the 14-24. As good as the 16-35 is, it's not the 14-24.
However....
I'm recently thinking of getting a 16-35 to use in addition to the 14-24. There are times a polarizer really is mandatory and the 16-35, although not the 14-24 in sharpness, is still pretty darn good. I'm also thinking it would be a nice lens for backpacking instead of my usual 14-24 / 24-70 combo.
p.1 #9 · Would Anyone Opt For 16-35 f/4 VR Before 14-24 f/2.8?
scottiet wrote:
Not sure about the 16-35 but the 14-24 is the sharpest wide angle I've used. I would say the sharpest of the trinity.
Sharpness is one of the important variables, though of course not the only one.
Though the 16-35 is a stop slower, the VR allows you to recover that stop -- and then some -- when handholding in darker places like church interiors. I haven't tried the 14-24 yet so I can't compare them, but I can say that I've been happy to have that filter ring, the VR, and the wider zoom range. Haven't yet been too tempted by the king of the ultrawides, though I know its output quality is even better than what the 16-35 can give me.
p.1 #11 · Would Anyone Opt For 16-35 f/4 VR Before 14-24 f/2.8?
The case I would make for the 16-35:
1. lighter
2. cheaper
3. has VR
4. loses only one stop and 2mm at the wide end, gains 25-35mm in terms of concrete specs
5. takes filters - for me, this would be critical. For others, not so much
6. sharpness is allegedly very very good
Case I'd make for 14-24:
- sharpness is at least a bit better
- 2mm at the widest
- filter issue I'm told can be gotten around
[as much as people hate Ken Rockwell, the site has the easiest to navigate spec collections and other useful info on basic performance, and a lot of good comparisons]
That being said, I consider DX camera+lens quite bulky, and so both lens are expensive behemoths to me.
p.1 #12 · Would Anyone Opt For 16-35 f/4 VR Before 14-24 f/2.8?
Back to OP's question, I bought a 16-35 instead of a 14-24 based on Ming Thein's recommended list. Ming is a huge fan of the 14-24 and when he recommended the 16-35 over the king of ultra-wides that piqued my interest.
p.1 #13 · Would Anyone Opt For 16-35 f/4 VR Before 14-24 f/2.8?
I have owned both. I currently own the 16-35. Smaller, lighter, filters, etc. are all good reasons.
The kicker for me was the prints. While I don't sell a lot I have a gallery of 30-40 prints that moves around town and I sell some here and there.
With several lenses now I have taken the same shot and printed them at a 16x20'ish size.
I've seen the resolution charts - the 14-24 is better. I've seen the corner samples - the 14-24 is better.
When the prints are not labeled I couldn't reliably tell which was taken with the 14-24 and which was taken with the 16-35. My wife couldn't reliably identify them either.
Maybe some folks can reliably distinguish the lens used to make a print, but I'd bet a nickel that most folks cannot.
p.1 #14 · Would Anyone Opt For 16-35 f/4 VR Before 14-24 f/2.8?
I was back and forth between them too, and went with the 14-24 so I would never wonder if I was missing out on IQ somehow and it's a great lens in many ways. I also believe the distortion is a lot better with it if that matters to you.
The regret I could have is maybe not getting the Zeiss 21 in case you wanted another to consider. Ridiculous IQ. But at the end of the day I have got a lot of use out of the 14-24 so it has served me well. With the 24-70 and 70-200 you really do have the ultimate zoom kit.
p.1 #17 · Would Anyone Opt For 16-35 f/4 VR Before 14-24 f/2.8?
I chose the 16-35 over the 14-24 because
1. it can take filters, and using CPL and/or ND grad is often essential to landscape photography.
2. The center sharpness are comparable, but corner sharpness is better with the 16-35.
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 ED (1181 / 831 @ f/5.6 – note: the corners are rather soft)
Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR (1136/952@f/5.6) http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection
p.1 #19 · Would Anyone Opt For 16-35 f/4 VR Before 14-24 f/2.8?
trenchmonkey wrote:
^ yeah, well I chose the 17-35 over both....f2.8 AND takes filters
Well, the 17-35 isn't as sharp as either the 14-24 or the 16-35 at the center, where it matters the most, imo Also, the corner sharpness of the 17-35 is not as good as the 16-35. Other than f/2.8, 16-35 betters 17-35 in resolution and range. So, I still choose the 16-35
14-24 
Also, the corner sharpness of the 17-35 is not as good as the 16-35. Other than f/2.8, 16-35 betters 17-35 in resolution and range. So, I still choose the 16-35 
