If you're trying to decide for yourself but aren't sure, the answer is probably the 16-35. Go with the 14-24 only if you really love ultra-wide angle photography.
I have the 14-24. It is in a class of it's own and I do not use filters.
I would never sell it except to feed my family.
I bought the 16-35 f/4 when it first came out.
I also got a mint used 17-35 f/2.8
I use f/2.8 more than VR, I sent the 16-35 back, and never regretted it.
Have both and usage is roughly speaking 10:1 for the 14-24mm.
It is lighter than the classic combo AFS 17-35mm/2.8 and AF 14mm/2.8 and its image quality is well boyand anything the 2 lenses can deliver.
The 14-24mm field curvature, corner sharpness etc is so much better than the 16-35mm that for me the joy is higher with the 14-24mm, hence higher usage. I don't use filters.
It depends what you shoot. Architecture? Go for the 14-24mm. Night shots on the street? the VR doesn't help on the 16-35mm/4 if you shoot people at night in available light. shooting buildings, the VR might offset the slower speed.
One caveat though:
With the introduction of the D800, the near perfect IQ of the 14-24mm on a D3 like camera shows its first sign of limitations on the 36 MP sensor (at 100% view). At 24mm my current favorite lens for landscape and overall IQ is the AFS 24mm/1.4G, which is visible better than either zoom lens. At 35mm, no lens comes close to the AFS 35mm/1.4G (on a D800E), currently my most frequent lens when I have choice to shoot what I want.
If you consider for the forseeable future a 12 MP camera like the D3, D700 to work with, the sensor resolutions becomes the limiting factor and the increased capabilities of the primes won't be visible against the zoom.
If your journey leads you soon into this resolution territory you might consider the primes as well. It doesn't help you at the wide end, but the return you get at 24 and 35mm will offset a lot.
I have the 14-24 and keep wishing it went to 35 It's a pain having to keep swapping lenses when I need a little wider than 24, then a little longer etc, with not much chance of zooming with feet (due to obstacles).
The 14-24 is an excellent lens, but I wish I had the 16-35 as well because I think it would get more use.
People seem to get the 16-35 because they need their ultrawide to go to 35. People seem to get the 14-24 because at 16-24 it's better than the 16-35. As a specialty focal length, 14-16 seems to get used the least.
It sound like the old 14 2.8 & 17-35 2.8 combo would've resulted in fewer lens changes than the new 14-24 & 16/17-35 combo.
New, better designs at those focal lengths probably would've been a better way to go.
Dave_EP wrote:
I have the 14-24 and keep wishing it went to 35 It's a pain having to keep swapping lenses when I need a little wider than 24, then a little longer etc, with not much chance of zooming with feet (due to obstacles).
The 14-24 is an excellent lens, but I wish I had the 16-35 as well because I think it would get more use.
If you shoot D800 or D4, the crop mode will give you 35 FL in camera if you hate photoshopping. For my needs, 14-24 and 70-200VRII are all I need.
Lee Saxon wrote:
I think Nikon blew it on focal length choice.
Based on your own experience with the lenses?
As a specialty focal length, 14-16 seems to get used the least.
in my case: No.
The 14-16mm is THE main reason for this lens and used most often.
It sound like the old 14 2.8 & 17-35 2.8 combo would've resulted in fewer lens changes than the new 14-24 & 16/17-35 combo.
The old AF 14mm/2.8 is a very limited lens on modern bodies. Its best to avoid it altogether.
Why should a photog use the 14-24mm and 16-35mm as a combo?
A much more sensible combo is the 14-24mm and 24-70mm on 2 bodies. No stress, easy, simple.
Lee Saxon wrote:
I think Nikon blew it on focal length choice.
People seem to get the 16-35 because they need their ultrawide to go to 35. People seem to get the 14-24 because at 16-24 it's better than the 16-35. As a specialty focal length, 14-16 seems to get used the least.
It sound like the old 14 2.8 & 17-35 2.8 combo would've resulted in fewer lens changes than the new 14-24 & 16/17-35 combo.
New, better designs at those focal lengths probably would've been a better way to go.
I agree that a revamped 14mm prime would be a nice addition to the lineup, but for an ultra-wide zoom, I think Nikon hit the ball out of the park with the 14-24. Every lens represents a compromise of many design variables, so if the 14-24 went longer, it might be larger, slower, less sharp, or have higher-order distortion. With the 14-24--with the right subject in the right setting--it helps creates my favorite images. It's not easy to shoot at 14mm, but when you get it right, holy crap!
It's a pain having to keep swapping lenses when I need a little wider than 24, then a little longer etc, with not much chance of zooming with feet (due to obstacles).